Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as William Wordsworth once wrote, ``the Child is Father to the Man.''

Like all of us, from time-to-time I fondly recall those who have made a significant impact upon my life. For where would we be if not for those who made the special effort to guide the next generation, and befriend us but demand much from us, so that we may learn to demand much from ourselves?

It is because of those who touch our lives and instill the values we all hold dear as a society, those who provide guidance to our young people every day, that make us successful and our nation stronger. Some are there to deal directly with us from day-to-day. Others help set up and run the institutions that provide the networks for others to have a profound impact upon our young.

In my life, Margie Lee was one such person. Known affectionately as ``Marge'' and across America as the ``Delta Chi Mom,'' Marge inspired several generations of Delta Chis while working in the Fraternity's International Headquarters since 1964. She was devoted to Delta Chi and to us all, helping to provide guidance to thousands of young men in those potentially very difficult years at college and first time away from home.

I had both the honor and the pleasure of working directly with Marge. It was while I worked as assistant to the executive director of the Delta Chi Fraternity in my first job after graduating from the University of Florida. I saw how Marge worked every day on behalf of my Delta Chi Brothers. Over the years, I witnessed first hand how she devoted her life to bestowing the advantages of a brotherhood of college and university men to use their education ``to promote friendship, develop character and advance justice.'' In doing so, Marge helped generations of young boys grow into successful, value-driven men.

Marge passed away yesterday morning in Iowa City at age 79. She is survived by four children and thousands of her adopted Delta Chi sons around the world.

When we are young we don't fully appreciate the time and sacrifice our elders take to shape us into successful adults. Sometimes our separate paths take us away from our mentors before we fully appreciate what they did for us. All too often they pass on before we get the chance to thank them properly.

Not many of us have the opportunity to recognize and publically say thanks. Today, to her family, to my colleagues in Congress and Delta Chi Brothers, I am honored and pleased to say--thank you Margie Lee.

Madam Speaker, As our Nation reflects upon the day of the terrorist attacks 7 years ago this week, I cannot forget my friends who were killed by terrorists that day.

Some 7 weeks before September 11, 2001, I spent several days in New York City with Neal Levin, executive director of the Port Authority New York and New Jersey. I met Neal when he was the legislative director to Senator Al D'Amato of New York and when I was

chief of staff to Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida. In early 2001, he became director of the Port Authority, just as I became chairman of the U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee in Congress.

With New York area airports under his authority, he called on me as an old friend to come to New York, review the air congestion problem and conduct a hearing on the matter. I obliged my friend Neal and after visiting John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International and LaGuardia Airports, held a hearing in the Port Authority Hearing Room in the World Trade Center. After the hearing, Neal hosted me and several other guests in the Port Authority's Dining Room adjacent to the Windows of the World Restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center. It was in that same room where I left Neal and the others who assisted me that they all met their deaths on Tuesday, September 11th.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld invited me and several other Members of Congress to a breakfast meeting at the Pentagon. Our discussion that day was how to rebuild our Nation's military capability that had been downsized under the outgoing Clinton Administration. Specific to the conversation was how our stretched and limited military could muster the resources to deal with a future engagement.

As the meeting concluded near 9 a.m., I was speaking with the Defense Secretary at the end of the conference table as word of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center reached us. Then we were told of the second attack. While the Secretary stepped into his adjacent office, I conferred with several of his top aides about the situation. Missing my ride back to Capitol Hill, I sought a ride to the House Office Building and arrived just as the plane hit the Pentagon.

Killed in the Pentagon, where I had departed just minutes before, was Terry Lynch who worked as a U.S. Senate staffer for Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. Terry and I were friends from our U.S. Senate staff days. On Flight 93, was Barbara Olsen who worked with me on the House Government Reform Committee. She was a brilliant and most capable professional and a dear friend who was killed by fanatic terrorists.

While 7 years have passed, I can never forget these friends or the manner in which they were taken from us and their families. As Americans, we are blessed with a life most of the world can only dream about. While we go about our lives, we should not and can not ever forget those taken from us on September 11th.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership, and I also thank Mr. Johnson for his comments.

When you don't have an energy policy and when you don't have a comprehensive plan to deal with the escalating costs of fuel, you create a crisis. We have created a crisis in the pocketbook and in the checkbook of most Americans. We have also created a crisis here in Congress and in the United States Department of Transportation, because the highway trust fund has gone bust. It is broke. There is no money in it. In fact, tomorrow they will be issuing, if we do not act, notices of termination of Federal participation.

That has consequences. That means not a few jobs will be lost, but there will be 380,000 jobs potentially lost across the country. There will be projects across the United States that are put on hold. So there are consequences to our inaction of adopting a sound energy policy and resolving this issue. And we can solve the energy issue, but we do need a comprehensive approach to do that.

People responded by driving less, so there is less money going into the fund. We have a more efficient fleet of cars on the roads, so we have less money coming also into the fund. And we have alternative fuels that are starting to be used, like plug-in electric and hybrids, that we don't collect the gas tax on. So the trust fund is broke.

Now the House did act responsibly. I partnered with Mr. Oberstar, the Chair of our Transportation Committee, with Mr. Rangel, and Mr. McCrery. We did act, and this House passed on July 23 a fix for what is wrong. Mr. Johnson is right, this is a Band-Aid on a major problem that we have in funding transportation, and we are just kicking the can down further down. But we have got to sit down immediately as a Congress and resolve these funding issues in our highway trust fund, or we will be back here taking money out of our children's future and out of our general treasury to fund transportation. That is not the way to do it. It's not the right way to go.

We must begin immediately, because the bill we are working under expires next September 30, and we have in place no mechanism to replace and replenish those funds. So this is a Band-Aid, it is a temporary fix. It is not the way I like to do business, but we need to get down to business, solve the energy problem, and have a long-term fix for the highway trust fund that is broken today.

I appreciate the ranking member of our highway subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, yielding to me. And appreciate the hard work Mr. DeFazio, who chairs this subcommittee, has put into this legislation, and also Mr. Oberstar and others.

I apologize in actually getting in front of my ranking member of the subcommittee, but have a number of Senators and Representatives waiting on me.

I just want to weigh in and say that I support this legislation. I do want to also set, for the record, the conditions under which this administration is acting.

First of all, I voted against NAFTA back in 1993. It was touted as going to be the best thing since sliced bread for the country. While it has increased some exports and some opportunities on both sides of the border, I believe, overall, it sent many jobs south, and unfortunately, it hasn't been all that it was made out to be.

Additionally, one of the reasons I voted against NAFTA was, as far as the North American Free Trade Agreement, trading with Canada was a pretty level playing field. Trading with Mexico isn't the same deal. And within the original language was a provision that allowed Mexican trucks to transverse our borders and come into the United States, which I was opposed to then, and am opposed to now. Now, that has been contested over the years, both in the Clinton administration, also during the Bush administration.

