Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the points that have been raised on this particular rule. Having participated in the development of this legislation on this conference report, I am familiar with some of the details that I think we should, again, separate fact from fiction.

First of all, the conference did meet. I have a copy of the transcript of the conference. Let me say, first of all, in the development of the bill, I have heard comments about this not being a bipartisan effort. I can say that I have been in the Congress for 11 years. And I was in the minority, and I saw how things operated in an oppressed fashion, being part of the minority I said that would never happen when I was given the opportunity to be in a leadership position.

So I conducted more hearings on the reauthorization of AIR-21, FAA reauthorization, than we did on AIR-21's original hearings. And I have a list of all of the hearings that we conducted. I went into the home district of the ranking member and conducted a hearing. I can tell you with every single issue in this piece of legislation, the minority was consulted.

The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), just got up and told you that much of this legislation, in fact, is the work product of the minority. Opportunities I could not have dreamed of when I was in the minority.

So to say that somehow this has been unfairly conducted, or some opportunity not given, is not correct. It is not factual.

Then we get to the point of the conference. A conference was held and the major issue, there has only been one point of contention on this legislation from the beginning. That is the question of the contract towers. We held a hearing and we had an actual vote on the issue.

Here is the vote. Here is the transcript. Let me read: ``Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have referenced with respect to the language of air traffic control privatization and the air traffic control tower language.'' There was a vote and they lost.

We put in the provision 69 towers. It was done in an open meeting. They were given an opportunity for a vote. This is the vote.

Mr. Speaker at this point I will insert this into the Record.

Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the

purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have

referenced with respect to the language on air traffic

control privatization and the air traffic control tower

language.

Mr. Young. On the House side, all in favor, signify by

saying aye.

All opposed, signify by saying no.

The noes have it.

So this was done in fairness.

Now, I do not remember too many conference reports that have been filed and been out there. We filed this the July 24. The conference has been out there. And we would have taken this up the week that we left, but we did not have time on the floor.

And in the meantime, NATCA has spent, I am told, I do not know if this is accurate, but I am told $6 to $7 million in a campaign of disinformation to take this provision out. Now, what we have done is we won in an open conference, and now we have recommitted the bill and we have agreed to take out the objectionable provision. So we lost. We gave again to the side to take out the provision, and they still are not happy. They say they are not being treated fairly.

We had a vote, we had an open conference, and we have taken out the issue of contention. All the other issues, every issue, was debated, every issue was discussed in hearings. And I have copies of all the hearings. I would be glad to have them made part of the Record.

So, again, the question of unfairness is unfair. Let me say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who just spoke, and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman, the planes that landed September 11 that the FAA brought down, half the towers in the country, almost half the towers in the country, 219 are contract towers. They are supervised by the Federal Aviation Administration. They are managed by private contractors. So on September 11, those people performed well.

The issue of the 69 towers, the 69 towers we did not pick out of the vacuum, out of the sky to put in the bill to look at for possible conversion to contract towers. Those FAA towers were examined in the year 2000 by the Inspector General. Not by the CBO, not by some partisan group, but by the Inspector General.

The Inspector General looked at those towers. He compared them in 2000 and found that the all FAA towers had 2.5 times more safety errors than their counterparts, the contract towers. And the cost was substantially more.

This did not satisfy the union, so they asked for another restudy. So we asked for a restudy requested by NATCA. They reviewed it in 2002 and 2003. Here is the report. In the report they said you did not do the right comparison. You have to compare the flights, the number of flights, hours of operation. So they did that. And they just completed that. You know what? An even more exact comparison found, that there is five times the error rate in the FAA towers. So they are less safe. And they cost, look at it, the report, an average of 12 of them, $917,000 more to run.

So, we have taken out the provision that was objectionable to the other side, and they still are not happy. This reminds me of that song, the Hokie Pokie: You put your right foot in. What else can we do?

So we are here today, folks, to stop the Hokie Pokie. This is very serious because our aviation system depends on it. Our improvements of our airports depend on it, and that is in this legislation. The security improvements depend on it, and many of our airports are lacking those security improvements. They are being held up because this bill is not passing.

Essential air service to our small and rural communities, never before have we produced a piece of legislation that will do more to expand air service with an aviation system that now has been under such duress that we have nursed it back. This will do more of the job to create employments and opportunities for all Americans.

So the argument that we have not given a fair opportunity to the other side is bogus. The argument that is trying to be posed here today that we somehow did something in the dark, without consultation, here is the record. This is the record. We have been fair. We have been open. We have even acquiesced to their number one demand and to what the union has spent $7 million on in an unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion and misinformation, so we can move this legislation forward, so we can help our ailing aviation industry.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, again I urge my colleagues to pass the rule. We have tried to be fair in this process. I have tried to be fair. There is one issue. I mean we can talk about a host of other issues, and in this system of 435 Members, I have over 40 Members on the subcommittee. There are over 70 on the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We all know that we all do not get all of our ways.

We heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) give a very eloquent reminder of her contributions and our working together. This bill does represent 99.9 percent of us working together to solve issues and move our aviation industry forward.

It does boil down to, unfortunately, this one issue that has divided us. We have acquiesced to the other side. We did put in 69 towers out of the 71 towers identified.

The two from Alaska, and please do not pick on my chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), he represents an area that is just unbelievable. You have to go see Alaska to believe it. It takes 3\1/2\ hours by jet from one end of the State to the other. And the two towers that were named in this report, first of all, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has probably more contract towers than any 10 States put together, but the two that were mentioned in this, one is being converted to a capstone, that is the Juneau, Alaska, tower; and the other one, if you go and look at the Anchorage tower, it is quite unique. It has a combination of military, private sector, and FAA operations. So they really do not fit into this program. And that is why that was exempted. But what we have done here is we have taken out all 69.

Now, yes, I offered if anyone wanted to read this report that says that a contract tower which is FAA supervised and privately managed is 4\1/2\ times safer, really it has 4\1/2\ times less error than an all- FAA tower and it costs less. Heaven forbid in Congress we should deal with saving the taxpayer money and have something that is safer and costs less, like this report identifies. I suggested we give the other side the opportunity, but they do not want to do that. I said I will give that opportunity. If people want to do that, fine.

The conference participants really have decided what the issue was. There is one issue. Here is the record. So it has, in fact, boiled down to that. We have taken out the 69 towers from any potential of privatization. There is no mention of privatization in this bill. We gave them basically what they want, and they are still not happy. So, again, it boils down to a vote. We have to vote on this measure.

Again, the question of the executive order, President Clinton, for 7 years and 9 months practically, had the ability to look at any of these towers. He made some of them private with contract arrangements, and then he changed it. We know why he changed it, a huge amount of money, look at the record, you see what happens in campaigns and elections; and this President changed it back to where it was where President Clinton had it.

And this is the safest system. We have 219 contract towers in the United States. Almost half of the towers in the United States are contract towers, and they are safe. And they also helped in taking down the planes safely on September 11. So do not bash the current system.

That is what we are asking for, plus all the good things that we have

worked together on to make this a better piece of legislation for our country and our American aviation system.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 422, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Speaker, the House, as I recall, just passed on a vote of 220 to 199 a rule by which this legislation would be considered before the House of Representatives. In that rule, there was clearly a provision that waived all points of order, which also would negate the previous standing rule of the House for specific meeting.

I might say also, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the rule I did cite the sequence of events in which the conference did meet and in which full participation was permitted, and specifically cited a rule on the particular issue that has raised so much controversy here. We did acquiesce to the minority's request to pull that provision, and that was the reason it was handled in that fashion.

So, again, based on the passage of the rule, the provisions of the rule and the adoption of the rule subsequently by the House of Representatives, I think that you will find the gentleman's point of order out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, we finally come to the conference report on H.R. 2115, the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. It has been a struggle to get here, but I believe it is critical to the success of aviation that we complete our mission, particularly on this 100th anniversary of the first flight in the United States by the Wright Brothers.

I want to take this time as we finish this conference report and this legislation to commend the Members of the minority. My ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), has been an outstanding leader on transportation issues in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I have been honored to have him as a subcommittee ranking member. He has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to craft what I consider to be an excellent piece of legislation.

During the rule debate, it was cited how many provisions were added by the Members of the minority, and I compliment the Members of the minority for their contributions to this well-crafted piece of legislation.

Also, I want to take time to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman is one of the most knowledgeable people on transportation issues. When I came to the Congress in 1993, he chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation. I have learned a great deal under his stewardship. He is also a font of historical institutional knowledge, both to the subcommittee and also to the committee, and has contributed greatly to the text of this measure.

Now, this is a sizable measure and there are, again, some 70-plus Members on here, and there are some issues where folks did not get their entire provision included in this bill. It is difficult when you have such a diverse committee, and subcommittee of over 40 members, to please everyone and put every provision in possible. But, for the most part, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, crafted in a bipartisan spirit, in the tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

This past week I attended the funeral ceremony of my former boss, William C. Cramer. He was the first Republican Member of Congress to represent Florida since the postreconstruction period, and I always looked up to him as ``Mr. Public Works.'' He added tremendously to the bipartisan working relationship that has continued, even when he was the only Republican from the State of Florida. I am pleased now, we have 18 out of 25 Republican Members from Florida. I appreciate his contributions. I also appreciate those of the minority in crafting this.

Now, one would have to live on another planet to not know that there has been controversy over one primary issue, and that is the issue of privatization. We did include initially in this legislation a provision that did allow this President to look at some 69 specified VFR fully FAA-staffed towers and possibly consider them for future privatization or conversion to contract towers.

After some 3 months. Since this past July 24, I believe, we filed the report and the conference met, and we did agree to take that provision out. We did not have a formal meeting of the conference committee. We knew after months of conflict that the issue was tearing us apart.

