[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 73 (Thursday, May 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4151-H4168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 229
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1527) to amend title 49, United States Code to
authorize appropriations for the National Transportation
Safety Board for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as
read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 229
is an open rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1527, the
National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. The
rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions. Obviously, this is a fair rule. It is a totally open
rule, one that provides ample opportunity to debate this important
reauthorization before us today.
Last year, the House passed essentially the same bill by suspension,
but the other body failed to consider the legislation. The House then
must again act this year to ensure that the NTSB has the funding
necessary to carry out its important tasks.
The NTSB was established in 1967 as an independent agency with the
task of investigating transportation accidents, conducting
transportation safety studies, issuing recommendations, aiding victims'
families after disasters, and promoting general transportation safety.
Since 1967, NTSB has investigated over 114,000 aviation accidents.
The NTSB's constant participation in transportation safety, evidenced
through 12,000 recommendations to regulators, operators and users of
transportation systems, has made them the government leader in crash
investigation. I think what is even more impressive is that 82 percent
of their recommendations have actually been adopted by these regulatory
and transportation bodies.
This bill will increase the effectiveness of the board by authorizing
funding through fiscal year 2006 at levels necessary to carry out their
investigative mission both here and at aviation disasters abroad.
[[Page H4152]]
The bill requires that the Department of Transportation issue an
annual report on the progress and adaptation of the board's safety
recommendations. It is crucial that the Department of Transportation
and that this Congress work to ensure that all recommendations are
being met by the public.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill requires that the NTSB turn over their
involvement in an aviation disaster to the FBI in the case of an
intentional criminal act. This action would be taken by the Attorney
General in consultation with the chairman of the NTSB. I think it is
very important that in the event of any criminal aviation disaster,
such as the one experienced during 9/11, 2001, the rescue of survivors
obviously remain a first priority, but the apprehension of those
involved commence immediately.
H.R. 1527 is a good bill, important to the continued transportation
safety of the Nation, in not only responding to accidents but taking
steps, through recommendations, to prevent further tragedies.
The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of committee by
voice vote. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, as well as his ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Mr. Speaker, this
important bill recognizes, by reauthorizing essential funding to the
board, the importance of this activity charged with investigating
tragedies and promoting transportation safety.
This has been a bipartisan effort throughout the consideration of the
bill, from consideration in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to this very obviously fair rule reported out of the
Committee on Rules, which continues, I think, this constructive debate
by allowing all amendments in order under the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both this important
underlying legislation as well as the rule before us to bring it to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I thank the
gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, fortunately we have before us today legislation that is
the model of bipartisanship and should be the standard for legislation
considered by this body. Unfortunately, this bill is the exception and
not the rule. Most of the time our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle treat bipartisanship as a sign of weakness, as something to be
avoided if at all possible.
Last week, for example, the majority forced one of the most important
bills that will be debated this year, the $550 billion tax cut for the
wealthy, through this body without even allowing the Democrats the
traditional substitute. This bill, by contrast, is thoughtful,
sensible, and bipartisan. I would only say to my friends on the other
side of the aisle, this is not that hard.
By adopting this rule, the House will be able to consider H.R. 1527,
the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act. This bill
was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
It is not controversial and I am confident that the House will approve
it with broad bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I had the great honor of serving on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure prior to my appointment to the
Committee on Rules; and during my time on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, I had the privilege of working with
the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); and
the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar). I have always believed that the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure is one of the most collegial, bipartisan panels in
the Congress; and I know firsthand the good work that this committee is
capable of producing, and this is one of those bills.
Having said that, there is still much work that needs to be done
before the Memorial Day work period. Over 6,100 people in my home State
of Massachusetts have lost their jobs in the past month and almost
168,000 have lost their jobs since President Bush took office.
Unemployment continues to rise, and if this body does not act, millions
of workers will lose their unemployment compensation at the end of May.
We must extend unemployment insurance for these workers, and we must
do it now. There are families all across this country who are
struggling very, very hard; and this House should do the right thing. I
would urge my colleagues to join me in urging the Republican leadership
to bring to the floor legislation extending unemployment insurance as
soon as possible.
At the end of the debate on this rule, I will move the previous
question; and if the previous question is defeated, I will call to the
floor legislation extending unemployment insurance. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.
Unemployed Americans cannot afford to lose this assistance.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board
Reauthorization Act of 2003 is, simply stated, a good bill for an
important agency that serves a critical public service. The NTSB is an
independent Federal agency charged by Congress with the authority to
investigate and determine the likely causes of transportation
accidents, including all civil aviation accidents and selected
accidents occurring in other modes of transportation.
It is perhaps most often recognized as the agency that coordinates
all Federal assistance to the families of victims of catastrophic
airplane crashes. In the midst of these tragedies, the NTSB has
demonstrated time and again its unique and expert ability to mobilize
top-notch investigators to search and find answers, and accordingly, to
provide some measure of comfort to the haunting questions that will
come with all such fatal accidents.
Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than
114,000 aviation accidents and 10,000 surface transportation accidents;
and as a result of their diligence, the NTSB has earned the reputation
as one of the world's foremost accident investigative authorities. They
are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, prepared to go anywhere,
at any time, to perform the difficult job we have assigned to them.
We are grateful to the NTSB for the service they provide, and this
bill and the corresponding funding levels reaffirm our collective
confidence in their performance.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps not as well known is the significant role that
they play in shaping national transportation safety policies. In
addition to its investigative function, the NTSB conducts numerous
safety studies and issues recommendations designed to prevent future
transportation accidents. In fact, the NTSB has issued more than 11,600
such safety recommendations in all modes of transportation.
Since 1990, the NTSB has refined these recommendations and published
a Most Wanted list of safety improvements to highlight certain issues;
and despite its lack of regulatory authority, the NTSB has actually
succeeded in seeing 80 percent of its safety recommendations adopted in
some fashion or another.
This success rate is no doubt due in large part to the credibility
and respect the NTSB commands among Federal transportation agencies,
Members of Congress, and the transportation industry.
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the NTSB's sterling
reputation that I am concerned that they have not done more
comprehensive analysis around the issue of the size and weight of big
trucks on our Nation's highways.
As I have already expressed, I have high regard for the NTSB.
However, while they have published several safety studies on individual
and discrete components of big trucks, it has not fully addressed the
more pressing issue of truck size and weight. In my estimation, the
absence of truck size and weight on the NTSB's Most Wanted list of
safety improvements is a glaring omission.
There are few transportation safety issues that represent a greater
threat to public safety than the need to freeze the size and weight of
trucks on our roadways. Five thousand people die each year and another
100,000 are injured in crashes with heavy trucks. In my home State of
Massachusetts, 31 people died and another 385 were injured in 2001 in
crashes with heavy trucks.
[[Page H4153]]
I shudder to think how these numbers will climb if the trucking
industry succeeds in convincing Members of this body that still bigger
trucks are somehow necessary, that 120-foot triple-long trailer trucks
on our Nation's highways are actually a good idea.
The alarming statistics I have just cited only begin to describe the
human cost of bigger trucks. They do not even begin to describe the
economic devastation that bigger trucks will also cause to our Nation's
roads and bridges which are already in deplorable conditions. In
Massachusetts, more than 50 percent of the bridges have been determined
to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The U.S. DOT has
estimated that longer combination vehicles could cause Americans as
much as $319 billion in total. This is a cost we cannot afford.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of truck size and weight deserves the expert
analysis of the National Transportation Safety Board; and most
importantly, the American driving public deserves to be protected from
the danger of bigger trucks on our roads and highways.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. We need to bring up the issue of unemployment
compensation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the
balance of our time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise encouraging my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I rise today because right
now in the State of Ohio since 2001 more than 167,800 people have lost
their jobs. In the city of Cleveland, more than 53,900 people have lost
their jobs.
We must, as the body of the people, on behalf of working people
throughout this country, put in place additional unemployment dollars
to cover these people who are without jobs.
{time} 1130
We are all talking about a tax cut that would improve the economy and
bring jobs to people at some time in the future, but the people in the
city of Cleveland, State of Ohio, and across this country need support
right now.
As I look out at my colleagues seated here, I see my colleague from
Youngstown, Ohio, and I know the people in Youngstown, Ohio, deserve
and need unemployment benefits. It is past time, it is way past time
that we do something for the economy of the United States; that we put
money in the hands of the people who have not had money to spend.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and
I urge this Congress to pass unemployment benefits before we go home
for Memorial Day to memorialize all the veterans who have served on our
behalf throughout this country. Let us help some of those who are on
unemployment right now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the previous question to the rule.
The bill before us to authorize the National Transportation Safety
Board is a good bill, which I support. I strongly support it. However,
after it is passed, we should immediately approve the bill proposed by
my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), to extend unemployment benefits
to the millions of Americans whose benefits will run out at the end of
the month.
In December, the Republican majority allowed this vital program to
expire just before Christmas. That left millions of families without
work and without benefits. We cannot let that happen again as we go
toward the end of May, the expiration date.
Mr. Speaker, since January 20, 2001, when President Bush was sworn
in, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record of
job creation or lack thereof of any administration since the Great
Depression. That is the worst record, as my colleagues can see here.
Every President since the war has had job creation above the line.
President Bush, 2.727, 100,000 jobs a month since he became President,
have been lost. That means that for every working hour of every working
day, 563 people become unemployed, more than serve in the House and the
Senate. It is as if every hour the House and the Senate would lose its
jobs.
Now, some people may think that is a good idea, if we do not have
more relevance to the lives of the American people and understand when
people are out of work that they need these benefits. The American
people do not need a dividend tax cut. The American workers need jobs.
Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced that April's
unemployment rate reached 6 percent, with nearly 9 million Americans
out of work. Another 9 million Americans have either given up looking
for work or are working part time. Millions of families are struggling
with the hardship and the uncertainty of life without a paycheck.
Without unemployment benefits many of these families would have nowhere
to turn. Indeed, some of them told me yesterday they would become
homeless.
Temporary Federal benefits expire on May 31, but President Bush and
the Republican leadership have refused to include any extension of
benefits in the tax bill that passed the House last week and what is
now under consideration in the Senate. This extension is important to
America's working families and to our economy.