Within, also, the language of NAFTA, folks should realize that they set up a panel, a NAFTA panel, to be the arbiter and the judge of how the U.S. must act. We really relegated our sovereignty to a panel, again, within NAFTA, which, every time the United States has acted in a contrary fashion to the provisions of the treaty, has ruled against the United States.

So here the Bush administration takes a minimal project, moves it forward. And it is a minimal. There is a limit on the number of trucks that can cross, et cetera.

But Congress has the authority now to stop that program, and I think this is the time to stop that program. There are those in Congress who have to make a decision whether they want these trucks now to continue. We don't have to comply with some agreement. Actually, we passed the treaty, and Congress has the responsibility now to act properly and stop, really, what they started, which was not in the interest of the United States in having, again, fleets of Mexican trucks come across our borders.

So this legislation stops a whole host of bad decisions that have been made in the past. And I strongly support this, in spite of any threats from anybody to act in stopping this legislation. We need to pass this legislation. We need to act responsibly and act now.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, let me tell you the situation we're in. The highway trust fund is basically busted; it's busted for several reasons.

First of all, we depend on 18.4 cents of tax to come in on every gallon of gasoline to that fund. People are driving less, so there is less money coming into the fund. The fleet out there of cars and trucks are more efficient; people are buying more efficient hybrids. There are nine million hybrids, which are going further on one gallon and paying literally less; so we have less money coming in. We're also using more alternative fuels.

What's going to happen, folks--and I have many of my conservative colleagues on this side of the aisle coming to me--$8 billion for the highway trust fund, why should I support this? I'm telling you, folks, we have no alternative but to support this right now.

I think Mr. McCrery is correct, that we do have a problem; we need to solve the funding problem. We can't do that today. But what we've got to do today is make certain that this trust fund is sound; otherwise, in States across the country, hundreds of projects in Members' districts, the Department of Transportation Secretaries are going to be telling you we're closing down projects. Madam Speaker, 380,000 jobs could be lost. We could have a shortfall of as much as $14 billion in funding transportation. We've got to do this now.

Now, the estimate came out last spring that we would be $3 billion short. We're going to get an estimate this week that will show us $5 to $6 billion short. That means the Federal Government is going to tell your States and your Secretaries to start closing down these projects if we don't have the Federal money to back the obligation that we made as a Federal Government to them.

Unfortunately, the bill has come due, and we've got to pay it today. And this is a national crisis. This is a transportation situation. We've all got to work with each other and come up with a solution.

Mr. McCrery is right, in the long term we've got to resolve the funding problem, the basic funding problem. Next September 30, the current legislation and policy we work on expires. I know Mr. Oberstar and I and others will work to come up with a formula that guarantees the solvency of this system.

This is absolutely essential. I wish, as one of the strongest conservatives in the House, to have some other alternative to bring you today, but I do not have that.

I thank the Ways and Means Committee for their cooperation, Mr. Oberstar for his cooperation. We must go forward, meet this obligation, and fund these projects.

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I am pleased to be with you tonight to discuss an important piece of legislation that has been brought forth by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

First of all I have to compliment the ranking member of the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his leadership and his efforts in working together with his counterpart, Mr. DeFazio, and also my counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, to try to bring legislation to the floor that will make our bridges safer, that we have seen problems with our infrastructure in this Nation.

We have a responsibility from the Federal Government. We can't fix every bridge in every county, every city across every road in the country, but we do have an obligation where we have Federal funds, where we have interstate, where we have bridges and infrastructure that's so important for the commerce of this Nation to make certain that they are sound, that we have adequate protocols and procedures for inspection of those bridges, and that we try to make certain that those bridges are inspected on an appropriate basis and that there is remediation. It's one thing to make demands of local State government from the Federal level, but what we want to do is ask reasonable people to take reasonable actions and take corrective actions where they are needed, rather than dictate from on high.

First of all, let me say my sympathy goes out to everyone and all those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy that struck Minnesota. I was on the floor with Chairman Oberstar when we learned of the collapse of the I-35 bridge, and Congress acted immediately to replace that structure. That structure's replacement is actually an example I am going to use in the future for replacement of any infrastructure in this country.

In 437 days that bridge will be replaced, and if we could do that with other projects across the Nation, we would save so much time, money and hassle and red tape, but it shows that we can, if we want to take action, in replacing our infrastructure.

But, again, we had a tragedy. We weren't sure the day that it happened what the cause was, and we are still having information gathered by the National Safety Transportation Board, and they will file a final report. But I might also say that the loss of even one life in the collapse of a bridge is too much, and we have to act again to ensure bridge safety, but we have to also look at some of the conditions.

Even if we take the Minnesota bridge collapse, we do know now, and I have seen pictures of a design flaw of problems with the gusset plate, one of the structural support systems. That flaw was identified over several terms of different administrations in Minnesota. I have seen pictures that transcend, again, the flaw that was found, and not a lot was done about it.

We also have learned that the bridge was underdesigned, really, for the kind of traffic that it has today, and that's another problem we have with larger trucks and vehicles on our bridges, and we also know that bridge was under construction and a contractor had put a significant amount of weight which may have led to the collapse. We don't know that. There were other vehicles too, we know, on the bridge. All of that will give us a final determination of why that bridge went down.

But what we have got to do is not base our policy for the future, and this legislation, on presuming that certain things took place. We have got to deal with facts, and, again, in an appropriate and logical manner in which we proceed to ensure safety of bridges.

One of the things that I learned from all of this is that the trucks and vehicles that we have running over our bridges today, I think anyone who goes down the interstate, or down a major highway, sees a sign, a weight limit for bridges that's usually posted.

The amazing thing I found about today is that while we limit the weight of those vehicles, the violations of people going over those bridges with excessive weights is just mind-popping. It is happening across the country. So, many bridges like the Minnesota bridge that were built to a certain design for a certain era and certain weights, even though that weight limit is posted, one of the problems is that people drive vehicles that weigh far in excess, many times over. In fact, the Department of Transportation even publishes statistics on the estimates and the incidence of some of these violations. So that's something that we have got to address, too.

Again, I have a number of areas in this bill I think we have worked on that are good provisions, the training and certification of bridge inspectors, the requirement that States adopt a risk-based list and prioritization of the bridges that do need attention. There are good provisions in here. I do have a couple of things that give me hiccups, and I have expressed my concern about. I had attempted to go before the Rules Committee and offer an amendment that would have corrected two of the major flaws that I see in the approach we are taking here.

That was, unfortunately, rejected.

People have come and asked me how I'm going to vote on this measure. Quite frankly, I don't know. And I won't know until tomorrow, until I've heard the rest of the debate because, again, there are two flaws in this that concern me. Mr. Duncan mentioned them, and again I'll repeat them. One is lack of flexibility that allows our States that have been responsible to move money around. And I will submit for the Record a list of some of those States.