But now we have taken that out, and we are in a situation where we have a piece of legislation, and this conference report, that is totally, completely silent on the issue of privatization. And now we are prepared hopefully to go beyond that, because this bill has many important provisions that we need.

First of all, this measure aids in restoring jobs and opportunities in the American aviation industry.

We all know how hard hit this industry has been since the effects of the horrible day of September 11. No industry has lost more jobs. We talk about the loss of 2.7 million jobs in the economy; I would venture to say that at least 1 million are related either directly or indirectly to aviation. And it is slowly coming back, and this bill will aid it in coming back. So this will help us in creating jobs and opportunities for people in one of our most dynamic industries in this country.

Finally, there are several other points that I would like to make about this legislation. It does release the money for aviation trust funds to pay for airport improvements. All across this country, airports are beginning to again rebuild the passenger traffic, to rebuild; we can almost feel some of the economy coming back. If we do not pass this, those improvements come to a halt, not only for improving the airports and the infrastructure, but also for security improvements that are so important. We have provided in this bill to again assist our airports with that important mission.

So there are a whole host of areas where this is beneficial to the whole country. I urge the passage of this conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

I am pleased to rise and I wanted to clarify a couple of issues that have been raised. Let me say, we all have our roles in this august body, and I am honored and privileged to have as my ranking member the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman who just spoke. He is an incredibly hardworking, dedicated, ranking member and has contributed immensely to this product that we have before us today. But there is a question on which we have a separation, and we just heard some of the history of the air traffic control structure in our country.

Under the Clinton administration, if we go back to 1994, when I came as a freshman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. Under the Clinton administration, Mr. Clinton in that year, 1994, privatized. He took from FAA towers to contract towers some 24 towers. Was there an outcry? No. During the remainder of the balance of the Clinton term, President Clinton converted 116 FAA towers to contract towers. Was there an outcry? No.

In the 3 years that President Bush has been in office, how many FAA towers has he converted to private contract towers? Zero. The other side complained when we put 69 towers that were mentioned in this FAA report under the Inspector General, 69 towers based on cost and safety, primarily on safety, that these towers that are now all FAA towers would be safer, based on their evaluation, if they converted to contract towers, and cost about $900,000 less, read the report. That is what we put in there. They protested. So what did we do? We took these out.

We now have no reference to privatization, but they do not want this President to have the same right that President Clinton had for some 7.9 years. We have taken every single mention of privatization, any specific tower, out of the bill. So that is where we find ourselves now. We cannot please them no matter what we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), one of the outstanding members of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), one of the distinguished members of our subcommittee.

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

Let me just correct the record at this time. I have heard two Members from the minority side cite that on September 11 that some 4 to 5,000 planes that were flying in the air were brought down safely by our air traffic control system. That is correct. But, in fact, some 219 of approximately 470 towers were contract towers, are contract towers, private towers. This is the statement that was put out in a $7 million NATCA, National Air Traffic Controllers, misinformation campaign. We have a system now today, we had a system on September 11 with contract towers and with fully staffed FAA towers.

So they question the safety and security. We advocate no change. Nada. None. Zip. We have taken any mention of privatization out of this. We are only instituting the status quo, the status quo that we had on September 11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close the debate on the conference report on H.R. 2115.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this legislation is important to the success of aviation in this country. This particular industry is one of the great job creators, and no nation relies on safe and independent operation of aircraft more than the United States.

I disagree on the point that has been raised here in closing. We do not change in any way the current status of contract towers. We do not mention privatization. We have taken out some 69 airports that were identified in the previous conference report.

I believe that this bill strikes many carefully proposed compromises that address the many needs of our aviation system while providing for its future. I believe that this will also be a boon to many of our communities, to restore jobs, to provide economic opportunity in an industry that has been hard hit by the effects of September 11.

So we have an opportunity to help small communities. We have an opportunity to continue a safe and cost-effective system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members on the other side of the aisle for their cooperation. I know that there is one issue in particular that has brought us apart, but eventually it would lead to this debate and to this day. I think this has been a healthy debate, and I think that will be resolved by the vote that is to take place.

The U.S. aviation industry is the strongest in the world, and I am committed to keeping it that way. H.R. 2115 and this conference report provide stability and funding to ensure that our Nation will continue to lead. I urge all Members to put aside partisan politics and to vote to pass this conference report for H.R. 2115.

Again, I thank my colleagues and the staff for their fine work, and especially the Members of the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report for H.R. 2115.

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the committee, and also the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the subcommittee chair, and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for their leadership and the bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle for this much-needed legislation. I think that it is very appropriate that we follow the legislation that was just handled to take care of the medical concerns and need of our veterans by also taking care of their last wishes.

Florida is so privileged to have two of the six new cemeteries that will be dedicated as national veterans cemeteries under this legislation, and what I was told by staff is that the basis of the designations is not done just by political power, but by actual need. And certainly Florida, whether it is south, central or northeast, is the recipient of so many of those men and women who served our Nation and have chosen to retire, to work and to live out their final days in our great State.