Economists tell us that extending unemployment benefits is the most
effective way to quickly grow the economy and create jobs. It is fair,
fast-acting and fiscally sound. For every dollar that the Federal
Government invests in unemployment benefits, the return is $1.73 to the
economy. In contrast, for every dollar the Federal Government provides
to cut taxes on dividends, the return to the economy is 9 cents. This
is nonsensical.
The plan proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I commend them for their
leadership, would provide a 6-month extension of the Federal
unemployment benefits program. It would provide 26 weeks of Federal
benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and another 13 weeks for
workers who have already exhausted their benefits without finding a new
job in this stagnant economy. None of the Republican tax plans, the
President's, the House Republicans and the House Senate Republicans,
provides one thin dime for unemployed workers.
Again, I want to reiterate why this is important, because contrary to
what the Republicans are proposing, which provides 9 cents to the
economy, extending Federal unemployment benefits puts $1.73 into the
economy. Why? Because it puts money into the hands of unemployed
workers and their families. They need that money to spend on
necessities. The spending of that money injections demand into the
economy, thereby creating jobs. The tax dividend proposal does not do
that.
The unemployment rate today is higher than when the temporary Federal
unemployment benefits were first approved in March of last year, but
Republicans have decided that instead of helping unemployed workers,
they should give people who make $1 million a year an average of
$100,000 in tax breaks. How can that be right?
While Republicans insist on tax breaks for those who need it least,
our Democratic priorities are clear: We will fight to get the economy
back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed
workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
on the rule; vote ``yes'' to extend unemployment benefits for 9 million
Americans who cannot find work in this stagnant economy.
How can we go down this course of action where we make the same
mistake twice? The President came in and gave over a trillion dollars
in tax cuts. Now 2.7 million Americans lose their jobs, and they step
up to the plate again and offer more of the same. Job losers. Do not
even take my word for it, take the word of the Joint Taxation
Committee, which is Republican, which is directed by the rules of the
108th Congress to score dynamically, giving every benefit of every
doubt to the plan. It is a job loser by their estimation.
So we have to take a different course of action. One remedy that
helps the
[[Page H4154]]
economy and helps unemployed workers is extending the unemployment
benefits. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for their
leadership on this.
Mr. LINCOLN. DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join the minority leader, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin),
and others.
The Federal extended benefit program will expire in just a few days.
Why do we bring this up every day? Every day? Because every day the
number of people who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits
grows. Americans are looking for work and unable to find it. And those
who were in the millions as of a few months ago are facing more and
more dire circumstances. And every day the number of people who are on
State benefits, who are going to exhaust them, face the peril of
looking for work without any help.
So when we add this all together, we are talking about 2\1/2\,
perhaps 3 million people in this country of ours looking for work, who
cannot find it, and on the Republican side here in the House they say
to them, get a job. They are looking for a job, but there are none to
be found.
The response of the Republicans in this House has been, to put it in
its best frame of reference, inaction. It has really been worse than
that. It has been indifference, and perhaps even worse than that. I
simply ask that they go back home and meet the people out of work,
looking for work, without benefits or facing that prospect, look them
in the eye and tell them that you here are sitting idly by.
As mentioned by the minority leader, the benefit of extending
benefits is that it is a growth package. Giving people who are
unemployed money to help their families is money that is going to be
spent, and well spent. The studies are clear that that helps to move
the economy upwards.
So do vote ``no'' on moving the previous question. I would hope there
would be a few brave souls on the Republican side who will not simply
march the robotic line, all in sync, voting against the interests of
America and its unemployed workers looking for work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), has been a leader on this issue of extending unemployment
benefits to struggling workers.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings to the floor a bill to
reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board, which is
perfectly fine, but I must tell my colleagues that it is in no danger.
It is funded through the end of this fiscal year, so there is no rush
to reauthorize this program. On the other hand, unemployment insurance
will expire at the end of this month. We only have 6 legislative days
left before millions of Americans will no longer qualify for Federal
unemployment insurance benefits. For that reason I urge my colleagues
to reject the previous question so that we can bring up today the
extension of Federal unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, extended benefits for unemployed workers have been less
generous during this economic downturn compared to the last recession.
Republicans have been very reluctant to extend unemployment insurance
benefits to unemployed workers. During the last recession, in the
1990s, Congress kept an extended benefit program in place for 27 months
and generally guaranteed benefits for 20 to 26 weeks. Today's program
is scheduled to expire after only 15 months and providing only 13 weeks
of benefits.
The economy has lost twice as many private sector jobs as we lost in
the 1990s, with 2.7 million private sector jobs having been lost in the
last 2 years. That is a 2.3 percent decline in private employment. In
the 1990s, we lost 1.5 percent. There are now 3.4 people unemployed for
every job opening in this Nation, and there is no sign of recovery. The
U.S. economy has lost more than 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months
alone. The current downturn represents the longest period in negative
job growth since the Great Depression.
The funds are there for the extension of Federal unemployment
insurance benefits, with $21 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust
Accounts, funds expressly for this purpose, to deal with a recession.
And there is no better immediate stimulus to the economy to create
economic activity than to extend unemployment insurance benefits. For
every dollar we expend in Federal unemployment insurance benefits, the
Department of Labor indicates we will generate $2.15 in additional
economic activities in each of our communities.
So for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the urgency is to bring up
the unemployment insurance extension bill. That is what we should be
doing today. We have a chance to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote
against the previous question so that the Federal unemployment
insurance benefits can be extended.
{time} 1145
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the previous question so
that we would have an opportunity to offer an extension of unemployment
benefits. As the minority leader has said, this is the most efficient
economic stimulus that we can provide to our economy. It helps people
who are out of work. It helps the economy because they must spend the
money on the necessities and what our economy needs is demand.
My colleagues do not have to believe me. Just look at the figures
that were published yesterday. And that is, in fact, that consumers are
running out of gas, retail demand is down in the country, and the stock
market was down yesterday as a result of that. That comes on the heels
of what the Republicans have offered and that is additional tax cuts.
It is rather interesting, though, when we see the people who are now
commenting on the tax cuts in terms of the economy, we see that the
Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Taxation says that even under
dynamic scoring, the tax cut will lead only to more job loss, higher
deficits, more debt for our children and grandchildren. Kevin Hassett
of the American Enterprise Institute was quoted in The Washington Post
yesterday as saying that the dividend plan is one of the most patently
absurd tax policies ever proposed. Then today the senior economist for
Goldman Sachs says that these tax cuts being offered are not
stimulative.
What is that telling us? That is telling us that people are going to
continue to be unemployed, that the economy is going to continue to
soften; and the Republicans are not concerned. The Republicans simply
do not share a concern for people who have lost their jobs. Their
number one priority since the Bush administration has come to town was
and always has been tax cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy. The unemployed
are incidental to their concerns. That is why my colleagues ought to
vote against the previous question on this rule so we can immediately
offer unemployment extension benefits for millions of Americans who are
out of work to help their families. The last time the Republicans did
this, they dropped the ball. They did not get them reauthorized at the
end of December, so these families had weeks of uncertainty before they
knew whether or not they were going to be able to continue to pay the
mortgage, to try to keep their car from being repossessed, to educate
their children. We owe these families better than this. The Republicans
ought to start showing a little bit of compassion for these families
who are in very hard times because of the lousy Bush economy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
[[Page H4155]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, the government is a tool to help people. We have an
opportunity coming up with the unemployment insurance running out for
36,500 Ohioans to help; 167,000 Ohioans have lost their jobs. These
people need help. We hear a lot in this Chamber, and we have heard a
lot in Washington, D.C. over the last couple of years about compassion.
What could be more compassionate than to help people who have lost
their jobs? If the airline industry was going belly up or the
pharmaceutical industry was going belly up, we would be tripping over
ourselves to help them out. But average people need help, and we are
not there to help them.
But what is most confusing to me and what I do not understand is what
I read on the AP line today: Operating capacity sank to 7.4 percent in
April, the lowest since 1983, as big industry throttled back production
amid lackluster demand. People are now worried and the Fed is now
worried about deflation. There is too much surplus in labor and in
goods. There is too much supply. The answer, supply side economics. We
do not need more supply. We need demand in this economy. If you give
the businesses a tax break, they are not going to produce any more
because no one is buying anything, because there are millions of people
who do not have jobs. No matter what you are producing, they do not
have the money to go buy it.
The major economists are saying the best stimulus is to invest in
middle America, average people, people who do not have unemployment
insurance so they will get their money, they will go out in the market,
they will buy products and they will turn this economy around and begin
to stimulate this economy. It is about the demand side, not the supply
side. Let us stop the madness.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The silence on the other side of the aisle is really quite
incredible. The Republican majority here is turning this Congress into
a place where important and urgent issues not only do not get a chance
to be voted on by Members of this House but they do not even get
debated. There are millions of people in this country who are
unemployed. There are millions of people who are struggling right now.
They deserve their day on this House floor. That is what we are
struggling to try to achieve here so we can vote on something that
really makes a difference to the American people, that is more than
just a soundbite but something that is real.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House of Representatives considered seven
bills under suspension of the rules. We met for 2 hours and 24 minutes
of legislative business. Yesterday we considered six more bills under
suspension. We convened at 10. We completed our legislative business by
4:22, 5 hours and 35 minutes of doing the people's business. And what
was the people's business that we did?
We directed the commandant of the Coast Guard to convey the Cutter
Bramble to the Port Huron Museum of Arts and History; we renamed three
Federal facilities; we honored the life and work of the former Speaker
of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives; we made funds available
for the fruit and vegetable pilot program in the school lunch program;
we established the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site; we
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment contract
with a Texas county and to grant an easement to facilitate access to
the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Nebraska City, Nebraska.