But States like California will be impacted here that in the past have asked to transfer funds. I mentioned to a Member from California that, even though I think that California has acted responsibly, California has also been the victim of natural disasters or earthquakes. Sometimes their bridges have collapsed. Sometimes their roads have collapsed. Sometimes they need to move money around. This bill does, unfortunately, set up some inflexibility that I think will harm some States that have had to use that mechanism in the past, but yet have been responsible in the manner in which they have expended their money, both Federal and State money, for bridge projects.

My State of Florida also is a responsible State and will be penalized by the terms of this. I have a very strong statement from our Secretary of Transportation, Stephanie Kopelousos, in opposition to the terms that were provided in this bill.

Now, I know that the chairman has tried to make some accommodations in this. I'm sorry that the Rules Committee did not see fit to take an amendment that would have provided a corrective remedy to help Florida, California, Tennessee--I've got a long list that I will submit in the Record of States who may be penalized, and some of them penalized for doing the right thing.

The other thing, too, is it does penalize States who have done the right thing, and that's unfortunate. I don't think we should put our States that act in good faith at a disadvantage for legislation that we've passed here.

So while there are some good provisions, I have some questions about what we're doing. This isn't the final say on this bill, it will have to go through the other body. And we want it to be good and thoughtful and productive and effective legislation as it is finalized.

So those are some of the comments that I wanted to provide as we speak here now in general debate. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that deals with what I spoke of during general debate. It is nice that we consider adding additional authorization for money to repair our bridges. It is nice that we institute some corrective measures that will require States to prioritize bridges that are at risk. But I think that we need to go further in trying to look at some of the issues that have brought about the problems we have seen with maintaining some of our bridges, and also pinpointing the bridges that pose a risk that deserve our attention and that warrant action.

So the amendment that I am offering today requires that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, conduct a study on the effectiveness of the bridge-rating system used by the Federal Highway Administration.

Since the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, the terms ``structurally deficient'' bridge and ``functionally obsolete'' bridge have been commonly used and intertwined in describing the condition of highway bridges across the country. I think that is one of the problems that we've had in the whole bridge inspection system is the basic definition.

However, the general public has little understanding of what the terms actually mean. Most people, even Members of Congress, would assume that if a bridge is classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, that the bridge is immediately in danger of collapsing. That's not the case, and we need to differentiate, again a definition that makes sense, on the actual condition of the bridge.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, a rating of structurally deficient means that there are elements of the bridge that need to be monitored and/or repaired. The fact that a bridge is deficient does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is in fact unsafe. It means that the bridge must be monitored, inspected, and properly maintained.

In reality, there are structurally deficient bridges at the top end of the current bridge-rating scale that can safely remain in service for 20 years or more if the owner of the bridge, the State or whatever entity, performs the necessary maintenance to keep the bridge structurally sound.

At the same time, there are structurally deficient bridges at the bottom of the rating scale that are closed to all traffic because the bridge may collapse at any moment.

I believe it is a disservice to the American people to have a bridge- rating system that does very little to actually distinguish between the bridges that can stay open and are safe for 20 years or more with a comprehensive maintenance plan, and a 100-year-old bridge that may collapse tomorrow if it remains open to traffic.

So to get to the heart of the issue that we are discussing, to try to approach this on a reasonable basis, if we are going to put money into these programs, repair these bridges and repair bridges that need repair, we need an amendment like this that will require GAO to evaluate the existing bridge-rating system, which is deficient, and it will also evaluate the rating systems used by the State Departments of Transportation and make recommendations on how the existing rating system can be improved to more accurately convey the condition of bridges throughout the United States.

So that's the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple amendment trying to get to the heart of the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In conclusion, the intent of this legislation is excellent to identify bridges that are deficient, that are obsolete, that need repair, that need attention, and provide the resources to do that.

But, again, the rating system by which we determine whether a bridge is structurally deficient or structurally obsolete, that rating system is out of date. We need the General Accounting Office to come up with a better rating system, one that makes sense in the 21st century, so that we can do a better job in assessing those bridges that do need repair, targeting the money to those bridges, but having a good rating system, and that's what this simple amendment does.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, first of all, I want to pay tribute to Chairman Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whom I have had the honor of working with and leading the Republican side of the committee with him. And I might say that when Mr. Oberstar and I get to agree on moving forward a transportation initiative that's in the benefit of the Congress and the American people that things do happen, and this is a fine example of trying to take FAA and its safety measures and make them even better for the safety of the American public. So I commend Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello as the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, and Mr. Petri as our Republican ranking member all for working together.

I come to the floor today as the former Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee during six very difficult times of trying to take an industry that had a number of problems. I became the chairman in 2001, the beginning of 2001. When I came to Congress, Mr. Oberstar was the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and did an outstanding job in his service. He was faced with challenges; I was faced with challenges.

Both of us, though, wanted to construct an FAA inspection system and safety system that assured the flying public that we had taken the very best measures and put them in place so that we would have a safe aviation national system. And I remember instituting early on and supporting the institution of a change in the way we did aviation inspection. What we did is we switched from sort of a we gotcha, we're- going-to-catch-you-if-we-can system or sort of a routine inspection system where it's Monday, we're going to inspect in Seattle at this aviation facility, or it's Tuesday, we're going to be in St. Louis, or it's Wednesday, we're going to be in New York and we are going to do these inspections whether we need to on a rotating basis or not. We switched to a somewhat controversial system of inspection of these aircraft called ``self-reporting.'' And some people don't understand that, but what we did is we said there are no penalties. Everyone would report incidents where there is some problem or they see some defect, something that should command attention and should be noted, and we had a reporting system. And that's the way we have operated with the self- reporting system. Some say it got a little too cozy, and probably when you repeat things and do things in a certain fashion, that does happen. It's part of human nature.

The reporting system is very important, though, because then we took and we adopted a risk-based inspection in going after problems. And since we have done that, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my colleagues, we have had the safest history for aviation ever in the United States and probably in the world. We instituted that. We put in some protections but probably not enough.

Now, as you know, in April of this year, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the oversight of airline maintenance and brought to our attention, and through the investigative resources of the committee, we found lapses of proper attention, some conflict of possible interest, and some people who maybe got into too cozy a relationship. We held hearings on that, and as a result of that across the country, we asked that an audit be conducted. We wanted to see if what we saw in a limited incident or incidents was being repeated around the system.

The audit found that the United States carriers complied with more than 99 percent of the airworthiness directives sampled, and it's the remaining 1 percent that we want to make certain are addressed. So we instituted a new way of inspections. We instituted a new way of reporting. We found that we had some problems, and in this bipartisan effort, we are instituting corrective measures.

One of the things to deal with the cozy relationship is that we do establish a post-employment restriction for some of these FAA inspectors going back into industry for 2 years. I have some questions about the 2 years, but the other side of the aisle and the administration support the 2 years. I thought it might be a little bit too long. We will have to see how that works. It also requires that FAA principal supervisory inspectors rotate the office every 5 years, and we found also the cozy relationships, staying at one place, getting these relationships that sometimes might have a conflict of interest. We instituted that particular provision in this legislation. I have some questions about that too because it is difficult for these professionals and we want the very best to rotate and move their families around every 5 years, but we will see how that measure works. So those are the two questions that I probably have remaining. And what we have reached is a bipartisan accord.