So this is the very least that we can do. We have over 1,000 veterans dying across the land every day, World War II veterans and others, and again, many of them coming to Florida. As we adjust our medical needs and health care services to our veterans, it is also appropriate that we make this final adjustment that they have a decent burial place in our State where they have chosen to live, work and also to retire.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; but I will close, hopefully, for our side and answer that question at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I am pleased to address some of the issues relating to this motion to recommit.

First of all, I do support the motion to recommit the FAA reauthorization legislation and urge those on both sides of the aisle for this recommittal.

To answer the gentleman from Massachusetts' question to me previously about commitments that I would make as to what would be in and what would be out of the final legislation and conference report that comes out, I can make no guarantee tonight. I am but

one member of the conference committee, even though I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation and am willing to work with the other side.

But let me set some facts straight tonight as we conclude the debate on the motion to recommit. First of all, my colleagues heard the ranking member of the full committee just cite that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function and that somehow this has been politicized by our side of the aisle. Nothing, I say to my colleagues, could be further from the truth. In fact, for 7\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration, there was no inherently governmental label placed on FAA air traffic control. That was done in the last waning months of the Clinton administration as a bone to some of those in organized labor. But prior to that, there was no inherently governmental label. President Bush did remove that when he came into office and has asked for the option to look at which tower should be privatized or which should be contract towers and which should be fully FAA-operated towers.

The fact is, almost half, 219, of our towers today are contract towers. They are run by the FAA, but managed by a private company. The fact is, on September 11, half of the towers in this country that were contract towers, so-called privatized towers, also brought down the planes safely on September 11. The fact is, the President wanted the ability to look at every tower that is fully FAA-staffed and decide which should be fully FAA-staffed and which should be contract. We decided in this report, not just by picking towers at random, but by taking a report that was first done in the year 2000 by the Inspector General who looked at some 71 FAA, fully FAA-run towers. He looked at all 71 of them. And he came back and he said, based on first safety and secondly on cost, these are towers that should be looked at for becoming contract towers.

Then, not only in the year 2000 did he look at it, but NATCA, the union that runs air traffic control, asked for a relook and disputed the cost figures. So we asked for a relook. And in the year 2002, he conducted a relook; and we just got that report. It showed that the contract towers, in fact, when compared to the fully FAA towers, had a 2\1/2\ times better safety rate in the year 2000; and then the relook, I have a copy here, says 4\1/2\ times safer with a contract tower than a fully FAA; that is on the basis of safety.

Then just turning to the next page and looking at cost, the cost here, our analysis showed that the 12 contract towers on average cost about $917,000 less to operate. So on the basis of safety and cost, it was safer to have contract towers. And they compared the 2000 study and the 2002 study which we just got in 2003, and both confirmed this.

But a campaign of disinformation to Members in Congress, to the public, and to everyone who has had the opportunity to see it, a campaign of disinformation to the tune of $6 million has tried to say just the opposite of what the facts are. Now, these, I say to my colleagues, are the facts.

So we will take this back to conference, and we will revisit this issue. Anyone who would like, we will make a copy of this report available. But this campaign of disinformation is now forcing us to go back to conference. I make no guarantees as to what will come out of that conference. None of these provisions or the 69 towers that we have included were secretly written provisions.

That provision was voted on in open conference and the other side lost in this issue. So these are the facts that we deal with.

Finally, the cargo extension provision in Alaska, I hope we do not change that. Because if you want to see more jobs lost in the United States, if you want to see a transportation cargo hub moved from Alaska to Canada, go ahead and change this provision. And you will put thousands of people out of work and move cargo to another country. Try that. See how that works.

Finally, the local share match, we heard the plea of the rural communities. The administration wanted a match. We eliminated all the match except in 10 demo essential air service locations. And even with those 10 demos, we have allowed for a waiver. I hope we keep that provision that that allows that waiver and allows essential service.

Those are the facts. We can deal with fantasy, or we can deal with a multimillion dollar disinformation campaign. I urge the recommittal of this legislation, and I ask that you fasten your seat belts and put your tray tables in an upright and locked position and get ready for a ride to conference.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I join my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in recognizing the passing of one of our former colleagues of the House of Representatives, William C. Cramer.

Bill Cramer served in this Chamber as a representative from Florida's west coast from 1955 to 1970. Over the past decades, Congressman Cramer was more than a former colleague to me. I affectionately referred to him as my old boss for I had the great honor and privilege also to work with him, and I worked as a campaign aid in his bid for the United States Senate in 1970.

Bill Cramer was a pioneer for the Republican party. He was a Florida State legislator and the first GOP Member from the State of Florida since the post-Civil War reconstruction era. Not only was he one of the true contemporary founders of Florida's Republican majority, Bill Cramer served initially as a minority of one, our State's only GOP Member in Congress in 1955.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Cramer rose to leadership positions in both the Public Works Committee and also the House GOP conference with his distinguished service. And as part of his legacy, the Republican party of Florida now has 18 of 25 GOP Members of Congress, a Republican Governor, and majorities in both the State Senate and State House.

