James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute which provides substantially more funding for transportation over the next 10 years than does the budget resolution provided by the Republican majority. Given the congestion in the Nation's transportation system, we must do better; and this Democratic substitute does better. The intent of the majority resolution is to honor the funding guarantees for highway, transit, and aviation as provided in TEA 21 and AIR 21; but the committee developed their resolution based on the administration's budget resolution, and they got it wrong. The budget resolution brought to the floor by the majority does not include enough transportation funding under Function 400 to honor the firewalls of TEA 21 and AIR 21 and provide necessary funding for the Coast Guard. This is not an issue of partisan politics, counting things differently. The administration admits they got it wrong. Ten days ago they admitted they got it wrong. OMB wrote to the Committee on the Budget to explain the understated transportation amounts necessary to fund the President's proposed budget. Last night, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, in a discussion on the floor with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, got assurances that the chairman would work to restore funding to honor TEA 21 and AIR 21 in conference, and I commend our chairman for that effort. But the point is that what we are voting on does not provide enough funding for the transportation programs that it claims to fund. They have had 10 days to fix it. They even had a rule that included a self-executing amendment to the resolution; and we could have had it fixed there, but they did not do it. In contrast, the Democratic substitute fully funds TEA 21 and AIR 21 guarantees for highway, transit, and aviation investments. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) does not say with a wink, I will take care of it later. He says, it is in here; add it up. The $33 billion additional is there to deal with these issues. Let us deal with the Democratic substitute. Still worse than the disservice to transportation is the majority's treatment of education in this budget resolution. The Republican budget increases appropriated funding for the Department of Education by only $2.4 billion, or 5.7 percent, over the 2001 enacted levels. This is less than half the average increase Congress has granted education appropriations for the last five years. The Democratic budget, however, provides $4.8 billion more in appropriated funding for education and related services than the Republican budget. Over the ten-year period from 2002 to 2011, the Democratic budget provides $129 billion more for education than the Republican plan. These funds allow Democrats to boost funding for critical priorities including class size reduction, school renovation, special education, and Pell grants and other higher education programs. This past Sunday, I met with teachers and administrators of Duluth area schools, as well as state legislators, all of whom underscored the need for significantly greater investment in education. They shared with me their views on the need for greater education partnership with and expanded investment from the federal government. For example, Frank Wanner, a teacher from the Duluth School District, said that in 1978 he had $1700 for classroom materials; today, the allocations buy only a box of Kleenex. Similarly, Russ Berntson of Proctor, Minnesota, said that 3,000 layoffs are expected in my home state of Minnesota in the next year due to underfunding and declining enrollment. This kind of disrespect for public education must stop. Clearly, the Democratic substitute offers a substantially greater investment in education and the future of our country than does the committee or the administration budget resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time and compliment the gentleman from Illinois on managing his first two bills as our new ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management and our new chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, on his new and fitting chairmanship which I know he will discharge with great distinction as he has always done in all of his service in the Congress. It is really with a full heart that I come to the floor with this legislation to name the Federal building for Jim Corman. Congressman Corman was my friend and in a way a mentor on decency and civility and dignity from the time I began my service in the House as a member of the staff of my predecessor, John Blatnik, with whom Jim Corman was very close. And through work on the Democratic Study Group, through work on civil rights, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which largely was shaped in the office of John Blatnik, who with the then Kennedy administration staffers and Justice Department, Jim Corman was a solid, unyielding, unbending voice for the strongest possible language and the most comprehensive framing of that legislation to address the wrongs of our society. Jim Corman was born in poverty, raised without a father, whom he lost while Jim was still very young, his father also young, and resolved to overcome poverty and distress. He like so many of his generation served voluntarily in World War II as a member of the United States Marine Corps. He came out battle hardened, tough, but still filled with compassion for the greatest needs in society. He constantly referred to those memories while speaking on legislation considered in this Chamber known as the Great Society programs for which he was a passionate advocate. His service on what was popularly known as the Kerner Commission, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, was along with his advocacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 surely one of the highlights of his career. He embodied civility, decency, dignity of bearing, respect for the institution, appreciation for the traditions of the House and for the civility that is necessary in floor debate. He was the very model of