But our intent here is to take a safe system where we found some problems and to correct it, institute some changes that will make certain that the system is even safer and that the problems that we have identified are corrected.

So I think this is an excellent measure. It shows what Congress can do working together to take a safe aviation system, make it even safer, correct some problems that we've identified, and make certain that the American public has the greatest confidence and that there are, in fact, measures being taken and having been instituted that will ensure that safety.

So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as we conclude the debate on H.R. 6493, which makes changes to the way we conduct FAA airline inspections and how we make certain that we have the safest aviation system possible, I believe that it is important to point out just a couple of things. First of all, since November of 2001, there has not been a single large passenger aircraft fatality in the United States. We have had several commuter airlines, smaller aircraft, I know at least one in Charlotte, another in Lexington, and any loss of life in any size aircraft is not acceptable. Some of those did not relate to the inspection. The reasons for the air crash or fatalities was not as a result of inspections or the procedures we have before us today.

What we do have historically is again instituted a self-reporting system, probably a half a dozen years ago we shifted to this system. We do collect that data. That data is supposed to be acted upon by inspectors on a risk base. So we look at the data where there is a problem. And that is where we put our resources to make certain that the aircraft is operating, inspected and mechanically sound. And that has worked fairly well.

We have, again, to reiterate what I said before, the committee did investigate when whistle-blowers came to us. We found an instance or instances of this cozy relationship, and we felt that we should take some steps to first eliminate sort of the revolving door, stop the revolving door, put some time between those that worked for the FAA and then going out to the airlines, and also instituting some other protective measures.

Now I must say that even when the inspector general of the Department of Transportation investigated what was going on and what we found, they did not find the problem systemic. What they did say was that the data that was being collected on which we based our inspections and assessed risk was not adequately being adhered to. That data and the information was not being adhered to by all levels of FAA, for example, management, and eventually the Congress. So we also changed in this bill the recommendation that the inspector general made when they found that, again, the problem wasn't just the revolving door, but paying attention to the red flags and the signals that were being sent by the data.

So this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan effort to take a safe system, make it even safer, make certain that those warning signs are paid attention to both by FAA at all levels, inspectors, managers in this self-reporting system, and also by Congress who has the ultimate responsibility.

Also, I might say that how did this affect folks? Well, when Congress started to say we weren't properly inspecting or there were conflicts, FAA said, we're going to give you inspections. And they did give us inspections. And we closed down thousands of flights. And hundreds of thousands of people paid the price. And the airlines paid the price to make sure that zero tolerance was applied and that we did inspect those planes. But that is not exactly what we want to happen in the future.

H.R. 6493 will help us to avoid any future mass airlines groundings like the ones we saw this spring and the horrible inconveniences suffered by hundreds of thousands of people in the traveling public. This is an important bill that will ensure our national aviation system remains the safest in the world and that FAA provides the proper oversight of airlines and their maintenance programs that are so important to that safety.

I commend Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello, Mr. Petri, who is not with us, our ranking member, the staffs that worked on both sides. This is a good bill. I support it. It will make a good system even better.

And I think with that, Mr. Speaker, to assist the House in moving forward with the business of the day, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Again, I first have to compliment Mr. Oberstar. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this initiative. This is actually very historic in nature. The House of Representatives and the Congress has not passed an Amtrak reauthorization since 1997. That is 11 years.

One of the first things, when Mr. Oberstar and I met, when we took over the committee, I on the Republican side, he as the Chair of the committee for the new majority, we set some goals aside. One was to pass a WRDA bill, water resources, so our Nation would have water resources. We hadn't passed a bill in 7 years. And the last bill we passed was about a four or $5 billion authorization. We passed one for almost $24 billion, the first one, in, again, a long, long time.

We committed to try to reauthorize and authorize Amtrak, our national passenger rail service. And we have worked together. I have to compliment my colleague, Ms. Brown, who chairs the Rail Subcommittee, and also I want to thank the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who also rolled up his sleeves and worked diligently, and for that we were able to pass, by a very wide margin in the United States House, about a month ago, I think it was 311 votes, a very wide margin, Amtrak reauthorization.

Now we have an opportunity to take to conference, the other body, the Senate has passed legislation. What we are doing today is taking the Senate bill and we are adding the language from the House because we want to negotiate a bill that can become law and make the changes that the House voted on a month ago, and that we will get a chance to vote on again today.

It is my hope that many of the highlights and provisions of the House Amtrak reauthorization will be included in the final conference report, and that will be the measure that both the House and Senate vote on individually, and hopefully we can get the President to sign into law.

But the conference process also gives us a chance to make further improvements, even on what the other body passed and what we passed about a month ago, as I said, because it is important that we make good Amtrak reforms. And some things we have learned even since we passed legislation in the House.

We want to open the door to more competition. And in a time when we are struggling to find positive solutions to address the energy crisis that our Nation is facing, it is important that we look at transportation alternatives that are cost effective and that can improve passenger rail service, just not in one area, but across the whole country that we have responsibility for.

So the bill that we have before us, S. 294, will be amended, and it will have the text of the House bill that we passed, again, a month ago. But one of the most important provisions is something, again, that I have insisted on trying to do, and that is to drag the

United States, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century of high speed rail.

In the proposal that I crafted in the bill, and with the help of Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Shuster, what we have is a simple provision. And it says that the Department of Transportation can take proposals from the private sector to develop, to finance, to construct and to operate high speed rail service.

We do have a caveat that we want high speed rail service from Washington to New York in 2 hours, and we want stops along the way to service areas. Now, some folks say, well, we have Acela. Yes, we do have Acela, and Acela's come a long way, and had some difficulty in its implementation. But I am not going to go there. I don't want to talk about the past. I want to talk about the future.

And the future is, stop and think about this. Going just a few blocks from here, from Union Station to New York City, Center City to downtown Manhattan in less than 2 hours, with stops along the way. Now, think of how that would revolutionize travel in the Northeast Corridor and in the United States.

Why start there? Because that is the only corridor that Amtrak owns. Amtrak runs over 22,000 miles of rail track, but that 22,000 miles of rail track, with the exception of a little over 700 miles, is all on private freight rail. The only thing that Amtrak owns as far as right- of-way, the primary piece of real estate it owns, and one of the most valuable real estate assets in the world, if not the United States, is the Northeast Corridor. And that Northeast Corridor, right now the way it is constructed, with commuter service, freight service and Acela service, doesn't operate very well.

So what we are asking is the private sector to come in, give us the ideas on how we can have high speed rail. Give us the ideas.