Our country has lost a great American and an honored veteran. Mr. Speaker, the Congress, the State of Florida, and the Republican party have lost a distinguished leader. With Bill Cramer's passing, I have lost a great mentor and a good friend.

To the Cramer family, Sara his wife, his sons Billy, Jr., Mark, Allyn, and his family, I extend my personal sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support this afternoon of one of the most important reauthorization pieces of legislation that will be addressed by this Congress, and that is the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that sometimes gets shoved below the radar screen in Congress and in our society, but I can tell the Members that there are very few social issues facing this Nation like the problem of illegal narcotics. In the latest report I have, the deaths that were drug related in this country in the year 2000, this is 3 years old, were 19,698. That is almost 54 human beings, 54 citizens in our country that die from drug-related deaths each day in the United States, an incredible number. And that is not to mention those who lose their lives such as the tragic death of those who were murdered in a drug-related crime in Baltimore, the Dawson family. Drug deaths now exceed homicides in the United States, and I would venture to say that nearly half of the homicides in the United States are drug related.

One of the issues that has been raised if this reauthorization is putting more money in treatment, and when I was chairman I supported a good balanced

approach, and I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) have tried to do that, and certainly the administration has. We have to understand that in the previous fiscal year 2002, the Federal Government spent nearly half, 45 percent, of all of its drug control policy budget on treatment and prevention. And it is not always how much we spend. It is very important how we spend that money, that it is spent effectively.

If we have learned nothing else in our experience over the years on this major social problem facing us, it is that a balance of education and prevention, of treatment, of interdiction, of enforcement, and all of these elements put together in a balanced approach will make a difference. That is why this is a good, balanced approach.

We have seen what has happened when we have good enforcement and when we do not have good enforcement. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has experienced that himself in Baltimore, one of our Nation's great cities, where the death toll was way over the 300 mark and they had lax enforcement. Mayor O'Malley went in, with the guidance of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and with attention from the Federal Government and others, we have reduced the tragedy of deaths in that city.

We saw in New York City under the Giuliani plan deaths and homicides exceeded 2,000 in New York City. With a tough enforcement plan, that was reduced to between 600 and 700; and we still see the results of that tough enforcement. So we cannot make the mistake of imbalancing our approach, and that is why this is a good approach.

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member. The President of the United States has taken a personal interest in the leadership of John Walters, the head of the Office of Drug Control Policy. They have a plan. It is working, it is effective, and it is a balanced approach and the right approach.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important reauthorization.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a simple amendment. It says that none of the funds made available under this act may be used by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation unless the corporation submits all quarterly and annual reports required by law in accordance with the standards applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204.

Public Law 107-204 is basically the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reporting legislation that was passed after the Congress and the American people realized the extent of the problems brought about by the Enron scandal. In Enron, we had an instance where about $600 million, less than $1 billion, of investor money was lost through private investments in a corporation.

We have a corporation that was created, again the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, almost every year for the last 4 or 5 years, they have lost $1 billion or in that neighborhood. Much of this is subsidized by the taxpayer. Hardworking Americans send their dollars to Washington, and not a whimper has been heard about the lost money or unaccounted-for money in Amtrak.

We passed a law that required corporations across the land, and Amtrak is a corporation, this rail corporation, even by its name I just cited, is a corporation and all this says, that existing current law, nothing new, nothing greater, that was passed by this Congress for transparency, for accountability, be also known and be it clear that Amtrak is required to report on the same basis.

We think it is very important. I will tell you why it is important. Again, as a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads under the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, let me just cite some of the things that the General Accounting Office 2000 report gave to our committee and to Congress. It found that Amtrak did not know its route- by-route costs of its mail and express program because it never separately identified these costs. It said in the report, according to an Amtrak official, Amtrak still has a long way to go in producing reliable mail and express financial information and in understanding the true cost of this business.

Again, Amtrak is a corporation that has a board of directors, it has an employee stock ownership plan, it has assets and liabilities, and it also has taxpayer money coming into the program. We cannot tell, according to the GAO report, its finances. So I think it is long overdue that we take a step such as this and require that they comply with existing law that all other corporations must comply with. The report further went on and looked at a review of Amtrak's expenditure of $2.2 billion in Federal funds from the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. It found that Amtrak could not determine how it was spending its Federal funds, nor was Amtrak able to ensure that its spending was allowed under Federal law.

So Amtrak, according to the Inspector General, does not even know what it is required to do under existing law. This is merely a clarifying, enunciating statement by this Congress that the same disclosure, the same standards that we require for corporations, it is clear that Amtrak as a corporation must also comply with. In fact, the report goes on to say that at one time Amtrak did not even have a process in place to review its spending practices. So we have questions again raised, and this is not something I made up. This is a General Accounting Office February 2000 report, telling us that there is not clarity in which laws or even which standards of reporting at Amtrak.