All we did not do is extend temporary emergency unemployment
compensation to millions of American workers who will fall off a cliff
at the end of this month. Today we convened at 10. We are going to go
home at 2 o'clock, back to our districts, spend the weekend there, come
back next week and still we will not have helped those 2 million
Americans who will fall off a cliff without a paycheck and without
temporary emergency unemployment compensation. How is it possible that
this House can find time to do all of those activities this week and
not do what the American people want us to do, to help them, to assist
them? If this bill came to the floor now, it would pass, because none
of my colleagues are willing to go back to their districts and look in
the eyes of a worker who has lost his job and say, I couldn't help you,
I wouldn't help you, I didn't help, but I did rename three Federal
facilities this week. This bill would pass if it were allowed to the
floor.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) have introduced legislation to extend temporary
unemployment compensation. I have introduced a special rule to allow it
to the floor immediately. We have to do this. We have no choice because
those millions of workers have no choice, have no paycheck, have no
help. This economy is pushing them off that cliff. We are the only
people who can bring them back from the brink. If we go home to our
districts without having done that, we have done a massive disservice
to them, slapped them in the face, and further endangered and damaged
our economy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
My amendment provides that immediately after the House passes the
National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization, it will take up
H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act. This bill will
extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and will give an
additional 13 weeks to those unemployed workers whose benefits have
been exhausted.
Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates continue to rise. They increased to 6
percent in April, the third month in a row that the economy has lost
jobs. For every one available job, there are three Americans looking
for work. Of the 8.8 million unemployed, nearly 2 million have been out
of work for 27 weeks or more. This does not even count those who are
working part time or those who have simply given up looking. These
Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. Current Federal
unemployment benefits run out at the end of May, in only 2\1/2\ weeks.
Republicans in the House have voted against extending these critical
benefits three times in the last 10 days. Three times. Do not let
unemployed Americans down a fourth time. Bring this badly needed relief
to the floor for an up-or-down vote today. Let us show American workers
that we intend to stand by them in their time of need.
Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question
will not stop consideration of the NTSB reauthorization, but a ``no''
vote will allow the House to vote on both H.R. 1527 and on H.R. 1652.
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House
from passing the desperately needed extension of Federal unemployment
benefits to our unemployed workers.
I want to point out that this vote is the only opportunity the House
will have to vote on extending Federal unemployment benefits. I
strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is very, very simple. Members either
believe that we should help unemployed struggling workers or they do
not believe we should help unemployed struggling workers. I think the
majority of Americans want us to vote on this issue. The workers of
this country who are unemployed, they need our help and they need it
now. They do not need excuses. They do not want us to hide behind
procedural smoke screens; or they do not want the leadership, the
Republican leadership, protecting their Members from having to vote up
or down on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately
before the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4156]]
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Under the rules of the House, the majority has the obligation of
setting the agenda. I think part and parcel of not only the rules
obviously of the House but of democracy is to let the minority speak
about whatever the minority wants to speak about. We have seen an
example of that today. In case somebody has been paying attention to
this discussion, I think it is important to remind us of what the bill
before us is, the bill that the Committee on Rules has brought to the
floor today, and, that is, the reauthorization of the National
Transportation Safety Board. The National Transportation Safety Board
is a very important agency. It carries out really a fundamental mission
with regard to airline safety and investigation of accidents, studies
and reports with regard to increasing the safety of transportation.
That is what is before us. Obviously, we would never attempt to stop
the minority from speaking about anything. But what we are here today
on is the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act.
The issue chosen today, for example, that we learned today was chosen
by the minority to speak on is an important issue. Unemployment
benefits have not expired. Many of us on this side of the aisle, in the
majority, have not only supported unemployment benefits but continue to
do so, and they have not expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, they will expire in 2\1/2\
weeks.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will not yield. I did not
interrupt the gentleman.
Again, to get us back to what we are bringing to the floor today, and
to remind colleagues on what they will in fact be voting on today, it
is the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of
2003.
{time} 1200
We have brought this forward. We have brought it forward with a rule
that permits all amendments that may be proposed by any Member to be
brought forward and to be debated. Again, we did not know what, if any,
opposition would exist with regard to this bill, and we will soon see,
but I think it is important, as I said, Mr. Speaker, to remind Members
what we are, in fact, here voting on today and what we are not voting
on today, even though there are many issues obviously of importance
that could be debated, because freedom is the essence of this House,
and obviously any Member can talk about any issue under the sun.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Does the gentleman from Florida
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield. The gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) will continue.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings
forth the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act, an
open rule, absolutely fair rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 229--Rule on H.R. 1527--the National
Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. . Immediately after disposition of the bill H.R.
1527, it shall be in order without intervention of any point
of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1652) to
provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers,
and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance
system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.''
____
The Unemployment Benefits Extension Act (H.R. 1652)
The legislation would continue the extended benefits
program for an additional six months, increase the amount of
benefits to 26 weeks, include coverage for the one million
workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits,
and expand UI coverage for low-wage and part-time workers.
Extension: Extends the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation (TEUC) program through November (the program is
currently scheduled to prohibit any new enrollees after May
31st).
Benefits: Provides 26 weeks to all eligible workers with an
additional 7 weeks available in States with higher
unemployment.
Exhaustees: Provides an additional 13 weeks to unemployed
workers who exhausted their initial 13 weeks of extended
benefits prior to enactment (for a total of 26 weeks).
New Triggers: Revises trigger for determining high
unemployment to a 4% Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate,
which includes recent exhaustees, or a 6% Total Unemployment
Rate. This modification would allow about 18 States to
qualify (only five States trigger on under the current-law
definition).
Low-Wage Workers: Provides temporary Federal funding
(through July 2004) for States to implement alternative base
periods (which count a worker's most recent wages when
determining UI eligibility) and to allow displaced part-time
workers to seek part-time employment while receiving UI.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 205, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
[[Page H4157]]
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Cunningham
English
Gephardt
Hyde
Knollenberg
Miller, Gary
Quinn
Schrock
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are
reminded there are less than 2 minutes for this vote.
{time} 1222
Ms. WATERS and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 227 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1527.
{time} 1223
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1527) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize
appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal
years 2003 through 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. Terry in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1527, the National
Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. The NTSB is a
small, but extremely, important part of the Federal Government. Its
dedicated staff investigates a broad range of transportation accidents
each year.
The bill before us now supports this important work by authorizing
increased funding levels for the NTSB for fiscal years 2003 through
2006.
The bill also requires the NTSB to notify aircraft operators of their
right to appeal a board employee's decision that an event constituted
an ``accident,'' whether an event is classified as an incident or an
accident can have serious implications for an airline's license to fly
and the insurance premiums the operator will pay. This problem was
first brought to my attention by Coyote Air, a small airline in Alaska.
In addition, the bill addresses the problem of delays in implementing
important NTSB recommendations. While the NTSB has a good track record
of working with agencies to ensure that its recommendations are
implemented, some important NTSB recommendations remain open for years.
For example, the NTSB's recommendations to improve runway safety have
been on the NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements since the
year 1990. Also on the Most Wanted list is the board's recommendation
to reduce fuel tank flammability. This recommendation was issued in
December of 1996 after the crash of TWA Flight 800. Over 5 years later,
this recommendation is still open.
While we cannot expect instant results on complicated issues such as
these, neither can we afford to wait 5, 10 years or more to address
important aviation safety problems.
To address this problem, H.R. 1527 requires that the Secretary of
Transportation submit an annual report to Congress and the NTSB on the
status of each recommendation that is included in the NTSB's Most
Wanted list of safety improvements.
The Most Wanted list represents the board's best judgment regarding
which of these recommendations should be expedited. H.R. 1527 will
bring needed attention to these recommendations.
Finally, the bill authorizes the NTSB's family assistance
responsibilities to be transferred to another Federal agency under
certain circumstances. Under the bill, this transfer would occur when
the accident investigation is transferred because it is determined the
crash was caused by a criminal act.
I join with the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the Subcommittee on Aviation chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); and the ranking member of that
subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), with whom I
introduced H.R. 1527, in urging the immediate passage of this bill.
I commend the NTSB for its tireless efforts to improve transportation
safety; and I do urge the passage of this bipartisan bill, with the
least amendments necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Just following up on the
remarks of the esteemed chairman, I am really pleased that he has
strongly supported and we have included in the bill a mandate that on
an annual basis we have a report of essentially the 10 ``most wanted,''
is the way I would phrase it.
Too many times we have seen in the past where the National
Transportation Safety Board raises serious concerns in the aftermath of
an aviation incident or accident; and oftentimes, because of various
pressures or bureaucratic inertia, we find that those recommendations
never again see the light of day.
Minimally, we would want to see a substantive response on each and
every important recommendation that would track it and give us a
meaningful document that shows why it was implemented, why it was not
implemented, or where we are in the implementation process or what
modifications the FAA has made to it in moving forward with the
implementation.
{time} 1230
So I think that is an excellent addition to the authority of the NTSB
and will enhance their status as the world's number one transportation
safety watchdog. And that, indeed, is what the NTSB is.
They are sought after in accidents overseas, have conducted some
very,
[[Page H4158]]
very difficult investigations and technically assisted in very, very
difficult investigations and recovery efforts. So I am also pleased to
see that there is a modest increase in the funding for the NTSB
recommended here and for the NTSB Academy, which provides the world-
class standard of training for accident investigators.
And then finally, there is a provision regarding families of
passengers. The NTSB does not have really the extensive resources on an
ongoing basis to provide assistance to the families and the bereaved of
passengers in accidents; and this bill would move that on to other,
more appropriate Federal agencies at the appropriate point in the
investigation, something which today, unfortunately, often languishes
so that neither the NTSB and their principal functions are served, nor
are the bereaved family members of the passengers.
So also I think this bill is an improvement and a long-needed
reauthorization of the NTSB.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Aviation, be allowed to manage the remaining time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to join the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the
subcommittee. I want to thank both of them and also the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, for
their leadership. The gentleman from Alaska has done an incredible job
in bringing together the diversity of more than 70 members on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to not only bring forth
this reauthorization bill, but to soon vote for the successor to AIR-21
and TEA-21, our important transportation measures and policy for the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, this bill that is before us today is very similar to
the legislation that was considered under suspension of the rules and
agreed to by voice vote of the House on June 4 of last year, and that
was H.R. 4466, for my colleagues' reference. This legislation
reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board for a period of 4
years. It provides funding during those years for the amounts as
follows: $73.3 million, $78.7 million for next year, $83 million, and
$87.5 million during that 4-year period of authorization.
The National Transportation Safety Board is the agency which is
responsible for investigating transportation accidents and also for
promoting transportation safety. The board investigates, conducts
safety studies, and coordinates all Federal assistance for families of
victims of catastrophic transportation accidents. It also has the
responsibility to review appeals of certificate and civil penalty
actions against airmen and certificate actions against seamen.