decorum. But it is also fitting that at this time we take up the naming of a public building and Federal building in his memory that we do so at a time when election reform is at the forefront of everyone's agenda. Jim Corman, I think, had only one regret about public service, and that was that the election was called too early. Television reports from exit polls on the East Coast were flashed across the country to California. President Carter's own early concession caused people standing in line, waiting to vote, to turn around and leave. And Jim Corman always felt and I think studies later confirmed that those were largely votes that would have returned him to office. As we designate this Federal building, let us also redouble our efforts at election reform to cure the ills of the past as Jim Corman worked so hard to cure the ills of racial divide and divisiveness in America, to restore dignity to the election process as he worked so hard to restore dignity to African Americans and to others who were neglected and left aside in the prosperity of our great country. I urge the adoption of this legislation. To his devoted wife, Nancy, their two sons, Adam and Brian, I offer my profound sympathy as well as my congratulations on the designation of the James C. Corman Federal Building.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Child Passenger Safety Week. This national observance reminds parents and caregivers of the importance of buckling up children correctly on every ride. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 1999, motor vehicle crashes killed more than 1,400 children (infants to age 14) and injured another 300,000. Six out of 10 children killed in these crashes were completely unrestrained. This is simply unacceptable. Today, I introduce a bill to continue for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program authorized by Section 2003(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). The bill authorizes $7.5 million for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the Secretary of Transportation to make incentive grants to states to encourage the implementation of child passenger protection programs in those states. Current authorizations for the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program expire at the end of fiscal year 2001, whereas authorizations for virtually all other TEA 21 programs expire at the end of fiscal year 2003. To increase seat belt use nationwide, the previous Administration established goals to reduce the number of child occupant fatalities 15 percent by 2000 and 25 percent by 2005. The Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program has played an important role in helping the Department meet the first of these goals. Since 1997, the number of child fatalities resulting from traffic crashes has declined 17 percent, exceeding the goal of 15 percent by 2000. Restraint use for infants has risen to 97 percent from 85 percent in 1996, and has climbed to 91 percent for children aged one to four, up from 60 percent in 1996. Under my bill, a state may use its grant funds to implement programs that are designed to: Prevent deaths and injuries to children; Educate the public concerning all aspects of the proper installation of child restraints, appropriate child restraint design, selection, and placement, and harness threading and harness adjustment on child restraints; and Train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use. A state may carry out its child passenger protection education activities through a state program or through grants to political subdivisions of the state or to an appropriate private entity. Each state that receives a grant must submit a report that describes the program activities carried out with the funds made available under the grant. Not later than June 1, 2002, the Secretary of Transportation shall report to Congress on the implementation of the program, including a description of the programs carried out and materials developed and distributed by the states that receive grants under the program. In each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Transportation Appropriations Act provided $7.5 million to finance the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program. It is essential that we continue to provide funding for the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program to ensure that we make progress in preventing deaths and injuries to children on the nation's highways, and achieve our goal of a 25 percent reduction in child occupant fatalities by 2005.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 559, a bill to designate the Federal Courthouse in Boston in honor of Congressman Joe Moakley. It is with great respect that we honor one of Congress' most prolific workers and dedicated Members with this designation. Joe Moakley is a true Bostonian. He was born in Boston on April 27, 1927. He attended local schools, and at the young age of 15 joined the U.S. Navy, serving in the South Pacific during World War II. After the war, Joe attended the University of Miami. Upon his return to Boston he attended Suffolk University Law School and received his law degree in 1956. In 1952, at the age of 25, Joe was elected to the Massachusetts legislature. From 1952 until 1960 he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and from 1962 until 1970, he served in the Massachusetts Senate. He specialized in urban affairs and environmental legislation. In 1971, topping the ticket with a record-breaking vote in both the primary and general elections, Joe Moakley won a seat on the Boston City Council. Just 2 years later he was elected to represent the Ninth Congressional District. After his first term he was appointed to a seat on the House Rules Committee--a seat previously held by former Speaker Tip O'Neill, Jr., his close friend and mentor. In June 1989, Congressman Moakley was appointed chairman of the House Rules Committee, which controls the flow of legislation and set terms for floor debate. In 1995, Mr. Moakley became the committee's ranking member. All of us will