We are not creating any new law under this particular provision. What we are doing is saying that Amtrak, that is taking a huge amount of taxpayer money, in the billions, going into debt in addition to the money that Congress is appropriating in the billions, and we are not able to say that it even complies with existing law. So this is a requirement to have Amtrak comply with existing law.

Why should Amtrak not be held to the same standards and accountabilities and reporting requirements that Congress has imposed on corporate America? That is the question I leave before the House.

Point of Order

To the point?

Mr. Chairman, on this point, I am an authorizer, and I am very much aware that we do not want to authorize on appropriations measures, so we tried to craft this measure very carefully. In crafting it, we have used language that says, and again I quote from my amendment, in accordance with standards applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204. Public Law 107-204 is a law that applies to corporations in the United States of America. I have a copy of that here. Amtrak is the National Passenger Rail Corporation. It has a board of directors. It has an employee stock ownership plan. It has assets and liabilities. Additionally, it is taxpayer-funded. We have not gone outside of the parameters of existing law. There is a question, it appears from the General Accounting Office reports that I have cited, that Amtrak does not know what the bounds of the current laws are. This particular report was done prior to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Public Law 107-204. Again we are not requiring any new legislation, any new law. We are stating again that none of the funds made available under this act would be used by this corporation unless the corporation submits their quarterly and annual reports as required by law and in accordance with the standards of an existing

law, merely clarifying, and I think it is an important point here that we make, that we do not go beyond any existing law requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order, and I would like to take them one at a time.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on page 9 beginning on line 14 and ending on line 15. The phrase ``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and.'' This is an unauthorized appropriations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I have a second point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on page 12 beginning with the word ``for'' on line 12 through ``49 USC 44706'' on line 16 and again on page 12, line 22 beginning with the words ``provided further'' through page 13, line 2. This would fund administrative expenses of the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, and the cost of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program from contract authority that is authorized only for airport grants, not administrative expenses or other programs. It would also waive existing law. Both the proviso and this related language are legislative in nature and, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I have a third and final point of order I would like to offer on behalf of myself and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 105 which begins on page 14, line 16 through page 15, line 2. That section authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to accept funds from an airport sponsor to expedite the environmental review process for airport projects that would add critical airport capacity to the National Air Transportation System. The conference report on H.R. 15 contains a provision that is similar but, in fact, broader in scope. The language in H.R. 15 will allow the FAA to accept funds from an airport sponsor in order to facilitate the timely processing, review and completion of environmental activities associated with any airport development project.

To avoid the confusion that could arise from the enactment of two inconsistent provisions, I object to section 105 on the grounds that it is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I came to join the Amtrak debate. We have a great amendment before us, proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). I think he is well-intended. It shows the depth we have sort of sunk into when the debate on our national rail passenger service has a Member come forward and say we are subsidizing $350 a ticket on a losing route, which serves my area, and it would be better to put the money on a drug rehabilitation program, for which I probably concur.

I did not come to speak in favor of the amendment, but I think there is a lot of logic if we are going to throw money away on a losing proposition on Amtrak the way it is currently constituted, it would be better to put it on the proposal the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has brought forth.

First, let me say I am not an opponent to national passenger rail service and increasing actually good service. What we have now is a Soviet-style partial government operation of our national passenger rail service. We have had reports for as long as I have served on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Railroads, for some 11 years, we have got to reform Amtrak.

The problem is not Amtrak. The problem is right here: Congress. Congress has failed to authorize a program under which we can provide good national passenger long-distance service, a program under which we can provide and catch up with the rest of the world in high-speed service.

Yes, we need to put the money into it. But do we want to put the money into a losing proposition that we would be better off putting it into a drug program? I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). He is very well intended, and he wants to up the amount to $1.8 billion. We just heard from the ranking member of the subcommittee that they have been losing $1.1 billion. The facts are that Amtrak has lost, as we heard, $1.1 billion in need of that subsidy in addition, but below that their debt now exceeds $5 billion each year for the past 4 or 5 years. They have gone into debt, they have hocked the whole system and even their real estate assets. So that the debt and the depth of problems with Amtrak is far greater than what is brought here today.

Mr. Gunn is a great administrator, but he has to administrate the law that Congress passed some 30 years ago to do everything as far as passenger service and high-speed service and other activities that Amtrak is involved in and nothing gets done well. So you can have the best manager and if Congress does not make the changes necessary, it will not run. He came to us at our subcommittee and said he needed $2 billion, first for 5 years, a total of $10 billion. Then he came back and he said he needed $2 billion for 3 years, a total of $6 billion. The maintenance backlog of Amtrak alone exceeds $6 billion. So if you think you are fixing Amtrak by throwing more money at the problem, you are wrong. It will not solve it because they are losing more than $2 billion a year if you add in the debt. Just their debt payment is a quarter of a billion dollars a year. Plus, they have a retirement fund obligation which exceeds $7 billion.

