[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11940-11957]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 11941]]

     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. Speaker, House Resolution 229 is an open rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board 
Reauthorization Act of 2003. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions. Obviously, this is a fair rule. It is a totally open 
rule, one that provides ample opportunity to debate this important 
reauthorization before us today.
  Last year, the House passed essentially the same bill by suspension, 
but the other body failed to consider the legislation. The House then 
must again act this year to ensure that the NTSB has the funding 
necessary to carry out its important tasks.
  The NTSB was established in 1967 as an independent agency with the 
task of investigating transportation accidents, conducting 
transportation safety studies, issuing recommendations, aiding victims' 
families after disasters, and promoting general transportation safety.
  Since 1967, NTSB has investigated over 114,000 aviation accidents. 
The NTSB's constant participation in transportation safety, evidenced 
through 12,000 recommendations to regulators, operators and users of 
transportation systems, has made them the government leader in crash 
investigation. I think what is even more impressive is that 82 percent 
of their recommendations have actually been adopted by these regulatory 
and transportation bodies.
  This bill will increase the effectiveness of the board by authorizing 
funding through fiscal year 2006 at levels necessary to carry out their 
investigative mission both here and at aviation disasters abroad.
  The bill requires that the Department of Transportation issue an 
annual report on the progress and adaptation of the board's safety 
recommendations. It is crucial that the Department of Transportation 
and that this Congress work to ensure that all recommendations are 
being met by the public.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill requires that the NTSB turn over their 
involvement in an aviation disaster to the FBI in the case of an 
intentional criminal act. This action would be taken by the Attorney 
General in consultation with the chairman of the NTSB. I think it is 
very important that in the event of any criminal aviation disaster, 
such as the one experienced during 9/11, 2001, the rescue of survivors 
obviously remain a first priority, but the apprehension of those 
involved commence immediately.
  H.R. 1527 is a good bill, important to the continued transportation 
safety of the Nation, in not only responding to accidents but taking 
steps, through recommendations, to prevent further tragedies.
  The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of committee by 
voice vote. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, as well as his ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Mr. Speaker, this 
important bill recognizes, by reauthorizing essential funding to the 
board, the importance of this activity charged with investigating 
tragedies and promoting transportation safety.
  This has been a bipartisan effort throughout the consideration of the 
bill, from consideration in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to this very obviously fair rule reported out of the 
Committee on Rules, which continues, I think, this constructive debate 
by allowing all amendments in order under the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both this important 
underlying legislation as well as the rule before us to bring it to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 11942]]

top-notch investigators to search and find answers, and accordingly, to 
provide some measure of comfort to the haunting questions that will 
come with all such fatal accidents.
  Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 
114,000 aviation accidents and 10,000 surface transportation accidents; 
and as a result of their diligence, the NTSB has earned the reputation 
as one of the world's foremost accident investigative authorities. They 
are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, prepared to go anywhere, 
at any time, to perform the difficult job we have assigned to them.
  We are grateful to the NTSB for the service they provide, and this 
bill and the corresponding funding levels reaffirm our collective 
confidence in their performance.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps not as well known is the significant role that 
they play in shaping national transportation safety policies. In 
addition to its investigative function, the NTSB conducts numerous 
safety studies and issues recommendations designed to prevent future 
transportation accidents. In fact, the NTSB has issued more than 11,600 
such safety recommendations in all modes of transportation.
  Since 1990, the NTSB has refined these recommendations and published 
a Most Wanted list of safety improvements to highlight certain issues; 
and despite its lack of regulatory authority, the NTSB has actually 
succeeded in seeing 80 percent of its safety recommendations adopted in 
some fashion or another.
  This success rate is no doubt due in large part to the credibility 
and respect the NTSB commands among Federal transportation agencies, 
Members of Congress, and the transportation industry.
  Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the NTSB's sterling 
reputation that I am concerned that they have not done more 
comprehensive analysis around the issue of the size and weight of big 
trucks on our Nation's highways.
  As I have already expressed, I have high regard for the NTSB. 
However, while they have published several safety studies on individual 
and discrete components of big trucks, it has not fully addressed the 
more pressing issue of truck size and weight. In my estimation, the 
absence of truck size and weight on the NTSB's Most Wanted list of 
safety improvements is a glaring omission.
  There are few transportation safety issues that represent a greater 
threat to public safety than the need to freeze the size and weight of 
trucks on our roadways. Five thousand people die each year and another 
100,000 are injured in crashes with heavy trucks. In my home State of 
Massachusetts, 31 people died and another 385 were injured in 2001 in 
crashes with heavy trucks.
  I shudder to think how these numbers will climb if the trucking 
industry succeeds in convincing Members of this body that still bigger 
trucks are somehow necessary, that 120-foot triple-long trailer trucks 
on our Nation's highways are actually a good idea.
  The alarming statistics I have just cited only begin to describe the 
human cost of bigger trucks. They do not even begin to describe the 
economic devastation that bigger trucks will also cause to our Nation's 
roads and bridges which are already in deplorable conditions. In 
Massachusetts, more than 50 percent of the bridges have been determined 
to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The U.S. DOT has 
estimated that longer combination vehicles could cause Americans as 
much as $319 billion in total. This is a cost we cannot afford.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of truck size and weight deserves the expert 
analysis of the National Transportation Safety Board; and most 
importantly, the American driving public deserves to be protected from 
the danger of bigger trucks on our roads and highways.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. We need to bring up the issue of unemployment 
compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 11943]]