Now, I always say, folks, that we are sitting on our assets; the Federal government is sitting on our assets. And that Northeast Corridor is a great public asset that we all have interest in, the taxpayers out there have interest in. So we can take that asset and we can maximize its utilization, both as a utility corridor, as a high speed rail corridor, as a better commuter service corridor and as a better freight service corridor. So we take that and we get a better return. We develop it so that we have jobs, we have construction, we have service between here and New York in less than 2 hours. Think about that.

Instead of going out to National Airport or to Dulles, waiting for an hour and then on the other end trying to commute back in. Think of the people that we take off of the road. Think of the change in the pattern of travel in the Northeast Corridor. And I can tell you, even with next generation air traffic control technology, this is the most important thing that will impact aviation congestion in our country, because 78 percent of all of the delays in our entire national air space system and in aviation in this country ripple from New York City's air space.

It's congested air space out to the rest of the country. When you can't get into New York or out of New York, the rest of the system goes down, and there is nothing, even next-generation air traffic control that can make planes fly that much closer, to solve this problem.

What we're going to have to do is go to a different system, and that system is high-speed rail. And I would like for Amtrak to do it by themselves, but they are running long-distance service, and they are running other services. And we think that it's our last hope to have the private sector come in, which Amtrak would have them do anyways, and give us proposals as to how we can maximize the utilization, separate the traffic, and get true high-speed service in that order.

So that's the proposal. As I said, Amtrak now chugs along at 83 miles an hour. It's almost embarrassing to call that high-speed rail. That's Acela, not the other service. It's 83 miles an hour. In the rest of the world, Europe and Asia, high-speed is defined as between 120 and 150 miles an hour on average. So we can do the same thing. There is no reason why the United States cannot do the same thing to maximize the developmental potential of the Northeast corridor, the most densely populated and valuable corridor in the Nation.

So I think, again, working with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, we have a plan, we have a vision. We want the other body to go along with us. We think this is the way to go by substituting our bill this afternoon, and hopefully we can go to conference. Hopefully, we can go back to the American people and say we've done something that will impact energy, impact transportation, not just rail. Also, remember what I just said about aviation capacity in the United States, and we can do it all in this package.

This isn't an impossible dream. This is doable.

So I ask again that we give full consideration. I give full support, am pleased to join Mr. Oberstar in that effort as we change out the Senate bill 294, insert our legislation, and work with the other body again in bringing long-distance, high-speed, better passenger service rail service in not just the Northeast Corridor but with the reforms we've advocated for Amtrak for the whole Nation. We can do it. We must do it. And I look forward to doing it with Mr. Oberstar.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do have two additional speakers. One is the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the former chairman of the Rail Subcommittee and now the ranking Republican of the Coast Guard Committee, for as much time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

If I may, I would yield myself the balance of the time on our side.

In closing, let me address a couple of comments that have been made. First, Ms. Brown was surprised to hear me speaking in favor of Amtrak reauthorization. And probably there are some people turning over in their graves that have since gone on to their higher rewards hearing me speak about that. But I have long been an advocate of public transit, transit alternatives, high-speed rail.

What I am not an advocate of is not good stewardship of the money that the hardworking Americans send to us. And people must realize we subsidize right now Amtrak to the tune of every single ticket sold to the tune of $50.12. Just take the number of passengers last year and divide it by the $1.2 billion given by Congress. So we've got to find a way to cut down that subsidization. We've got to find a way to actually get the most cost-effective transportation and make it available.

So it's not sometimes how much money we spend. It's how we spend it.

The reason I support this bill is because it has long-overdue reforms in it. Some of them deal with accounting and finance that Members don't want to hear about right now and mundane things. They may be mundane, but it will let us know what the bottom line is.

I come from a business background. I'm not an attorney. I want to know what the bottom line is, the cost, and we'll be able to determine the sum of Amtrak's finances, which we haven't been able to determine the costs in the past. We will be able to cut down that subsidization.

We will be able to bring in the private sector. Heaven forbid we should

have some of these routes--we can't tell how much they're costing us now exactly, and some routes, I hate to tell you exactly, some tickets are being underwritten as much as $300 per ticket according to the Government Accountability Office.

But that being said, how do we get the subsidization down and the relief for the taxpayers? And that's through some competition. This bill does provide, and the other body's also provided, for bringing in some competition. Let's see if it can be done for less, for a lower subsidy and cost effectively because we do want to provide transportation.

If you think people want transportation now, when we get through with this aviation crisis this year, they have already dropped 100 airports across the country or will drop by the end of the year in service because of high fuel costs. There will be an even greater demand for passenger rail service.

So we look at how we can do it most cost effectively. That should be the name of the game here, again, with these hardworking folks sending us their cash to expend it.

And this will never happen, even with the authorization. This authorization is a 5-year authorization, I believe in the neighborhood of $14 billion, give or take a billion here or there today, but $14 billion. Just do the math. If we're going from a $1.2 billion to a $1.9 billion subsidy and have $6 billion in backlog, plus they have debt, you can't make the kind of substantial improvements, say, for high- speed service that will cost billions of dollars. Only the private sector, in partnership with the Federal Government and again the State partners and others, can make that happen.

So that's the vision we have for making that happen, for putting in place the reforms that we need in Amtrak as far as its finances and getting better operations.

Let me also tell you an interesting thing I learned today. I never knew this. Today I was told that by authorizing this legislation for the first time in 11 years, listen to this, we will actually, by having authorization, the bond markets and finance markets will lower the amount that we have to pay, that the taxpayer has to pay, for the bonds and for the indebtedness that we already have for Amtrak. So we win again. Taxpayers will win again. We will have to pay less. We're paying about $300 million a year, I think, on bonded indebtedness in Amtrak, if my numbers are correct. So we win again with this reauthorization, those that are fiscal hawks like myself.

Finally, labor, how did somebody like a conservative Member from Florida sell this to some people in labor, and I said, When I came to Congress 16 years ago there were 28,000 people working for Amtrak. Today, there are 19,000 and the number is going down. Mr. LaTourette just talked about labor fighting with the Amtrak board to get their salary and wages when their brothers and sisters in the unions that represented the freight railroads were getting higher pay, better working conditions, better benefits, and settling with the private sector. They got it all.

So we can do that for people with the proposal that we have here, and we have the hope for more employment, a better transportation system, with benefits to the public and taking our asset, that asset that we're sitting on, the Northeast Corridor, and expanding it, making it something positive by any stretch of the imagination.

So with those couple of comments, Madam Speaker, I look forward to seeing high-speed rail because this will be a model, if we succeed in the Northeast Corridor, also for Speaker pro tem Tubbs Jones' communities that she serves, we can have a model, not just in the Northeast Corridor that Amtrak owns, but for communities throughout the Nation where it makes sense.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I plan to vote to sustain the President's veto on H.R. 6331.

I wanted to clarify my action to sustain the President's veto on H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. First let me say that I in no way support a 10.6 percent reduction in payment to our physicians that participate in Medicare, nor do I support the meager .5 percent increase to physicians in this legislation. Both the proposed cuts and the increase are an insult to one of our Nation's most honorable and vital professions.