be known for our legislative achievements but few will be remembered for their broad concern for humanity. For Joe Moakley, it is one of the ways in which he distinguishes himself. In 1989, Joe embarked on his most ambitious mission concerning abuses of human rights. His outrage at the blatant murder of six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter in 1989 in El Salvador propelled him into a national investigation that culminated in the Moakley report. This searing document revealed the involvement of several high-ranking Salvadoran military officials in the murders. The findings in this report resulted in the termination of United States military aid to El Salvador. It also led to his concern with the School of Americas. More importantly, the people of the small village of Santa Marta had their sense of justice and fairness renewed and refreshed by the diligence and hard work of Joe Moakley. Although Joe's concern for abuses of human rights brought him international attention, he proudly remained a ``bread and butter'' and ``nuts and bolts'' politician--caring and concentrating on the people of the Ninth Congressional District in his beloved Boston. His efforts resulted in securing funds for, among other things, the dredging of Boston Harbor, renovation of the World Trade Center, bridges for access to the Boston waterfront, the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University, Boston Public Library, and economic development in the Miles Standish Industrial Park in Taunton. His constituents benefited from his dedication to environmental protection. He was instrumental in establishing the Boston Harbor Islands National Park, and as previously mentioned, he secured funds to clean up Boston Harbor. He did not forget historic preservation-- Faneuiel Hall, The African Meeting House, the Old South Church, the Freedom Trail, the U.S.S. Constitution, and the Boston Customs House all received necessary funding to preserve these American treasures. During his career, over 5,100 congressional actions bear the name Joe Moakley. His interests include support for the Olympics, regulatory review, Medicare, human rights, civil rights, violence, police protection, education, environmental protections, energy assistance programs for the poor and elderly, landmark legislation designating arson as a major crime, merchant marines issues, and international affairs. Joe Moakley has received numerous awards and honors including an honorary doctorate from Suffolk University, and an honorary doctorate from Northeastern University in political science. Of course, no picture of Joe Moakley would be complete without mentioning his boundless Irish wit, his legendary expertise at telling a story, his unfailing courtesy, kindness, and immense generosity. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with an Irish blessing for our esteemed colleague Joe Moakley: May the friendships you make, Be those which endure, And all of your grey clouds Be small ones for sure. And trusting in Him To whom we all pray, May a song fill your heart, Every step of the way. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support H.R. 559 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 554, the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2001. Although passenger trains are a very safe way for people to travel, even railroads sometimes have accidents that cause serious injuries and loss of life. When rail passenger accidents do happen, they can occur in relatively remote locations and/or in the middle of the night. Moden communications allow for the transmission of news of the event to travel around the nation only minutes after it happens. Families with relatives on board can only hope and pray that their loved ones were not among those killed or injured. In some cases, the families are not even certain whether their loved one was on the train that had the accident. The tragic accident at Bourbonnais, IL, in March 1999 that took the lives of 11 Amtrak passengers and injured 49 others was the most recent such tragedy. At these times, it is imperative that the needs of the families of the accident victims be treated with as much compassion as possible and that their need for information about their loved ones be promptly and accurately addressed. The purpose of this legislation is to help create a process that, at a minimum, does not make an already highly emotional situation even more traumatic for family members. It requires that all passenger railroads engaged in interstate transportation submit a plan to the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to address the needs of families of passengers involved in any railroad accident where there is major loss of life. The plan must address a number of key areas, including the publication of a reliable toll-free number to handle calls from family members, procedures for developing passenger lists, and a process for notifying family members. In addition, the plan must specify the ongoing obligations (such as the disposition of the traveler's personal effects) that the carrier has with respect to the information and services to be provided to the family members throughout the duration of the disaster. In recognition of the need for a professional and reliable focal point to be responsible for interacting with family members, H.R. 554 provides that the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board will identify a Board employee to serve as the Federal Government's point of contact and serve as a liaison between the railroads and the family members. The bill further instructs the NTSB Chairman to designate an independent nonprofit organization that has experience with disaster relief efforts, such as the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, to be responsible for coordinating the emotional care and support of the families of passengers involved in the accident. At such trying times, it is extremely important that families be handled by individuals and organizations experienced in providing compassionate assistance. I would like to