tax bill that passed the House last week and what is now under 
consideration in the Senate. This extension is important to America's 
working families and to our economy.
  Economists tell us that extending unemployment benefits is the most 
effective way to quickly grow the economy and create jobs. It is fair, 
fast-acting and fiscally sound. For every dollar that the Federal 
Government invests in unemployment benefits, the return is $1.73 to the 
economy. In contrast, for every dollar the Federal Government provides 
to cut taxes on dividends, the return to the economy is 9 cents. This 
is nonsensical.
  The plan proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I commend them for their 
leadership, would provide a 6-month extension of the Federal 
unemployment benefits program. It would provide 26 weeks of Federal 
benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and another 13 weeks for 
workers who have already exhausted their benefits without finding a new 
job in this stagnant economy. None of the Republican tax plans, the 
President's, the House Republicans and the House Senate Republicans, 
provides one thin dime for unemployed workers.
  Again, I want to reiterate why this is important, because contrary to 
what the Republicans are proposing, which provides 9 cents to the 
economy, extending Federal unemployment benefits puts $1.73 into the 
economy. Why? Because it puts money into the hands of unemployed 
workers and their families. They need that money to spend on 
necessities. The spending of that money injections demand into the 
economy, thereby creating jobs. The tax dividend proposal does not do 
that.
  The unemployment rate today is higher than when the temporary Federal 
unemployment benefits were first approved in March of last year, but 
Republicans have decided that instead of helping unemployed workers, 
they should give people who make $1 million a year an average of 
$100,000 in tax breaks. How can that be right?
  While Republicans insist on tax breaks for those who need it least, 
our Democratic priorities are clear: We will fight to get the economy 
back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed 
workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
on the rule; vote ``yes'' to extend unemployment benefits for 9 million 
Americans who cannot find work in this stagnant economy.
  How can we go down this course of action where we make the same 
mistake twice? The President came in and gave over a trillion dollars 
in tax cuts. Now 2.7 million Americans lose their jobs, and they step 
up to the plate again and offer more of the same. Job losers. Do not 
even take my word for it, take the word of the Joint Taxation 
Committee, which is Republican, which is directed by the rules of the 
108th Congress to score dynamically, giving every benefit of every 
doubt to the plan. It is a job loser by their estimation.
  So we have to take a different course of action. One remedy that 
helps the economy and helps unemployed workers is extending the 
unemployment benefits. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for 
their leadership on this.
  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. 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. 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

[[Page 11944]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11945]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 11946]]

       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
     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.

[[Page 11947]]

  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, 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

[[Page 11948]]

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 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

[[Page 11949]]

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 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

[[Page 11950]]

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:
       ``(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.

[[Page 11951]]

  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 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.

[[Page 11952]]


  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 
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.

[[Page 11953]]

  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 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

[[Page 11954]]

       (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 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

[[Page 11955]]

       (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
     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)

[[Page 11956]]


     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 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 occur 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.

[[Page 11957]]

  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 homes.
  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 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.

                          ____________________