I did not support this measure when it came before the House of Representatives because of the aforementioned reasons, and furthermore I think it is degrading to the medical profession to force physicians and medical professionals to come before Congress time and time again since 2002 and most recently in December of last year to plead with Congress not to cut their Medicare reimbursements for services rendered.

The override of this Presidential veto is not a victory for the medical profession, the American Medical Association or the hard working dedicated physicians that I represent. In fact passage of this measure over the President's veto only exacerbates the situation and in 18 months physicians will face the prospect of a 20 percent cut in their payment. Furthermore this bill takes an estimated $48 billion from the Medicare Advantage Program--a program designed to provide our seniors with choices.

It is imperative that Congress address the deteriorating condition of the Medicare program and enacts corrective measures that will keep this reoccurring nightmare cast upon our medical professionals from happening again in the future. What is even worse, the bill has proposed budget gimmicks that will contribute to further unnecessary increases in Medicare spending and aid in the further financial destruction of the Medicare program.

Congress must get serious and address the deficiencies in our Medicare system especially as we face an onslaught of baby boomers soon to be eligible for the program.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy conservation.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.

This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of the public that relies on public transportation.

This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.

This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the puzzle.

I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people were bashing the President and this administration for not having a plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of funny.

I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little research done on that.

Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''

On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy- saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy- efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''

Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''

The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the President said it can be done safely.

Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''

That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.

I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some of the responses.

It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, and those plans could have made a big difference.

Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those transit operations that are suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high fuel costs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this time.

Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the gentleman from Minnesota is.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take care of that small piece here today.

We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being affected by energy costs.

The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.

I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.

I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and leaders in the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, Nigeria.

Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also what he said on May 17.

President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection--as if people who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''

Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy issue.

You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks. What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7 years ago.

So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an answer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier, and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation, and that's a good thing too.

This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote the American public and their opinion.

The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67 percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress don't seem to get it.

Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible institution

and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, the greatest people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed this Nation so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing things.

Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the American people want.

Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United States, and we can and we must do better.

I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar. He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as long as he is that you hear some of these things.

First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.

Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh. Well, that didn't work.

So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.

This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.

So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them $30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.

And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects the batches there.

Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.

Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.

My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica, she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.

So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress, but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this manager's amendment and this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful, is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees, and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.

On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.

I reserve the balance of our time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Let me say that the only problem that I have with this amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum- based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or what is actually cost efficient or practical.

I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to have gone further.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that so adequately, and we support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of Commuter Transportation.

Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.

It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan fashion to do our small part.

I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to bring that energy plan forward.

I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this $5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this little piece, we need a much larger piece.

A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and contributions of Ming Chien Hsu upon her retirement following a long career in the maritime industry. During the course of her professional life, Ms. Hsu repeatedly distinguished herself in the fields of transportation and international commerce; as well as in government service and community leadership.

Born in Beijing, China, Ms. Hsu came to the United States in the days following World War II. Settling in Washington, she enrolled in, and graduated Summa Cum Laude from, the School of Government Affairs at George Washington University. Degree in hand, Ms. Hsu moved to New Jersey where she began a career that has been interesting and impressive by any measure.

Coming to the workplace in an era before it was common to see women in executive positions, Ms. Hsu joined the RCA Corporation, where she worked in positions related to marketing and planning before being promoted to Vice President for International Trade. Among her many successes at RCA, Ms. Hsu played a vital role in opening the China market for her company, a success enjoyed years before most companies were even contemplating the possibility of doing business in that country.

The leadership and accomplishments of Ming Hsu in the arena of global commerce not only caught the attention of her superiors at RCA, but also that of New Jersey Governor Timothy Kean, who in 1982 appointed her Director of the New Jersey Department of Commerce Division of International Trade and Special Trade Representative, positions she held for 8 years. In those capacities, she led more than 20 trade missions all over the world, including to destinations such as Moscow, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.

In 1990, Ms. Hsu was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as a Commissioner on the Federal Maritime Commission where she served for almost 10 years under four different Chairmen. During her tenure, the Federal Maritime Commission tackled some of the most challenging issues related to shipping in recent years including the Ocean Shipping Reform Act; discriminatory port practices in Japan; and, market access issues in the People's Republic of China. Her ability to work closely with her fellow Commissioners, irrespective of their political affiliation, earned her the respect of her colleagues and she played a key role in assuring that matters before or affecting the Commission were considered carefully and completely and that the final results were equitable to all parties concerned. Ms. Hsu made many valuable contributions to the Federal Maritime Commission and shipping during what was a critical era for that agency and the industry it oversees.

Though she left the Federal Maritime Commission in 1999, Ms. Hsu has remained actively involved in the shipping world working for the NOL Group the past 10 years. The NOL Group is the Singapore-based parent of one of the most historic shipping lines in the United States, American President Lines, which is celebrating the 160th anniversary of its founding this year. In her capacity as a senior advisor, Ms. Hsu has played a leading role for her company in addressing market access issues, providing guidance on regulatory matters, and serving as a sounding board on a variety of concerns related to trade and ocean transportation.

Beyond her many impressive contributions to the transportation and trade communities, Ms. Hsu is a civic-minded individual who always has been, and continues to be, involved in many philanthropic and service related activities. Earlier in her career, Ms. Hsu served as a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, DACOWITS; a member of the New Jersey Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; the Advisory Committee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; as a trustee of the Newark Museum; and as an advisor to WNET, Channel 13, in New York.

Her more recent volunteer and service efforts include: being a founding member and serving as a director of the Committee of 100, an organization of leading Chinese-American Citizens; serving as director on the J.T. Tai Foundation; being a sponsor of the Eisenhower Foundation; serving as a trustee of the Angel Island Project; serving as a trustee of the 1990 Institute; serving as a member of the Executive Committee of the Asian/Pacific American Legal Center; being a sponsor of the Hopkins-Nanjing Center; and serving as a member of the Advisory Board of the United States Merchant Marine Academy where she is a perennial presence at graduation, and in fact, she will be at the Academy in June to see the Class of 2008 receive their diplomas and commissions.

I am told by those who know Ms. Hsu best that one of her greatest passions is mentoring others and toward that goal, she has taught college classes; worked to cultivate promising young professionals inside and outside of government; and simply made herself available in general to provide advice and guidance to

those who seek the benefit of her many years of experience. During her tenure at the Federal Maritime Commission, one of her administrative accomplishments was preparing a whole generation of Senior Executive Service employees, many of whom continue to serve at that agency today.

Madam Speaker, throughout her career, Ming Hsu has been a pioneer, someone unafraid of a challenge and an individual who has repeatedly distinguished herself, yet doing so with graciousness and good will. She is an impressive and amazing woman who we thank for her selfless service in so many capacities and who we wish good health and good fortune in the years to come.

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

Mr. Chairman, I must pay tribute to the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Oberstar, at this juncture. He began his remarks by saying this is a very historic occasion. And, indeed, for rail passenger service in the United States, this is a watershed moment.