stress, however, that this legislation is not in response to any inaction or any inappropriate actions by Amtrak. Indeed, Amtrak has already adopted many of the elements called for in this bill, and Amtrak supports this bill that largely codifies its current practices. However, under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Amtrak is no longer the only railroad that can conduct interstate rail passenger operations. Since that law was enacted, a number of states have begun efforts to launch new conventional or high- speed rail passenger services. Therefore, we need to be prepared for a future of multiple rail passenger service providers. One element of this bill I find particularly important is the prohibition against unsolicited communications by attorneys until 45 days following an accident. In times of tragedy, family members are especially vulnerable to the unscrupulous who would prey upon them. Only last week, an Amtrak passenger train rear-ended a CSX freight train just outside of Syracuse, NY. More than 60 people were injured, many of whom were physically challenged and traveling as a group. Along with the emergency responders, there were two men at the scene soliciting for legal work related to the accident. The men were handing out business cards and other material. This kind of shameless behavior is unethical; our bill would make it also illegal. Although I am pleased that in its Statement of Administration Policy the Bush Administration supports passage of this important bill, I am concerned that the Administration indicates that it believes there may be First Amendment problems with this section of the bill (Section 2(g)(2)). To the best of my knowledge, the Administration has not contacted the Committee to outline the reasons for its concerns with the prohibition on unsolicited contact by attorneys after a rail accident. I hope that the Administration is aware of the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., in which the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not prohibit the Florida Bar from prohibiting lawyers from sending targeted direct mail solicitations to victims and relatives for 30 days after an accident. I see no difference between this decision and the prohibition in our bill. In addition, I hope the Administration is aware that, under current law, this same type of prohibition applies to unsolicited communications to families of the victims of airline crashes. In the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996, we recognized the importance of the need to provide families of aircraft accident victims with reliable information and compassionate treatment. I have spoken with aviation accident families and they have told me that the 1996 legislation has worked well in assisting families in the most difficult of times. During our consideration of that Act, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America wrote to the Committee regarding that Act's aviation disaster assistance provisions and stated, in relevant part: * * * This legislation will lend much-needed support to the families of victims of airline disasters. In particular, the Association strongly supports sec. 5. This provision states the sense of Congress that state bar associations should adopt rules prohibiting unsolicited contact concerning a legal action with victims or aggrieved families within 30 days of an accident. ATLA's longstanding Code of Contact goes even further, and entirely prohibits unsolicited contact, regardless of when the accident occurred. We believe that the 30 day time period you provide in the bill is a reasonable minimum period during which victims and their families should not be bothered against their will with the sometimes painful question of compensation. However, we urge the committee to go further, by strengthening this bill to also prohibiting unsolicited contact by anyone concerning potential claims they or their loved ones may have. Until a family decides to consider its options with regard to compensation, no party should take advantage of them during this delicate emotional time.-- (Association of Trial Lawyers of America, September 10, 1996) I applaud the Association of Trial Lawyers and the many State Bar Associations that have supported our efforts to stop this unethical conduct. I look forward to working with the Administration to address any new concerns that it has. We have provided some solace to the families of victims of aviation disasters. We should do no less for those who choose to ride our nation's passenger trains.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly great American, Michael Nadon, whom the Lord claimed for eternal life earlier this month. Michael J. Nadon, a certificated aircraft dispatcher and a decorated veteran of the conflict in Viet Nam, passed away unexpectedly on February 3rd, 2001. Winner of the Bronze Star and recipient of three Purple Hearts, Mike displayed quiet courage in the face of all of life's challenges. On January 13th, 1967, as a member of the First Infantry Division, severely wounded, he refused medical treatment and continued to assist others while under heavy fire. Certainly, some of this courage and character came from his father, Joe, a World War II fighter pilot. As a charter member and past president of the Airline Dispatchers Federation (ADF), Mike was instrumental in changing regulations to improve aviation safety in the National Airspace System. Thanks to Mike, the safest form of mass transportation in the world is safer still. His contributions were numerous, his spirit was unbroken, his intellect was great and his heart was huge. Mike Nadon will be missed by his family, by his friends, and by his country.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on January 3, I introduced legislation, the Binational Great Lakes-Seaway Enhancement Act of 2001, to improve the competitiveness of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and restore its vitality. Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway more than 40 years ago, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system has become a vital transportation corridor for the United States. The Seaway connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean and makes it possible to ship manufactured products from our industrial Midwest and grains from the Upper Plains directly to overseas markets. Benefits of efficient operations of this transportation route are not limited to the Great Lakes region but extend throughout the United States. Congress recognized the broader impacts and, accordingly, designated the Great Lakes as America's fourth seacoast in 1970. The Great Lakes region and the international markets recognized the system's potential, as evidenced by the sharp rise in vessel and cargo traffic through the Seaway after its opening in 1959. Unfortunately, that potential was never fulfilled. The upward trend in cargo traffic peaked around 1977-79. It then went into a long decline, precipitated in part by a nationwide economic recession that hit the manufacturing sector particularly hard, and prolonged in part because of capacity constraints imposed by the Seaway. Locks on the Seaway and the Great Lakes were built as long ago as 1895. New locks constructed for the Seaway between the mid- and late- 1950s, as authorized by Congress in 1954, were built to the same size as those completed in 1932. Locks and connecting channels were limited to 27 feet of draft. Because vessel size had grown over time, Seaway facilities were too small on opening day to serve the commercial fleet then in existence. Today, they are capable of accommodating no more than 30% of the world's commercial fleet. An undersized Seaway that denies large, specialized, and efficient vessels access to the system will prevent U.S. products, especially those from the Great Lakes region, from competing effectively in the global economy. In addition to declining traffic, inadequate investment in Seaway infrastructure caused the mix of cargoes shipped through the system to be transformed from one that was diverse to one composed largely of low-value commodities. Although the trend of cargo tonnage through the system turned up once again in 1993, current cargo mix consists of essentially steel coming to the Great Lakes region from abroad, grains going overseas, and iron ore and coal moving from one port to another within the region. Since the late 1980s, industrial manufacturing in the United States has recovered through investment in technology and corporate restructuring. Industrial production is flourishing once more in the Great Lakes region; Midwest economies are booming. Yet, only a small volume of high-value finished goods is shipped through the system. The Great Lakes region, therefore, has not been able to participate fully in this resurgence of economic strength due to limitations in the Seaway's capacity. As we enter a new millennium, it is fitting that the Great Lakes- Seaway system is given an opportunity to modernize its structure and facilities so that it can compete on an equal footing with other transportation routes such as coastal ports and the Mississippi River. The United States has great seaports on its Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. The Mississippi River, likewise, is an extremely vital inland maritime transportation artery in the mid-section of the country. A competitive and successful Great Lakes-Seaway system would complement these other major transportation routes. The United States would greatly benefit in global competition by such a balanced national maritime transportation system. The Seaway differs from the other transportation routes in one crucial aspect, however. Whereas the coastal seaports and the Mississippi River navigation channel were developed with substantial assistance from the federal government, the Seaway was required initially to repay the costs of its construction with interest. The Seaway, therefore, was hampered in its ability to compete successfully from the start. Not only was it built undersized, it was also saddled with great debts. Years later when Congress forgave the debts, the damage has already been done. Throughout my service in the Congress, I have tried to help the Great Lakes-Seaway system better position itself in competition for commercial transportation. For more than 4 years, I have been working closely with interested parties in the Great Lakes maritime transportation community and the infrastructure investment finance sector in the United States and Canada to develop a proposal to allow the Seaway to reach its full potential, to guarantee the future viability of the Seaway, and to continue economic development of the Great Lakes region. The bill I introduced on the first day of this Congress, the Binational Great Lakes-Seaway Enhancement Act of 2001, was developed in concert with the Honorable Joe Comuzzi, a close friend of mine and a member of the Canadian Parliament whose Thunder Bay, Ontario Riding (district) is adjacent to mine. It would establish the foundation, create the conditions, and provide the resources to permit the system to achieve its full potential. The bill would authorize the creation of a binational authority to operate and maintain the Seaway. It would also provide for the establishment of a non-federal credit facility to offer financial and other assistance to the Seaway and Great Lakes maritime communities for transportation-related capital investments. Specifically, the legislation would establish a binational governmental St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation by combining the existing, separate U.S. and Canadian agencies that operate each country's Seaway facilities. It would require the Corporation's top management to run the Seaway in a business-like manner. It would transfer Seaway employees and the operating authority of Seaway assets to the Corporation. It would provide significant labor protection for current U.S. Seaway employees, whether or not they transfer to the Corporation. It would offer incentives for employment and pay based on job performance. It would set forth a process for the Corporation to become