What we need to do is reorganize Amtrak, and Congress needs to organize it so we have high-speed service and long-distance service. And we do it right, we just do not throw money at the problem. I would favor $60 billion towards national passenger rail service and high- speed, or $100 billion, because we need that alternative. And in the end, it is cost effective to concrete and cement and roads and other alternatives that we are faced with. So it is cost effective, but who wants to give Amtrak more responsibility for high-speed service?

The Acela program, we gave them billions, billions of dollars, and they blew it. The contract is in litigation. They bought equipment that does not fit the chassis, and it runs 82 to 83 miles per hour. Is that high-speed service? Even under our national definition of high-speed rail, it does not meet that criteria. Let us reform Amtrak and let us solve the problem. Let us not throw money at the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I had not planned to talk, but since my name was brought up in the debate in some comments about my comments, I thought it was important to respond.

First, again, I view myself as a strong advocate of national passenger rail system; but we need a system that makes sense, a system that serves areas that need to be served and require the service, and if we want to have losing routes across the country, there is no problem. We subsidize aviation. We subsidize roads. We subsidize every form of transportation. Let us have a transparent subsidization. Let us subsidize the transportation at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, and let us also bring in partners from those areas who want the service. If they want service and they want to subsidize it $350 a ticket, God bless them. They should have that service, and if they are willing to pay for part of that, maybe we will pay part of it too.

But we have to look at, for one thing, the taxpayers' pocketbook here. The fact is, again, I do not know how to make this any clearer to my colleagues, Amtrak was given by Congress the mandate to run national passenger service. They have had that mandate. They have gotten into high-speed service. Can we tell the finances of Amtrak? I would venture to say if we looked at the Enron report and Enron loss-of-investor money, we are talking about losses of taxpayers' billions of dollars, five point X billion dollars in the last 5, 6 years that they have lost, we cannot tell the finances. This committee cannot tell us the finances. I just asked the staff for information about the finances of Amtrak.

So I have identified the problem. The problem is Congress, because we have failed to put together a plan to provide national passenger service that makes sense. We have failed to put together corridors for high-speed service.

The question comes to us should we give Amtrak more money, and if we give them $1.4 billion, can they do the job? If we give them $1.8 billion, can they do the job? Two billion dollars, can they do the job? It is ``no,'' by any stretch of financial accounting. Just add it up. Their deferred maintenance is over $5 billion. What are we going to do in this, a couple hundred million dollars at most? Their debt is a quarter of a billion, plus they have been hocking the family jewels to keep this thing operating. So the problem is us.

I do not mind a high-speed corridor that makes sense. Honest to goodness, and I know a lot of people here are lawyers and we have got politicians and they cannot figure it out, but a route from Washington to New York that truly went high speed, 125 miles an hour as defined by law or whatever we have, that got people there in less than 2 hours, my goodness, even the people from Wall Street have said that is a winner. That will make money. They cannot figure that out in Washington. They want subsidization of a Soviet-style passenger service and impose it in a high-speed corridor. Does that make sense?

Yes, these projects can make sense if we look at them from a business standpoint or a taxpayer standpoint as to how we are spending the money. So let us take a deep breath. We are not going to solve Amtrak's problem with $1.1 billion, with $1.4 billion, or with $2.4 billion; and I guarantee the Members, and I have got all the reports from the last several years, we will be back here again with the same debate no matter how much money we give them today if we do not solve the basic fundamental organizational, administrative problems and service problems that Amtrak is facing. So that is the story, the long and the short of it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put into the Record, since we are having this Amtrak debate, a couple of facts relating to the service of Amtrak, and I will be very brief.

Amtrak's long-distance service record, just one example: From Boston to Albany, in 1936 the B&M Minuteman, it took 4 hours 50 minutes to go from Boston to Albany. That is before Amtrak. In 2003, Amtrak Lakeshore Limited goes from Boston to Albany in 5 hours.

Then I just wanted to also make certain that we have in this debate, we talked about subsidizing the losses. This is the Amtrak Reform Council, which we put in place in 1997 I believe it was, to look at reforming Amtrak, coming up with a proposal, which has so far been ignored, for restructuring the five routes with the most losses and the amount estimated per rider

loss: From Los Angeles to Chicago is a $236.76 subsidy, a loss; from Chicago to New York we lose $244.69 per passenger; from San Antonio to Chicago, we lose $258.25; from Chicago to Philadelphia, we only lost $292.34 cents; and from Los Angeles to Orlando, to serve my area, we only lose $347.45.

I thought that would be appropriate to read into the Record at this time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order on this section.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase, in quotes, Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, as amended, end quotes, beginning on page 51, line 12. This phrase waives the statutory distribution of funds specified in TEA-21 for the job access and reverse commute grants program. In doing so it makes possible report language earmarking of projects that under section 3037(g) of TEA-21 must be selected on a competitive basis.