Most importantly, the NTSB makes safety recommendations based on its
investigations of Federal, State, and local government agencies; and
the transportation agencies take actions that hopefully will prevent
similar accidents in the future. The aviation safety record is
remarkably good, and the safety board deserves a lot of credit for that
success. This is a small, well-run, lean, and effective Federal agency.
This legislation makes some changes, however, to the agency's
governing statute that should help make the board even more effective.
The bill again reauthorizes the agency for 4 years and provides modest
increases in expenditures which are authorized, funding levels that I
have mentioned. H.R. 1527 also authorizes a much-needed increase in the
NTSB emergency fund. This is the fund that pays the necessary expenses
for accident investigations not otherwise provided specifically for;
and unfortunately, we have had instances where sometimes the cost of
some of these investigations is substantial.
The bill also authorizes funding for the National Transportation
Safety Board Academy. The bill directs the NTSB to notify aircraft
owners and operators of their right to appeal accident determinations,
except those where there is a loss of life. The bill requires the board
to establish procedures for those appeals. This legislation, again,
H.R. 1527, requires the Department of Transportation to report to
Congress and the board on the regulatory status of each significant
safety recommendation made by the board. The Department must continue,
and this is a change and something I am pleased to have helped craft
with bipartisan support, the Department must continue to report on the
regulatory status of each recommendation each and every year until the
final regulatory action is taken.
One of the things we found in our hearing with the very capable
former Chair of the NTSB, Marion Blakley who is now heading up FAA, was
the recommendation to us that we did not have a follow through; that
there would be investigation of these accidents and there would be
recommendations and not much was done. This will require repetitive
alerting of both the Congress and the Department for implementation of
those recommendations until something is, in fact, taken as far as
positive action.
Finally, the legislation provides a procedure whereby the safety
board would turn an investigation over to the FBI when a criminal act
may be involved.
Mr. Chairman, the NTSB has been without authorization for a year. I
would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking
member of the full committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio) on this first major bill under his leadership on our side on
the Subcommittee on Aviation. I also want to express my appreciation to
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Mica) for their bipartisan cooperation in fashioning
this bill, working it through subcommittee and full committee, and
bringing it to the floor today.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) said just a moment ago, the
NTSB has been without an authorization for the last year. That is not
appropriate. We have to do our job. We were delayed in getting there by
the events of the last Congress; but we now bring this bill, very
proudly and appropriately, to the floor for the agency that I consider
to be the Nation's premier, definitive authority on safety in
transportation.
We are very fortunate to have a great many Federal Government
agencies for whom the public gets full value of its investment in the
support funding. But we get more than full value out of the National
Transportation Safety Board. Its recommendations, its vigilance on
safety result in improvements in the way we conduct the business of
transportation in all of the modes: maritime, railroading, trucking,
automotive vehicular transportation and, of course, pipelines and
aviation, which gets perhaps the greatest visibility for the NTSB when
there is a tragedy in aviation. But that should not overshadow nor
cause anyone to forget the very significant and important work done in
the other modes of transportation.
Time and again, the NTSB's recommendations that are written for
changes in safety oversight by agencies and conduct of safety by the
private sector as well as by public entities are written into practice
and result in saving lives, preventing property damage, and making
transportation more dependable, safer all throughout this vast land of
ours.
The new Chair, Ellen Engleman, comes to this position from another
safety responsibility as the head of the Research and Special Projects
Administration, RSPA, of DOT, where she had primary responsibility for
pipeline safety and was the subject of NTSB recommendations for
improvements in pipeline safety and responded very well, very
thoughtfully, and very appropriately. I look forward to Ms. Engleman's
tenure as Chair of the
[[Page H4159]]
NTSB where I know she will bring the same dedication and vigor to that
responsibility as she did to RSPA.
The unique role of the National Transportation Safety Board in its
conduct of investigations of transportation accidents, after evaluating
the evidence, making findings of fact is then to make recommendations
that are normative, not determined by cost-benefit analysis, not driven
by one or another interest group; but to do what, in the best judgment
of its seasoned safety professionals, is in the best public interest
for the conduct of safety in that particular mode. It is then for the
modal administrations to evaluate benefits and costs and to make
judgments in the rulemaking afterward; but it is up to the NTSB to be
above the fray to be normative, to set standards that in its judgment
are in the best public interest. And that it has done.
In the last 5 years, there have been 8,124 accident investigations in
aviation alone, 166 highway accidents, 82 railroad accidents, 41
pipeline accidents, 24 maritime accidents; and a total of 881 safety
recommendations have been issued.
Unfortunately, not all of those safety recommendations have been
implemented by the modal administrations of the Department of
Transportation, and that is without regard to which party has been in
charge of the executive branch. There is a very serious problem here.
When our premier investigative agency looks at an accident, then
relates it to a class or category of accidents and prescribes a remedy
for it, the modal administrations ought to respond forthwith. The FAA
has the best record of any of the modal administrations in responding,
but that is a record that is not good enough.
This legislation requires an annual report from DOT on the status of
regulations to implement all of the significant safety recommendations
from NTSB, which is widely known as its Most Wanted list. We will get
that report. We will evaluate each year the progress of the modal
administrations; and then, through our oversight responsibility and
authority on the committee, we will bring those administrations up to
our committee and grill them on why they have not been compliant, or
compliment them for being so if, in fact, they are. But this will put a
lot of pressure on those modal administrations to clean their slate and
respond to and comply with these recommendations of the NTSB.
In 2000, our committee authorized the transfer of investigative
priority from the safety board to the FBI in the event of an accident
caused by intentional criminal act. What we overlooked at the time was
a mechanism to transfer responsibility for dealing with the families of
victims of accidents in the event of an intentional criminal act.
{time} 1245
Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Safety Board now
believes the FBI would be the best entity to handle that
responsibility, and this legislation provides for transferring of
family affairs responsibility from NTSB to the FBI in the event of a
finding of an intentional criminal act and, of course, of an accident
investigation.
One of the best initiatives undertaken by the NTSB in many years is
to develop a training academy to teach the state-of-the-art
investigative techniques for transportation accidents. The Safety Board
has always worked hard on training and improving the caliber and
quality of its investigative personnel, a very lean staff, a very small
staff, but one that works extremely well, very creatively, but can
always benefit from improved training. And this new training academy
will be a huge benefit for the NTSB.
I would like to mention another matter, and that is also one that is
not generally or widely recognized, and that is that the NTSB serves as
a model for other countries throughout the world to establish civil
investigative agencies. Time and time again the NTSB has been asked by
other, especially emerging, democracies and those emerging from the end
of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union to help them in formulating
the establishment of a transportation safety board. Again, the NTSB
stands as the world standard for safety investigation, for honesty,
integrity, for quality of investigation, and for the quality of its
recommendations for improvements of safety.
Finally, I would like to make a note of a matter of aviation history.
Yesterday it was reported that L. Welsh Pogue died at the age of 103.
Welsh Pogue was asked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as the allies
were nearing the end or could see the end of World War II, to convene
the meeting of all nations of our allies who would have an interest in
a postwar aviation regime, to set up a process by which agreement could
be negotiated in the new world to follow World War II. It was Welsh
Pogue who recommended that the conference, known as the Chicago
Conference, in November 1944, establish an open skies aviation trading
regime.
The other countries convened at that meeting felt that the United
States emerging relatively unscathed from the war and with a very
strong domestic, but still emerging, commercial aviation sector would
dominate the world marketplace. It was in the end L. Welsh Pogue who
negotiated the idea of individual bilateral agreements that would be in
the mutual interest of the two negotiating parties.
Don Phillips of the Washington Post 3 years ago wrote, ``When L.
Welsh Pogue was born, the Wright brothers were running a bicycle shop
in Dayton, Ohio. But as Franklin D. Roosevelt's aviation pointman in
1944, Pogue cobbled together the compromise regulatory scheme that
governs international aviation to this day.''
On Monday of 1999, of May 1999, the 100-year-old Pogue, aided only by
a cane, walked to the podium in the same hotel ballroom where the
world's fledgling aviation nations reached their historic agreement on
December 7, 1944. He brought down the house with his wry memory of 1944
and his vision for aviation future.
At the end of his remarks, Pogue predicated the world would divide
itself into regions for air traffic purposes. It will be slow, he said,
but do not give up in despair. Turn to those things that are possible.
L. Welsh Pogue taught us all what was possible in the field of
aviation. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. It was my great
privilege and honor to come to know L. Welsh Pogue over the many years
I had served as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation and subsequently
in my current position on our committee. I revere and love this man who
is a legend in their field of aviation.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. Defeating the previous question will allow us to
bring up today legislation on Temporary Extension of Unemployment
Compensation (TEUC) authorized by Ways and Means Ranking Member Charles
Rangel.
Thousands, if not millions, of hard working Americans stand to loose
their only lifetime in just 6 days. And, what do Republicans do? Where
is the compassion?
Thousands, if not millions, of hard working Americans stand to loose
their only lifetime in just 6 days. And, what do Republicans do? Where
is the compassion?
Congress created the temporary extension of unemployment benefits
later year in response to continuing poor economic performance. The
need has only increased since then!
The total job loss in this Bush economy has risen to a staggering 2.5
million private jobs since the President took office.
Instead of doling tax cuts to the wealthy and allowing corporations
to steal their employee's pensions, our government should be granting
another extension of unemployment benefits. These are benefits that
millions of Americans are depending on to pay for groceries, utilities,
and rent.
The unemployment rate is now at 6 percent, and still climbing. In
many states, like California, the rate is even higher. Yet, many of
these hard working Americans have already exhausted their unemployment
insurance (UI) benefits.
Millions of American families are working hard to succeed, but they
need relief to help them find new jobs, save for the future, and invest
in their family's future.
While the shelves at food banks are empty Republicans are cutting
back on government programs like food stamps, welfare and others that
help people during difficult times.
While school districts are suffering from a nationwide state budget
crisis, Republicans aim to deny states the money owed to them from the
No Child Left Behind act.
On top of that, President Bush is looking to privatize a significant
portion of the Federal workforce and prohibited legal immigrants from
working many Federal and civilian jobs, for example: airport workers.