I have been one of the harshest critics of Amtrak. I don't think I have ever voted for an Amtrak appropriation or authorization. In fact, we have not done an Amtrak reauthorization in Congress since 1997. And through the leadership of Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, today we have for the first time probably one of the most dramatic changes in rail passenger service proposed before the United States Congress in its history. This is really evolutionary because we have taken in a bipartisan fashion some of the desires, some of the ideas from the Democrat side, we have combined it with some of the ideas and initiatives proposed by the Republican side, and melded it into a piece of legislation.

Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average, nothing that this Congress has considered to date that I know of will have a more dramatic, positive effect on the environment, and helping to change also the patterns of travel and the consumption of fossil fuel than this legislation proposed here today, and it is a bipartisan effort and I thank all of those involved for that.

Let me first address some of the concerns expressed by my administration. My administration has raised some concerns, one about the cost. Yes, the cost is higher; but for the first time we bring forward a program that doesn't just benefit Amtrak and an old Soviet- style train operation, it brings passenger rail service into the 21st century in the United States. It allows free enterprise and the best private sector initiatives to come in and help design, construct and finance high-speed rail service first in the Northeast corridor, but not just to the Northeast corridor, throughout the United States of America.

It takes ideas like Mr. Shuster brought forward also, also Ms. Brown contributed too, in taking some of the money-losing operations. And I've been a critic. We subsidize every ticket on Amtrak right now at $50.60, $50.60 for every ticket.

But what we do is we look at what the best solutions are, the best innovative private sector practices, and taking the money-losing operations and giving them a chance to succeed, to lower the cost to the taxpayers, and to provide service in public/private partnerships, and also partnerships with the State governments. Where we need service, we'll get service, and we have to help pay for service.

Now, people are saying this bill may be too much. That's bunk. $14 billion over 5 years?

I'll give you two projects, let me just give you two transportation projects that, one I visited a week ago in New York, a tunnel from Long Island Railroad down to Grand Central Station. $7.2 billion for one line.

The Federal Transit Administration just approved approximately $5 billion to extend 21 miles of light rail with the Dulles extension, 21 miles, $5 billion. Those two projects are equivalent to what we're talking about spending for a nationwide passenger rail system.

And also launching the first high-speed rail effort in the United States. Right now we don't have that. Amtrak Acela, they do their best, they run 83 miles an hour. But we need a dramatic investment in that route to get high-speed service. It's going to cost money, and Congress doesn't have to provide all the money.

Everybody finally woke up to the fact that, with the private sector involvement, we can create high-speed service, separate the traffic, improve commuter service in one of our most congested corridors. Commuters will do better, improve freight traffic. Freight traffic in the United States for rail moves at an average of 23 miles an hour. That's pitiful in a Nation like this.

So, finally, this proposal takes, I have a little diagram here. This is what we have across the country, from sea to shining sea. Congestion. And what we want to have is not just Acela, which runs at 83 miles an hour, the Japanese bullet train runs at 180 miles an hour. Maglev has gone 350 miles an hour. I've ridden it at 269 miles an hour. In China. That's where they have high-speed magnetic next generation technology. Not United States but in China. That's pitiful today.

What we do is we take an asset. Finally, this is an asset the public all owns. It's part of Amtrak. It's from Washington to Boston through New York City.

It's time that we stopped sitting on our assets. This is one of the most valuable assets that the public owns, that Amtrak owns, develop that to its maximum capability.

And finally, the benefits. We'll relieve northeast corridor congestion. We can take passenger cars and trucks off the highways.

The other thing is 75 percent of our delays in the air system that radiate throughout the entire United States start in the New York City airspace, in that Northeast airspace. So the first time we have a solution to deal with freeing up that airspace. It'll have positive economic development, reduce air pollution and emissions.

No project is more friendly to the environment than what we're proposing here today. We'll have reliable transportation alternatives, enhanced commuter and freight operations in that congested but important corridor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the Rail Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, a total of 6 minutes; 5 minutes for his presentation and 1 minute for a colloquy with the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former Chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking member of the Coast Guard Committee, one of the leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

I have at this time no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time for my closing remarks and whatever time that Mr. Oberstar chooses to take, or if he needs additional time, I will be glad to assist him.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

Continuing to reserve, and I would be glad to yield some time to the other side if they do need it.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to insert in the Record a letter by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO, in support of the measure and also a letter from the Association of American Railroads in support of this measure.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Ranking Republican Member, Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Mica: On behalf of the Standing Committee

on Rail Transportation and the Intercity Passenger Rail

Leadership Group of the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), I am writing to

support House passage of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

The States have been leading the way in developing rail

corridors through investment in capital projects to increase

capacity, reduce travel times and improve on-time

performance. In addition, 14 states support intercity

passenger rail through payment of operating costs on

additional frequencies on routes. According to a survey by

AASHTO, at least 35 states are developing intercity passenger

rail plans for additional future service. I would like to

thank you for including funding for the intercity passenger

rail capital grant program to assist states in improving

infrastructure on intercity passenger rail routes.

As you know, intercity passenger rail ridership across the

United States is on the rise in part due to congestion on the

highways and at the airports and the rising cost of gasoline.

Having another truly viable transportation option in

intercity passenger rail will give consumers another choice

in both business and leisure travel and a choice that is the

most environmentally friendly. Intercity Passenger Rail

consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than

airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than

automobiles. The average intercity passenger rail train

produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions per

passenger mile than the average auto, and half the carbon

dioxide emissions per passenger mile of an airplane.

For too long, intercity passenger rail has been an

underutilized mode in our national transportation system.

With this historic legislation, you will make intercity

passenger rail competitive and marketable to an anxious

public. The time for intercity passenger rail investment is

now. I commend you for your leadership and for moving this

legislation so quickly and pledge my support to the effort.

Sincerely,

Astrid C. Glynn,

Chair.

Is it possible for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas?

I want to make sure I do everything by the rules, Mr. Chairman.

Then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Again how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Am I allowed to give Mr. Oberstar 2\1/2\ minutes or 3 minutes?

Let me just conclude by again thanking folks. Around this place it is very difficult to bring new ideas forward. I've said in the past that sometimes trying to get a new idea through Congress is like giving birth to a porcupine. I can't say that this has been the easiest task we have undertaken, but we have given birth today to a new idea.

And the answer is not to just say ``no,'' or to zero out a program that is so essential to this country. The answer is to come up with a positive solution, a positive solution for energy. And today, again, when gas is $4.05 a gallon, this gives some little hope, but it is probably the biggest thing that we are going to do. And it will have the greatest positive impact on America's environment and its energy needs of anything we have done this session.

So I am pleased at this time to yield time to Mr. Oberstar. How much time do I have remaining?

I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to Chairman Oberstar.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I brought this chart that shows $4.05 a gallon gasoline today. That is the average national cost. In some jurisdictions it is more. This is not an energy policy. This is not acceptable to the American people, $4.05 a gallon gasoline.