In addition, it negates the formula allocation of the program based on community size as is required by section 3037(l)(3) of TEA-21. This blanket waiver is legislative in nature and in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 164 which begins on page 53, line 3 and ends on page 54, line 12. This section amends the Buy America requirements for transit capital purchases of steel, iron, manufactured goods, and rolling stock. The amendments made by section 164 are meant to strengthen Buy America, but the Department of Transportation

analysis has determined that there will be serious unintended consequences that will significantly slow the purchase and construction of transit system components and systems and also will result in more foreign-made products being purchased by transit agencies. This provision is legislative in nature and also in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. Speaker, a storm delayed my U.S. Air flight and I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 460, 461, and 462. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, today, on Constantino Brumidi's 198th birthday, I have introduced a resolution which will honor, in conjunction with his bicentennial in 2005, the life and work of this Italian immigrant who spent 25 years painting, decorating and making beautiful the United States Capitol.

In January of 2005, the Capitol Visitor Center is scheduled to open, marking the largest expansion ever to the United States Capitol. I am introducing this resolution now in order to have time to coincide what will be a momentous occasion with the 200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting that we celebrate the opening of the CVC while concurrently honoring the man who sacrificed so much to adorn this very building with such beauty.

Constantino Brumidi was born almost 200 years ago in Italy and lived there until 1850, working as an artist in Rome and the Vatican where he had many commissions, including a famous portrait of Pope Pius IX. In 1852, due to political upheavals in Rome, Brumidi immigrated to the United States and immediately applied for citizenship. From then on, he dedicated the rest of his life to making the United States Capitol one of the most impressive structures in our great Nation.

In 1865, Brumidi spent 11 months dangerously high atop the Capitol Rotunda laboring on his masterpiece, ``The Apotheosis of Washington,'' in the eye of the Capitol dome. Six years later he created the first tribute to an African-American in the Capitol when he placed the figure of Crispus Attucks at the center of his painting of the Boston Massacre. And in 1878, at the age of 72 and in poor health, Brumidi began work on the Rotunda frieze, which chronicles the history of the United States.

Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplifies the lives of millions of immigrants who came to the United States, who came here to escape adverse conditions in their native lands, who through their skills and hard work bettered their lives and the lives of their children, while immensely enriching the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge prompt consideration of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

I am pleased to come before the House on this issue, and I am so glad this issue is being discussed. I have waited some 10 years for this issue to be discussed in this manner before the House of Representatives.

This is the most important vote that this House of Representatives and this Congress will have since we did welfare reform because we are talking about the future of our most needy and deserving citizens, our most disadvantaged citizens. We are talking about the children of those individuals in our society who need a Head Start and we were not providing that.

I have heard rhetoric from the other side, and we saw the parade of mediocrity coming down the aisle advocating the continuation of the same, the same exact situation.

Mediocrity. That is what we are talking about today.

We are talking about mediocrity and perpetuating mediocrity among our neediest students and those who really need an advantage. Let me say, I have a degree in education and my interest is in the quality of the education. And for the first time, a President has come forward with a package that would not ensure mediocrity but ensure quality in the Head Start program for the very first time.

Let me give an example. I come from a district that is very broad and very big. I represent large counties, and I represent small counties. So I spent the time some 6 and 8 years ago and have been back again to look at the Head Start program and the preschool programs to see what they are doing. I can tell you what they are doing is they are spending a lot of money. They are spending a lot of money on bureaucracy, not all on programs. I have a good program in my big county, and we are able to support that. I have two counties that are over 45 miles apart, and I begged and pleaded to try to get a Head Start program that made sense.

We went to Atlanta. We went to Washington. We said, no, you cannot do that. We do not have enough students in either county. We have 200 in one and 300 in another to support the bureaucracy that is required by Head Start. So we asked for a little flexibility, and we got no flexibility. We still have no flexibility today.

Today we have eight administrators in a program earning between $31,000 and $42,000. I have a total of 34 administrative various personnel required by the program for 500 students and two counties that are separated by almost 50 miles. So I am spending the monies on bureaucracy, and you will not give me the flexibility to give my kids the best chance possible.

I have got teachers; and I do not have one teacher, not one teacher out of all the so-called teachers that we have in the program that are certified. Would you want your children to go to a school if we take the certification out of the school, the pre-school programs or any of the programs that we take it out and force your children to go to that?

Today we are spending between $12,000 for our so-called teachers and $22,932. And my bureaucrats in the program are getting up to $42,000. I do not have one qualified teacher and that is the mediocrity you want to resign our children to, my children to? These children deserve a head start. That is what the program was about.

There is not one dollar cut in this. There are no standard cuts in this; but we do allow a little bit of flexibility, and we do allow quality. The President has requested quality in the program. For the first time we will have people who actually have had an education to educate our weakest, poorest-performing students. Is that a lot to ask for, I ask you?

I have waited some 8, 9 years for these students. Do not deny my students this opportunity. Do not deny them quality. Do not deny them flexibility. Do not relegate them to mediocrity or bureaucracy.

You can tell I am very passionate about this. I feel very strongly about this. This is the biggest improvement we can make for the future of these children. I do not ask you to accept this. I plead with you to work with us to try to improve this program. We do not cut money. We do not cut quality. We make improvements and I ask you to help us.