President Bush parades around the nation telling working class
families that he cared for
[[Page H4160]]
them. Yet, it is his policies that are increasing working class tax
burdens, taking away their right to overtime pay, and making it so
employers can take back their employees retirement pensions.
President Bush's disastrous economic policies and risky tax schemes
are coming straight from the Enron playbook--deceive those at the
bottom, so those at the top can prosper.
This is a tale of two Bushes. One is gentle and caring for the
workingman. The other takes away our right to unionize, endangers our
retirement pensions, and wants to privatize social security. This
administration seems intent on saying one thing, and doing the exact
opposite.
Yet this much is clear, unemployment is growing and it is hitting our
community the hardest.
Americans are finding themselves without jobs!
Without health insurance!
The only thing they are finding is a growing sense of frustration,
despair, and fear of their government.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my disappointment at this
administration's and the Republican Congress's economic policy, a
policy that leaves the working class and our nation's minorities
behind.
We need an extension of unemployment benefits now!
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
1527. This bill reauthorizes activities of the National Transportation
Safety Board for 3 years, through FY 2006.
The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal
agency responsible for developing regulations for transportation
safety, investigating and determining the cause of accidents in five
transportation areas.
These areas include aviation, railroad, highway, maritime and
pipeline. Based on its investigations, the NTSB makes safety
recommendations to prevent further accidents from occurring.
The National Transportation Safety Board also conducts special
studies on transportation safety issues, and it reviews and evaluates
the performance of other transportation agencies in enhancing safety.
The National Transportation Safety Board is responsible for
maintaining the government's database on civil aviation accidents and
also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of
national significance.
The National Transportation Safety Board provides investigators to
serve as U.S. Accredited Representatives as specified in international
treaties for aviation accidents overseas involving U.S. registered
aircraft, or involving aircraft or major components of U.S.
manufacture.
Since its inception in 1967, the National Transportation Safety Board
has investigated more than 100,000 aviation accidents and thousands of
surface transportation accidents.
The NTSB has issued over 10,000 recommendations in all transportation
modes to more than 1,300 recipients.
Since 1990, the NTSB has highlighted some issues on a ``Most Wanted''
list of safety improvements. Many safety features currently
incorporated into airplanes, automobiles, trains, pipelines, and marine
vessels had their genesis in NTSB recommendations.
The bill authorizes a total of $244 million over 4 years for
activities of the National Transportation Safety Board including $73
million in FY 2003, $79 million in FY 2004, $83 million in FY 2005, and
$88 million in FY 2006.
The bill also authorizes a higher funding level for the NTSB's
Emergency Fund. The Emergency Fund's current authorized level of $2
million is not always sufficient to cover the costs of an expensive
accident investigation, especially where underwater wreckage recovery
in required.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1527.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is a small agency charged with some
big tasks. Besides investigating transportation accidents, conducting
transportation safety studies, and issuing safety recommendations, they
are also charged with aiding victim's families in aviation disasters
and promoting transportation safety.
I believe this legislation will improve the effectiveness of the NTSB
and its ability to investigate serious accidents. The tragic plane
crash of Senator Wellstone has undoubtedly highlighted the importance
of the legislation before us today. I would like to thank Chairman
Young and my Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, who has poured his heart and
soul into this issue, for their diligent work on this legislation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is
considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
H.R. 1527
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Transportation
Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
Page 2, after line 3, insert the following:
TITLE I--NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Page 2, line 4, strike ``2'' and insert ``101''.
Page 3, line 3, strike ``3'' and insert ``102''.
Page 3, line 20, strike ``4'' and insert ``103''.
Page 5, line 6, strike ``5'' and insert ``104''.
Page 6, line 13, strike ``6'' and insert ``105''.
Page 6, after line 16, add the following:
TITLE II--ENHANCED VAN SAFETY
SEC. 201. DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TESTING PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement for Rollover Testing.--Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Transportation, under section 30117(c) of title 49, United
States Code, shall--
(1) develop a dynamic test on rollovers by 15-passenger
vans for the purposes of a consumer information program; and
(2) carry out a program of conducting such tests.
(b) Amendment.--Section 30117(c) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Not later than 2 years
from the date of the enactment of this subsection,''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) by inserting after ``or less'' the
following: ``, and to vans designed or used to carry 9 to 15
passengers, including the driver, irrespective of gross
vehicle weight rating''.
SEC. 202. NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Transportation shall require the testing
of 15-passenger vans at various load condition levels as part
of the rollover resistance program of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's new car assessment program.
SEC. 203. TESTING AND EVALUATION OF VAN STABILITY
TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.
(a) Requirement for Testing and Evaluation.--The Secretary
of Transportation shall test and evaluate various
technological systems to determine the effectiveness of such
systems in assisting drivers of 15-passenger vans to control
the vans under conditions that cause vehicle rollover.
(b) Systems Tested.--The technological systems tested and
evaluated under this section shall include electronic
stability control systems, rear-view mirror-based rollover
warning systems, traction systems, lane departure systems,
and antilock brakes.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
consult with manufacturers of 15-passenger vans in the
testing and evaluation of technological systems under this
section.
SEC. 204. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a final rule
initiated pursuant to the proposed rulemaking published in
the Federal Register on January 11, 2001, Docket No. FMCSA-
2000-7017, relating to the application of Federal motor
carrier safety regulations to the commercial operation of 15-
passenger vans.
SEC. 205. DEFINITION.
In this title, the term ``15-passenger van'' means a van
designed or used to carry 9 to 15 passengers, including the
driver.
SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
TITLE III--APPLICABILITY OF SCHOOL BUS SAFETY STANDARDS
SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON PURCHASE, RENTAL, OR LEASE OF
NONCOMPLYING 15-PASSENGER VANS FOR USE AS
SCHOOLBUSES.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 30112(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Except as provided in
this section''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H4161]]
``(2) Except as provided in this section, sections 30113
and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter,
a person may not purchase, rent, or lease any motor vehicle
designed or used to transport 9 to 15 passengers that the
person knows or reasonably should know will be used
significantly to transport children from child care and
preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from
a child care facility, school, or an event related to school,
unless the motor vehicle complies with the motor vehicle
standards prescribed for schoolbuses under section 30125 of
this title.''.
(b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to any purchase, rental, or lease of a motor vehicle
required under a contract entered into before the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. PENALTY.
Section 30165(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``A'' before ``person'' and inserting ``(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph,
a''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The maximum amount of a civil penalty under this
paragraph shall be $25,000, in the case of--
``(i) the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction
or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or
importation of a schoolbus or schoolbus equipment (as those
terms are defined in section 30125(a) of this title) in
violation of section 30112(a)(1) of this title; or
``(ii) a violation of section 30112(a)(2) of this title.
``(C) Subparagraph (B) does not affect the maximum penalty
that may be imposed under subparagraph (A) for a related
series of violations.
``(D) Notwithstanding section 3302(b) of title 31,
penalties collected under subparagraph (B)--
``(i) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the
account that funds the enforcement of subparagraph (B);
``(ii) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the
costs of such enforcement; and
``(iii) shall remain available until expended.''.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on my
Passenger Van Safety Act Bill, H.R. 1641. It deals with the dangers of
15-passenger vans. These vans have been associated with more than 500
traffic fatalities since 1990.
In 2001, the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration found
that when these vans are fully loaded, they have a rollover risk that
is six times higher than when there are only five people in the van. I
became alarmingly aware of the danger of these vans when a church group
from my district rolled over two and a half times while driving to a
religious retreat. Four passengers died in this tragic accident. Only
later did I find out that these vans were infamous for getting out of
control of the driver and rolling over.
This happened again last year when a van carrying firefighters who
were on their way to fight a wildfire raging in Colorado lost control
and rolled over more than four times, killing four of the firefighters.
These vans were initially designed to carry freight, not people; but
now they are widely used by airports, hotels, and other organizations
to transport customers and school children.
I offer my amendment to help ensure these needless tragedies end and
that our most precious cargo, our children, get home safe and sound.
This amendment would require, first, 15-passenger vans to undergo much
of the same National Traffic Highway Safety Administration testing
other passenger cars currently undergo, and require the Department of
Transportation to finalize rules to make sure that hired drivers of
these vans have the proper training.
In addition, the amendment would require NTHSA to work with van
manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of new technologies to
help drivers maintain control of their vans.
Second, it would end the near 30 years that we have had this van
loophole that has allowed schools to purchase used 15-passenger vans.
In 1974, it became illegal for schools to purchase these vans new
because of safety concerns. Why then should we continue to allow
schools to purchase them used?
The 1974 law also included a $1,000 penalty for purchasing these
vans. My amendment would increase the penalty to $25,000 and would be
retained by the Transportation Department to be used to prevent these
vans from being used illegally.
I think the amendment is a good one. I think it is a necessary one. I
think it is a needed one. But I understand there may be a technical
objection to including it in this bill.
Accordingly, I will withdraw the amendment. But first I would like to
engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
My amendments are based on a bill of mine that is now pending in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is cosponsored by
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). The bill and the
amendments were prompted by several tragedies that have happened in
Colorado and other States. These tragedies have made me acutely aware
of the danger of 15-passenger vans. In fact, these vans have been
associated with more than 500 traffic fatalities since 1990, and this
is particularly alarming because so many of them are used as school
buses.
The vehicles are highly susceptible to rollover, particularly when
they are fully loaded. In fact, they are six times more likely to roll
over when they are fully loaded than when there are only five people on
board. Unfortunately, I found out how true this is when a van belonging
to a church in my district and carrying young people crashed on the way
to a retreat. That van rolled over two and a half times, and four
people died. Then during last year's forest fires, four firefighters
were killed in Colorado when their van rolled over more than four
times.
I have seen repeated pictures of these kinds of tragedies, like the
one I have here on the floor, and believe me, one is more than enough.
There is nothing new about this danger. In fact, since 1974 schools
have been not allowed to purchase new 15-passenger vans; but there is
nothing to prevent them from purchasing the same vans once they have
been used. This loophole needs to be closed.
The intent of the 1974 law was to not have our kids transported in
these dangerous vans whether they were new or used, and I would hope
that the gentleman agrees with me about that particular concern.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his leadership on this issue.
The tragedies are not unique to Colorado. We have had similar
tragedies in the Pacific Northwest, and I think it raises very, very
severe questions about whether these vans should be on the road at all.