First of all, I strongly support the manager's amendment. Contained in it are provisions that we would have high-speed rail service. We heard the gentleman, the former Governor of Delaware, Mr. Castle, the distinguished Representative now from Delaware, talk about having stops. I think when I visited Wilmington, when I visited Philadelphia and New York and stops along the way, people were excited about this proposal, because it offered them an option to expensive gasoline.

The proposal that we bring forward is revolutionary. It does allow the Secretary of Transportation to take proposals. The reason we took the Northeast Corridor first is because that is the only real estate and asset that Amtrak wholly owns, almost all of it all the way to Boston. There is a little bit between New York and Boston that they don't own. That is why we took the first leg of this high speed proposal from Washington, D.C., right down the block to downtown Manhattan.

We don't specify technology, but we say it must be there within 2 hours, and we have a provision that assures stops along the way. Revolutionary. Again, what it would do for air travel congestion would be monumental for this Nation.

This isn't limited to the Northeast Corridor, that first segment. Everyone has a possibility of doing that through the provision Mr. Shuster, Ms. Brown and Mr. Oberstar worked out.

We also have the possibility of opening for the first time public- private partnerships cutting the cost and the subsidy of some of the money-losing routes and bringing in private sector innovation. This whole attempt today, again, is revolutionary.

So, again, this outlines the high-speed rail proposal, and it shows that it is not just limited to Washington and to New York. It is open to the entire Nation, and it provides a cost-effective alternative to just saying no, to trying to zero out Amtrak, and to not having high- speed rail passenger service either in that corridor or any other corridor of the United States.

So I urge adoption of the manager's amendment and I urge passage of the final bill. I think most of the amendments are acceptable. We have a couple of questions on them. They will be debated here and Members will have to pick and choose between those amendments. But, all in all, this is a good, bipartisan effort to get us away from being dependent on $4.05 gasoline, escalating energy costs and limited choices for the traveling public. This is a very significant step forward, and I thank again Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster.

Mr. Chairman, I don't rise in opposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. In fact, he's looking for solutions in his district, in his area to provide commuter service to get people out of their cars to deal with increased congestion and high-rising fuel costs.

But the gentleman from Pennsylvania is no different from the gentleman from Connecticut, from the gentlewoman from Arizona, the gentleman from California, from the gentleman from Ohio. We're drowning in congestion in this country. This bill provides a first opportunity to look at cost-effective ways of providing that service.

So we've got to support commuter rail across the Nation. We've got to take some of these underutilized urban rail corridors that formally serve freight and convert those to commuter rail systems. We've got to find a host of solutions and incorporate private sector initiatives in these to make it happen because they can bring projects in on time and under budget and at the lowest cost possible.

It is true that we may have to subsidize commuter rail service, long- distance service, and some high-speed service, but we want that at the minimum cost to the taxpayer, the maximum benefit to those that we need to serve.

So we will support the amendment, but again, what you hear from the gentleman from Pennsylvania is what we're hearing from 435 congressional districts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Constantino Brumidi, who has been referred to as the Michelangelo of the United States Capitol Building. It is appropriate that Congress honor his incredible contributions to our Nation by awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal.

On July 26, 1805, Constantino Brumidi was born in Rome, Italy of an Italian mother and a Greek father who inspired him with a love of liberty. While Constantino Brumidi's Greek ancestry stirred his passion for liberty and citizenship, his Italian heritage provided the art styles of the Renaissance and the Baroque which influenced the artwork of the U.S. Capitol.

Constantino Brumidi became a citizen of the United States as soon as he was able, embracing its history, values and ideals. Beginning in 1855, Constantino Brumidi designed and decorated one House and five Senate committee rooms in the Capitol, as well as the Senate Reception Room, the Office of the Vice President and most notably, the President's Room, which represents Brumidi's supreme effort ``to make beautiful the Capitol'' of the United States.

In 1865, Constantino Brumidi completed, in just 11 months, his masterpiece, ``The Apotheosis of Washington,'' in the eye of the Capitol dome. In 1871, Constantino Brumidi created the first tribute to an African American in the Capitol when he placed the figure of Crispus Attucks at the center of his fresco of the Boston Massacre. In 1878, Constantino Brumidi, at the age of 72, and in poor health, began work on the Rotunda frieze, which chronicles the history of America. On February 19, 1880, Constantino Brumidi died at the age of 74, four and a half months after slipping and nearly falling from a scaffold while working on the Rotunda frieze.

Constantino Brumidi, proud of his artistic accomplishments and devoted to his adopted country, said: ``My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on earth in which there is liberty.''

Madam Speaker, Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplifies the lives of millions of immigrants who came to pursue the American dream.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5658, which provides funds for the Gateway System. I am requesting funding in the FY09 Defense Authorization bill, Navy Procurement account for the Gateway System manufactured by Ocean Design, Inc., located at 1026 North Williamson Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida 32114.

The $3 million authorized in the Navy's Procurement budget is to provide funding to the Navy for the purchase of the Gateway System that has been under development by the Navy to provide a fixed surveillance system in meeting the Nation's Maritime Domain Awareness security requirements. This is the first year procurement money will be used to fund this project. There will be no cost share, as this project will benefit the United States Navy.

The U.S. Navy has a requirement to defend the maritime approaches to the United States and monitor the littorals as articulated in the Navy's 2006 National Strategy for Maritime Security. The Gateway System is an open architecture system that allowed for sensors to be connected covertly to monitor activity on the ocean floor, from the ocean floor to the surface of the water, and above the water to provide awareness of all activity to counter mines, submarines, water traffic, and terrorism that may pose a threat to the fleet and to the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5658, which provides funds for the Sonobuoy Flight Vehicle. I am requesting funding in the FY09 Defense Authorization bill, Navy RDT&E account for the Sonobuoy Flight Vehicle, manufactured by Sparton Electronics, located at 5612 Johnson Lake Road in DeLeon Springs, Florida 32130.

The deteriorating condition of the aging P-3 Orion fleet and the recent termination of the S-3 Viking program have resulted in fewer manned airborne ASW platforms available to the Navy's surface forces. While full operational capability of the new P-8 Poseidon is not expected until 2017-2020 or beyond, Navy surface combatants are in urgent need of a low cost, organic system to rapidly deploy acoustic sensors at a distance from the force. SFV capability will be critical where there is a deficiency in organic airborne ASW assets, or in the littoral in situations where a hostile coastline poses a threat to manned ASW aircraft.

This is the first year funding will be needed to begin the research and development phase of this project. There will be no cost share, as this project is being developed for the Navy. Requested government funding of $2.6M for the Sonobuoy Flight Kit will achieve the following: 1. Detailed design of SFV and system components. 2. Land- based flight trials verifying overall system performance, including range, speed, and endurance of the SFV. 3. Complete a production tooled design capable of supporting LRIP testing. 4. Design and fabricate a compact ship-based launch mechanism for use on LCS or other surface combatants.