And I certainly would encourage the continued study and action on the
safety of these vehicles.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I think we both agree that more safety testing
needs to be done. There are a couple of tests that these vans do not
undergo that other passenger vehicles do. One is the dynamic rollover
testing program. Another is the new car assessment program.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Udall of
Colorado was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the 2 additional minutes.
Another is the new car assessment program, which currently does not
include vehicles that carry 10 to 15 passengers. These tests provide
crash data, including information about rollovers that consumers ought
to have. I hope the gentleman agrees with me about that as well.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes. As I said in my earlier statement, my understanding
is that the NTSB is continuing to study the van stability issue for
these 15-passenger vans and to see whether or not they are more likely
to roll over and cause injury or death. And since they are too
important just to be put aside, I certainly congratulate the gentleman
in his persistence in his legislation, and I believe we will
accommodate, at least partially, his concerns in a subsequent
amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman
bringing this issue before us at this
[[Page H4162]]
time and in this context. And as the chairman of the subcommittee has
indicated already, there is a problem of germaneness.
{time} 1300
But there is nothing ungermane about the point the gentleman makes.
Years ago, during debate in committee, in this body and in conference
with the other body, on the termination of the ICC, the Interstate
Commerce Commission, I tried to do this very same thing, something very
similar to this, to require a commercial driver's license for those
drivers who would pilot these 15-passenger vans. We were not able to
reach agreement on that in the conference. There was resistance from
the other body to moving in that direction.
I subsequently appealed to the NTSB to undertake an inquiry into the
stability of this caliber of vehicle, and the board is working on a
report to address the issue of passenger van stability and whether
those vehicles are more likely to roll over and cause passenger injury.
A year ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, issued a cautionary warning to users of these vans because of
increased rollover risk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Udall of
Colorado was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that there is a
serious safety problem here. It cannot be ignored. We are in the
process of crafting the successor to TEA-21. There will be an
opportunity I hope in the safety provisions of that legislation to
address the gentleman's concerns, and I look forward to working with
him and the majority on the committee to address this matter; and I
appreciate him raising the issue here before us.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim the time, I
thank the ranking member for his comments and I look forward to working
with him, and I think we both agree that this important legislation
should be brought forward to the proper committees and to the full
House when the time arrives.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Florida, if the
gentleman from Colorado would yield to the gentleman from Florida, I
hope he will concur in our consideration.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his
remarks, also for his very sincere commitment to this issue.
As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
with the committee's jurisdiction on this legislation, I look forward
to working with the gentleman from Colorado on this issue.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Fiscal Years 2003-2006.--Section 1118(a) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and''; and
(2) by striking ``such sums to'' and inserting the
following: ``$73,325,000 for fiscal year 2003, $78,757,000
for fiscal year 2004, $83,011,000 for fiscal year 2005, and
$87,539,000 for fiscal year 2006. Such sums shall''.
(b) Emergency Fund.--Section 1118(b) of such title is
amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``In addition, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase the
fund to, and maintain the fund at, a level of not to exceed
$6,000,000.''.
(c) NTSB Academy.--Section 1118 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Academy.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Board for necessary expenses of the National
Transportation Safety Board Academy, not otherwise provided
for, $3,347,000 for fiscal year 2003, $4,896,000 for fiscal
year 2004, $4,995,000 for fiscal year 2005, and $5,200,000
for fiscal year 2006. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.''.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:
SEC. 3. ACCIDENT AND SAFETY DATA CLASSIFICATION AND
PUBLICATION.
Section 1119 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Appeals.--
``(1) Notification of rights.--In any case in which an
employee of the Board determines that an occurrence
associated with the operation of an aircraft constitutes an
accident, the employee shall notify the owner or operator of
that aircraft of the right to appeal that determination to
the Board.
``(2) Procedure.--The Board shall establish and publish the
procedures for appeals under this subsection.
``(3) Limitation on applicability.--This subsection shall
not apply in the case of an accident that results in a loss
of life.''.
SEC. 4. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION'S RESPONSES TO SAFETY
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Section 1135(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(d) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) Annual secretarial regulatory status reports.--On
February 1 of each year, the Secretary shall submit a report
to Congress and the Board containing the regulatory status of
each significant safety recommendation made by the Board to
the Secretary (or to an Administration within the
Department). The Secretary shall continue to report on the
regulatory status of each such recommendation in the report
due on February 1 of subsequent years until final regulatory
action is taken on that recommendation or the Secretary (or
an Administration within the Department) determines and
states in such a report that no action should be taken.
``(2) Failure to report.--If on March 1 of each year the
Board has not received the Secretary's report required by
this subsection, the Board shall notify the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate of the Secretary's failure to
submit the required report.
``(3) Significant safety recommendation defined.--For the
purposes of this subsection, the term `significant safety
recommendation' means a recommendation included in the
Board's `most wanted list'.
``(4) Termination.--This subsection shall cease to be in
effect after the report required to be filed on February 1,
2008, is filed.''.
SEC. 5. ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.
(a) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--Section 1136
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(j) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--
``(1) General rule.--This section (other than subsection
(g)) shall not apply to an aircraft accident if the Board has
relinquished investigative priority under section
1131(a)(2)(B) and the Federal agency to which the Board
relinquished investigative priority is willing and able to
provide assistance to the victims and families of the
passengers involved in the accident.
``(2) Board assistance.--If this section does not apply to
an aircraft accident because the Board has relinquished
investigative priority with respect to the accident, the
Board shall assist, to the maximum extent possible, the
agency to which the Board has relinquished investigative
priority in assisting families with respect to the
accident.''.
(b) Revision of MOU.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the National Transportation Safety
Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall revise
their 1977 agreement on the investigation of accidents to
take into account the amendments made by this section and
shall submit a copy of the revised agreement to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 1131(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by moving subparagraphs (B) and (C) 4 ems to the
left.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Texas
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
Page 5, line 2, before the period insert the following:
and any recommendation concerning 15-passenger van safety,
railroad grade crossing safety, and medical certifications
for a commercial driver's license
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment not only
[[Page H4163]]
on my behalf but also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), from what I understand, to
require the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, on my
part of the amendment, and the NTSB on the status of any recommendation
that the NTSB has made on railroad grade crossing safety.
I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure agreeing to discuss the ways we can address this problem
further in future legislation. I would also like to thank the ranking
members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for working with me so well on this
amendment.
My community in Houston has a serious problem with railroad grade
crossings; but it is a national problem, also. There are roughly
260,000 at-grade crossings in the U.S. In 4 years, from 1999 to 2002,
over 1,600 people were killed in crossing accidents.
Thousands of these at-grade crossings have no protection devices at
all, no lights, no barriers. Even in urban areas we have no protection.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification here. The Clerk
read the amendment, but we want to make certain it is ``page 5, line 2,
before the period insert the following.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wishes to engage in a colloquy,
and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman that grade crossings
are a serious problem in this country. There has been good progress
over the past several years, but in the first month of 2003, 30 people
were killed in grade crossing accidents.
I was going to ask that the gentleman withdraw the amendment, but I
think we have an agreement to accept the amendment now.
The STB has jurisdiction over some of this matter, particularly
relating to grade crossing safety improvements. The appropriate place
to address this measure will, in fact, be in the reauthorization
legislation and also with the Federal Railroad Administration. I think
that the gentleman is correct in his pursuing this matter through that
particular legislation and those appropriate agencies.
Our proposed Ride-21 bill will provide $60 billion in new
infrastructure funding, including the elimination of all grade
crossings on new highway speed passenger lines. Perhaps we would also
welcome the gentleman as a cosponsor on this important legislation, and
I am pleased that the gentleman has modified this particular proposal
so that it is acceptable.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be more than happy
to cosponsor the Ride-21, and we know, while the STB does have
jurisdiction over all rail lines and crossings of these lines, it is
true that their ability to enforce safety considerations is unclear.
I suspect they choose not to use this authority, if they have it. If
in fact they have no authority on grade crossing safety, that needs to
be changed immediately, but I realize I will have to come back on the
STB authorization bill, and I thank the Chairman for his commitment to
address grade crossing safety issues that affect highway agencies in
the highway bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman withdraw his
reservation?
Mr. MICA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to briefly thank my colleagues who worked
diligently on the last amendment; and of course, I join the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) on
that.
I also want to specifically thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their leadership on
the overall bill.
A particular provision of the last amendment, specifically medical
certifications for a commercial driver's license, is a very important
issue for me and for tragic reasons.
Sunday, of course, we all celebrated Mother's Day, but it was also
the fourth anniversary of a terrible tragedy and accident in Louisiana.
The Mother's Day Bus Crash which was 4 years ago was the fourth worst
bus accident in U.S. history. Twenty-two passengers were killed. The
bus driver and 20 other passengers received injuries.
The driver, who survived the accident, actually died 3 months after
the deadly crash from congestive heart failure, diabetes, and kidney
ailments. He also had tested positive after the crash for marijuana.
His congestive heart failure was spotted at a medical exam prior to the
crash, which should have sidelined him automatically under Federal law,
but he was recertified anyway.
The NTSB, of course, did a thorough investigation of this horrible
crash; and basically, they blamed in the end the 1999 accident on the
driver's poor health which had been caught and should have yanked him
from behind the wheel. The agency also cited fatigue and the use of
marijuana as contributing factors, and so that is why I worked with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) on this amendment and why I am so happy the leadership on the
bill has accepted it, particularly the provisions regarding medical
certifications for a commercial driver's license.
I also want to thank and congratulate the administration and the
Department of Transportation. They just recently made announcements
regarding certain provisions they will be pushing regarding the TEA-03
bill, and those recommendations included major implementation of these
issues regarding medical certifications for commercial driver's
license.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, this is a continuing issue. Just
Tuesday, another Louisiana bus crash occurred in Lake Charles,
Louisiana. A bus carrying 53 passengers, most of them elderly, crashed
into a pickup truck, sending both vehicles into a ditch. Fortunately,
the injuries were minor, and the accident is currently under
investigation, but it certainly underscores the importance of these
issues, particularly the medical certification issue which was at the
absolute heart, the root cause of the deadly Mother's Day crash 4 years
ago.
I want to thank again the authors, co-authors of the amendment, and
the leadership on this bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin:
After section 6 add the following:
TITLE II--PROVISIONS RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Subtitle A--Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
SEC. 201. REFERENCES.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
subtitle an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment
to a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to a section or other provision of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.
(a) Six-Month Extension of Program.--Section 208 is amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), an agreement
entered into under this title shall apply to weeks of
unemployment--
``(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
``(2) ending before December 1, 2003.
``(b) Transition.--In the case of an individual who is
receiving temporary extended unemployment compensation for
the week which immediately precedes the first day of the week
that includes December 1, 2003, temporary extended
unemployment compensation shall continue to be payable to
such individual for any week thereafter from the account from
which such individual received compensation for the week
immediately preceding that termination date. No compensation
shall be payable by reason of
[[Page H4164]]
the preceding sentence for any week beginning after July 31,
2004.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).
SEC. 203. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) Weeks of TEUC Amounts.--Paragraph (1) of section 203(b)
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The amount established in an account
under subsection (a) shall be equal to 26 times the
individual's weekly benefit amount for the benefit year.''.
(b) Weeks of TEUC-X Amounts.--Section 203(c)(1) is amended
by striking ``an amount equal to the amount originally
established in such account (as determined under subsection
(b)(1))'' and inserting ``7 times the individual's weekly
benefit amount for the benefit year''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section--
(A) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of
the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21); but
(B) shall apply only with respect to weeks of unemployment
beginning on or after the date of enactment this Act, subject
to paragraph (2).
(2) Special rules.--In the case of an individual for whom a
temporary extended unemployment account was established
before the date of enactment of this Act, the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (as amended by
this subtitle) shall be applied subject to the following:
(A) Any amounts deposited in the individual's temporary
extended unemployment compensation account by reason of
section 203(c) of such Act (commonly known as ``TEUC-X
amounts'') before the date of enactment of this Act shall be
treated as amounts deposited by reason of section 203(b) of
such Act (commonly known as ``TEUC amounts''), as amended by
subsection (a).
(B) For purposes of determining whether the individual is
eligible for any TEUC-X amounts under such Act, as amended by
this subtitle--
(i) any determination made under section 203(c) of such Act
before the application of the amendments made by this
subtitle shall be disregarded; and
(ii) any such determination shall instead be made by
applying section 203(c) of such Act, as amended by this
subtitle--
(I) as of the time that all amounts established in such
account in accordance with section 203(b) of such Act (as
amended by this subtitle, and including any amounts described
in subparagraph (A)) are in fact exhausted, except that
(II) if such individual's account was both augmented by and
exhausted of all TEUC-X amounts before the date of enactment
of this Act, such determination shall be made as if
exhaustion (as described in section 203(c)(1) of such Act)
had not occurred until such date of enactment.
SEC. 204. EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIODS.
(a) Application of Revised Rate of Insured Unemployment.--
Section 207 is amended--
(1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
In''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Insured Unemployment Rate.--For purposes of carrying
out section 203(c) with respect to weeks of unemployment
beginning on or after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the term `rate of insured unemployment', as used
in section 203(d) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), has the
meaning given such term under section 203(e)(1) of such Act,
except that individuals exhausting their right to regular
compensation during the most recent 3 calendar months for
which data are available before the close of the period for
which such rate is being determined shall be taken into
account as if they were individuals filing claims for regular
compensation for each week during the period for which such
rate is being determined, and section 203(d)(1)(A) of such
Act shall be applied by substituting `either (or both)' for
`each'.''.
(b) Additional Extended Benefit Period Trigger.--
(1) In general.--Section 203(c) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Additional extended benefit period trigger.--
``(A) In general.--Effective with respect to compensation
for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, an agreement under this title
shall provide that, in addition to any other extended benefit
period trigger, for purposes of beginning or ending any
extended benefit period under this section--
``(i) there is a State `on' indicator for a week if--
``(I) the average rate of total unemployment in such State
(seasonally adjusted) for the period consisting of the most
recent 3 months for which data for all States are published
before the close of such week equals or exceeds 6 percent;
and
``(II) the average rate of total unemployment in such State
(seasonally adjusted) for the 3-month period referred to in
subclause (I) equals or exceeds 110 percent of such average
rate for either (or both) of the corresponding 3-month
periods ending in the 2 preceding calendar years; and
``(ii) there is a State `off' indicator for a week if
either the requirements of subclause (I) or (II) of clause
(i) are not satisfied.
``(B) No effect on other determinations.--Notwithstanding
the provisions of any agreement described in subparagraph
(A), any week for which there would otherwise be a State `on'
indicator shall continue to be such a week and shall not be
determined to be a week for which there is a State `off'
indicator.
``(C) Determinations made by the secretary.--For purposes
of this subsection, determinations of the rate of total
unemployment in any State for any period (and of any seasonal
adjustment) shall be made by the Secretary.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 203(c)(1) is amended by
inserting ``or (3)'' after ``paragraph (2)''.
Subtitle B--Unemployment Benefits for Individuals Qualifying Based on
Part-time Work or an Alternative Base Period
SEC. 211. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into and participate in an agreement under this subtitle with
the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this subtitle referred
to as the ``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an
agreement under this subtitle may, upon providing 30 days'
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Any agreement under subsection (a) shall
provide that the State agency of the State will make payments
of regular compensation to individuals in amounts and to the
extent that they would be determined if the State law were
applied with the modifications described in paragraph (2).
(2) Modifications described.--The modifications described
in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) In the case of an individual who is not eligible for
regular compensation under the State law because of the use
of a definition of base period that does not count wages
earned in the most recently completed calendar quarter,
eligibility for compensation under this subtitle shall be
determined by applying a base period ending at the close of
the most recently completed calendar quarter.
(B) In the case of an individual who is not eligible for
regular compensation under the State law because such
individual does not meet requirements relating to
availability for work, active search for work, or refusal to
accept work, because such individual is seeking, or is
available for, less than full-time work, compensation under
this subtitle shall not be denied by such State to an
otherwise eligible individual who seeks less than full-time
work or fails to accept full-time work.
(c) Coordination Rule.--The modifications described in
subsection (b)(2) shall also apply in determining the amount
of benefits payable under any Federal law to the extent that
those benefits are determined by reference to regular
compensation payable under the State law of the State
involved.
SEC. 212. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS UNDER THIS
SUBTITLE.
(a) General Rule.--There shall be paid to each State which
has entered into an agreement under this subtitle an amount
equal to--
(1) 100 percent of any regular compensation made payable to
individuals by such State by virtue of the modifications
which are described in section 211(b)(2) and deemed to be in
effect with respect to such State pursuant to section
211(b)(1), and
(2) 100 percent of any regular compensation--
(A) which is paid to individuals by such State by reason of
the fact that its State law contains provisions comparable to
the modifications described in section 211(b)(2), but only
(B) to the extent that those amounts would, if such amounts
were instead payable by virtue of the State law's being
deemed to be so modified pursuant to section 211(b)(1), have
been reimbursable under paragraph (1).
(b) Determination of Amount.--Sums under subsection (a)
payable to any State by reason of such State having an
agreement under this subtitle shall be payable, either in
advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by
the Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates
the State will be entitled to receive under this subtitle for
each calendar month, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any amount by which the Secretary finds that the
Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar month were
greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid
to the State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such
statistical, sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon
by the Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.
(c) Administrative and Other Expenses.--There is hereby
appropriated out of the employment security administration
account of the Unemployment Trust Fund (as established by
section 901(a) of the Social Security Act) $500,000,000 to
reimburse States for the costs of the administration of
agreements under this subtitle (including any improvements in
technology in connection therewith) and to provide
reemployment services to unemployment compensation claimants
in States having agreements under this subtitle. Each State's
share of the
[[Page H4165]]
amount appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be
determined by the Secretary according to the factors
described in section 302(a) of the Social Security Act and
certified by the Secretary to the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 213. FINANCING PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment
compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the
Social Security Act), and the Federal unemployment account
(as established by section 904(g) of the Social Security
Act), of the Unemployment Trust Fund shall be used, in
accordance with subsection (b), for the making of payments
(described in section 212(a)) to States having agreements
entered into under this subtitle.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums described in section 212(a) which are payable
to such State under this subtitle. The Secretary of the
Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by the General
Accounting Office, shall make payments to the State in
accordance with such certification by transfers from the
extended unemployment compensation account (or, to the extent
that there are insufficient funds in that account, from the
Federal unemployment account) to the account of such State in
the Unemployment Trust Fund.
SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) In general.--The terms ``compensation'', ``regular
compensation'', ``base period'', ``State'', ``State agency'',
``State law'', and ``week'' have the respective meanings
given such terms under section 205 of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, subject to
paragraph (2).
(2) State law and regular compensation.--In the case of a
State entering into an agreement under this subtitle--
(A) ``State law'' shall be considered to refer to the State
law of such State, applied in conformance with the
modifications described in section 211(b)(2), and
(B) ``regular compensation'' shall be considered to refer
to such compensation, determined under its State law (applied
in the manner described in subparagraph (A)),
except as otherwise provided or where the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
SEC. 215. APPLICABILITY.
An agreement entered into under this subtitle shall apply
to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into, and
(2) ending before July 1, 2004.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have a copy of the Cardin
amendment that is being proposed at this point, and I make a point of
order against the amendment on the grounds that it violates clause 7 of
rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane to the
bill.
Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration shall be considered
under color of amendment.
The gentleman from Maryland's amendment deals with an entirely
different subject. The amendment that I have here deals with title II
provisions relating to unemployment compensation, again having
absolutely nothing to do with the subject under consideration.
The subject of the amendment is not addressed in the underlying text
of the bill under consideration. The subject matter of the bill is
confined to the National Transportation Safety Board or matters
relating to the National Transportation Safety Board. And the amendment
falls outside the confines of the bill. The amendment, therefore, Mr.
Chairman, I believe is not germane.
Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to speak on the point
of order?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me raise three points as to
why this amendment should be made in order.
The first, the bill deals with transportation safety. Over 70,000
people in the aviation industry alone have lost their jobs in the last
2 years. They are covered by the underlying amendment, and there are
many more in the transportation industries that have lost their jobs;
and without the unemployment insurance benefits that are provided for
with the amendment that I have offered, it will jeopardize safety here
in our country.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if I might, during the consideration of the
rule, I know the Chair may not have been on the floor, so I want to
make sure I quote this accurately. During the consideration of the rule
on the floor, the floor manager on behalf of the majority stated very
clearly that the rule allowed any amendment by any Member. Mr.
Chairman, this is an amendment, and I am a Member.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out the third reason. We have shown
resourcefulness in this body as the people's House, the body that is
closest to the people, to let democratic procedures go forward to
determine urgent issues. The underlying amendment deals with the
extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits that are due to
expire at the end of this month.
{time} 1315
This House, as I said before I was interrupted, this body has shown
resourcefulness in the rulings of the Chair, resourcefulness within the
actions of our Members to deal with legislation in a timely way when
there is an urgent issue. We are the people's House.
As I pointed out, 1 million people have lost their unemployment
insurance. They have exhausted it. Two million people will exhaust
their State unemployment insurance benefits within the next 6 months.
This underlying bill simply extends the Federal unemployment insurance
benefit program for 6 months. It allows for those who have exhausted
benefits to be able to receive their benefits, another million people,
and makes it easier for us to deal with those who are seeking part-time
employment.
I would urge the Chair to exercise the discretion of the Chair, with
only 6 days remaining before the expiration of this program, to permit
this amendment to be in order, considering the statements of the floor
managers, considering so many people that are in the transportation
industry that are affected by being unemployed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does any other Member wish to
speak?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Florida
makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland is not germane.
Clause 7 of Rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no
proposition on a subject different than that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment. Two of the central tenets of the
germaneness rule are that an amendment should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill and should not address
subject matters not addressed by the bill.
The bill, H.R. 1527, was referred to and reported by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland proposes to
extend unemployment insurance benefits, a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. By addressing a matter
outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and beyond the range of matters addressed by the bill,
the amendment is not germane.
The point of order is sustained.
Are there other amendments?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I respectively move to appeal the ruling of
the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 200, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 191]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
[[Page H4166]]
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Brown, Corrine
Dunn
Gephardt
Jones (OH)
Knollenberg
Miller, Gary
Pastor
Schrock
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood)(during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1338
Mr. ACKERMAN and Mr. WEINER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SHIMKUS and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 7. STUDIES.
(a) In General.--The National Transportation Safety Board
shall conduct a separate study on each of the following
subjects:
(1) The impact of age on the competence and qualifications
of airline pilots.
(2) The impact of the use of rail systems in high
population density cities, including any city with a
population of more than 1,000,000 persons.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than February 1, 2004,
the Board shall transmit to Congress a report on each of the
studies conducted under subsection (a).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point
of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to
thank the chairman and ranking member for the opportunity to put
forward these amendments even in the context of a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, as we note the legislation that is before us, the
underlying legislation, the National Transportation Safety Board
reauthorization, the word ``safety'' is emphasized or reinforced. As I
discuss my amendments, might I just acknowledge the 22nd annual
National Peace Officers Memorial Service and pay tribute to those law
enforcement officers throughout the Nation who provide us with a safe
coming and going.
My amendment, however, Mr. Chairman, simply focuses on the question
of safety in two aspects, and it is simply a study to provide us with
greater insight to enhance the safety of the travel of Americans and
others in this system. My amendment requires a request, if you will,
the question to be studied of the impact of age on the competence and
qualifications of airline pilots.
Secondarily, Mr. Chairman, it also asks a very, I think, probing
question that has faced both rural, urban, and suburban areas and that
is the impact of the use of rail systems in high population density
areas including any city with a population of more than 1 million
persons.
Mr. Chairman, having spoken to some Members on the floor, I realize
that this study may even need to be expanded, as I said earlier, to
urban and rural areas as well.
Let me first briefly address the question of the age of pilots,
currently the age of 60, the mandatory retirement age for airline
pilots. The FAA rule prohibiting pilots over 60 from flying
commercially has been on the books since 1959. Might I say to you, Mr.
Chairman, that we realize that the age of Americans has exponentially
grown since that time. We are healthier, we are living longer, we are
stronger, and we are prepared to work. And so this is, of course, a
concern as to whether or not this is a relevant age.
At the time, the agency was worried about older pilots making a
transition to turbo jet aircraft. The FAA also cited concerns about
heart problems, fatigue and reaction time. Consequently, each year over
1,000 seasoned employees as pilots are forced to retire. I believe
medical science suggests that we minimally should study the question
and whether or not the age of 60 is arbitrary as a cutoff time. A 1993
study has shown no increase in accidents as pilots approach age 60; but
the FAA, of course, wants to consider such data. I believe it is
important to look at the question again. I would hope my colleagues
would consider such. In a letter sent to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the vice
[[Page H4167]]
president of the CAMA, Dr. James Almand, wrote: ``The consensus of the
association is that mandatory retirement age for an airline pilot who
has reached the age of 60 is without medical basis.''
So I believe it is an important question to study.
{time} 1345
Secondarily, my amendment also hopefully provide relief, Mr.
Chairman, to the thousands upon thousands of residential communities
that are plagued by high-speed rail; when I say high speed, high-
traffic rail. This is not in disrespect to the fact that rail is very
important to America. In fact, I am a proponent of the light rail in
the city of Houston, but I would simply like us to study the question
of how we can diminish some of the problems that incur when these
interstate trafficking or traveling interferes with the coming and
going of residential neighborhoods. I believe it is an important
safety, environmental and economic issue.
And one of the areas in my community that has been plagued is the
housing development where people simply want to live with a good
quality of life, but because they happen to live in a housing
development, a housing project, they are suffering the intrusions of
children being hit, losing arms and limbs, and an unfortunate and bad
situation as it relates to their home.
I would hope my colleagues would consider the idea of studying and
working with me on these issues. I realize that we have work to do and
places to go.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the issues that have
been raised by the gentlewoman from Texas. I think she makes some very
valid points. They are issues that need to be considered, but we do not
think they should be in the context of this particular legislative item
before us. We are willing to work with her and also consider them in
other appropriate legislation. So we thank the gentlewoman, and we hope
that she would consider withdrawing her amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises very valid points,
the rail safety. The impact of rail on both rural and urban communities
is very significant. The appropriate place for such a study for this
issue to be raised would be in the successor legislation to TEA-21,
which our committee will be considering.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-
Lee was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to
yield, the flight surgeon of the FAA has over a period of 20 years
conducted studies of the appropriateness of the age 60 rule. The
conclusion of the FAA is that it is best left in place as it is. The
NTSB does not have the personnel expertise to conduct a study of the
magnitude the gentlewoman is proposing. The appropriate venue is the
FAA, which does continue to monitor this issue, and we will be glad to
continue to discuss with the gentlewoman her concern about this matter
in another venue.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say I am very
appreciative of this dialogue and discourse. I wanted to thank the full
committee Chair and the full committee ranking member as well as the
subcommittee Chair and ranking member. This is a fair response to
issues that we are very concerned about in my community, and I would
like to look forward to working with them on this issue.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and to
proceed to work with the committee on what I believe are very crucial
issues to the quality of life in my communities.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that would lead to
commission a study to determine the impact of the age factor on the
competence and qualifications of airline pilots. The amendment also
calls for commission of a study to determine the impact of the use of
rail systems in high population density cities and/or cities with
populations over 1 million persons.
Currently, age 60 is the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.
The FAA rule prohibiting pilots over 60 from flying commercially has
been on the books since 1959. At that time the agency was worried about
older pilots making a transition to turbo-jet aircraft. The FAA also
cited concerns about heart problems, fatigue and reaction time.
Consequently, each year over 1,000 pilots are forced to retire.
Times and medical science have changed, and now people are living
longer, healthier lives. At this time the mandatory retirement age may
or may not still be reasonable. This amendment is aimed at creating a
study to determine the truth, one way or the other.
Some pilots argue the cut-off age is arbitrary, and that frequent
physicals for airline pilots provide an adequate safeguard. All airline
pilots, regardless of age, must pass a flight physical every 6 months.
A 1993 study has shown no increase in accidents as pilots approach
age 60. But the FAA questions the data. The FAA says the accident rate
for pilots age 60 to 63 was statistically greater than the accident
rate for pilots age 55 to 59. However, the FAA has said that it cannot
be certain whether raising the retirement age above 60 would maintain
or raise the level of safety.
On the other hand, the Air Line Pilots Association opposes changing
the mandatory retirement age. The Air Line Pilots Association says that
medical science has not developed tests to identify those aging pilots
who are, or will become, incapacitated. In fact, the Civil Aviation
Medical Association, CAMA, the group that represents the flight
physicians who test pilots every year, has called the retirement rule
``unjust and unfounded.''
In a letter sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation a CAMA Vice
President Dr. James Almand wrote, ``The consensus of the Association is
that mandatory retirement for an airline pilot who has reached the age
of 60 is without medical basis. Flight physicians belonging to this
Association perform the majority of physical examinations for these
airline pilots and it is observed that most pilots who have attained
the age of 60 are indeed healthy and do not show physical or mental
adverse changes in their ability to pilot an aircraft.''
This issue is especially relevant now because the United States has
faced a pilot shortage. At times, the shortage has caused airlines to
cancel flights because a sufficient number of pilots just could not be
found. In addition, reports say that nearly half the current airline
pilots will be forced to retire in the next 10 years. That means less
experienced pilots are moving into cockpits more quickly, while the
Nation's most experienced pilots are being sent into retirement.
This amendment will lead to a study to determine the impact of age on
the competence and qualifications of airline pilots. Such a study will
allow us to set conjecture aside so that we may deal with facts when
discussing age and the competency of our Nation's airline pilots.
The study will facilitate the determination of whether the mandatory
retirement age of 60 is a prudent policy or simply an idea that's time
has passed.
The second part of the amendment calls for a study on the impact of
the use of rail systems in high population density cities. Such a study
is crucial to determine the factors that impact the safety of such
rails systems in our nation's cities.
There are safety, environmental, and economic issues that must be
further evaluated to ensure the most beneficial use of such rail
systems. This amendment would lead to a study to evaluate those
matters.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment that
aims to gather information to improve this country's transportation
systems.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1527) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize
appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal
years
[[Page H4168]]
2003 through 2006, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
229, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________