financially sustainable. At the same time, it would provide the United States with ample oversight authority over the Corporation. Through merger of the two national Seaway agencies into a single binational authority, we could eliminate duplication and streamline operations. Improved efficiency would reduce government's cost of operating the Seaway. Moreover, a unified Seaway agency would reduce regulatory burden and help cut the sailing time of ships through the system. This latter efficiency improvement would positively affect the bottom line of Seaway users. All of these efficiencies would make the system a more competitive and viable transportation route for international commerce. The Great Lakes and the Seaway should be considered as an integrated system in maritime transportation. Improvements to the Seaway infrastructure alone would not be sufficient to deal with the efficiency and competitiveness problems facing the Great Lakes-Seaway system. Quite the opposite, improvements to the Seaway could stress the capacity of ports on the Great Lakes. A comprehensive approach is necessary to address the system's investment needs. My legislation would provide for the establishment of a Great Lakes Development Bank. It would outline in broad terms the structure of Bank membership. To ensure no taxpayer liability, this legislation would prohibit the United States and the St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation from becoming members of the Bank. It would specify eligible projects for financial and other assistance from the Bank. It would define the forms of such assistance. It would require recipients of Bank assistance, states or provinces in which such recipients are located, contractors for projects financed with Bank assistance, and localities in which such contractors are located to become Bank members to broaden the Bank's membership base. It would establish an initial capitalization level for the Bank, and would provide as U.S. contributions $100 million in direct loan and up to $500 million in loan commitments that could be drawn upon to meet the Bank's credit obligations. It would set interest on U.S. loans to the Bank at rates equal to the current average yield on outstanding Treasury debts of similar maturity plus administrative costs to preclude taxpayer subsidy to the Bank. It would allow the United States to call loans to the Bank if the Bank is not complying with the objectives of this legislation, and would provide specific limitations on United States' liability to protect our interests. Mr. Speaker, my legislation is intended to make the Great Lakes- Seaway system a more efficient, competitive, and viable transportation route. Such a system will enable our manufacturers to bring their goods to the world market at reduced cost, making U.S. products more competitive in the global economy. This is a sensible bill; it is a good-government bill. A similar bill was introduced in the last Congress. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held one hearing on that bill. Changes have been made to the proposal to reflect suggestions made by witnesses at the hearing. As a result, this is an improved bill. We should all support it. I hope Members will join me in co-sponsoring this legislation and moving it forward. This bill should be enacted this year to help prepare the Great Lakes-Seaway system for competition and trade in the 21st century.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5637 to allow environmental compliance funds of the Coast Guard to be used to clean up two former Coast Guard facilities. More importantly, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Maryland (Chairman Gilchrest) for allowing these measures to be separated from the Coast Guard bill that is now stuck in conference and to allow it to come to the floor separately and recognizing the urgency and the importance of moving ahead with each of these projects. It is very typical of our chairman to be understanding of the needs of Members, responsive to their concerns, and to be flexible in matters of this kind; and I greatly appreciate it. I also am appreciative of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) taking the time to manage this bill on the floor so we could dispose of it early on in this reconvened session of the Congress. These provisions all were agreed to by conferees on the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000, which is now unfortunately hung up over a non-Coast Guard item, two issues involving cruise ships. Funds have been appropriated for each of these projects. But without this bill, the Coast Guard cannot move ahead to complete the projects. One will allow the Coast Guard to reimburse the owner of the former Coast Guard Lighthouse in Cape May, New Jersey, for the cost incurred in cleaning up lead contaminated soil at the facility. The other allows the Coast Guard to pay for the demolition and removal of a Coast Guard building in Traverse City, Michigan, which has pipes on the property that are laden with asbestos. In order for the property to be usable, the asbestos has to be removed. The money is available, as I said. This is the authorization to proceed to complete the work. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) on his persistence. He has pursued this matter vigorously on behalf of the people of his district, as he does in all matters. He is very forthright. The cause is just. But without a persistent Member keeping our attention focused on a matter of this kind, it could easily have been lost in the shuffle. With the gentleman from Michigan, that does not happen. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), in whose district this latter project is located, to elaborate on this matter.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to the bill sponsored by the Gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Aderholt, which directs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to use a revised March 8, 1999 airport layout plan to determine the boundaries of the Lawrence County Airport, located in Courtland, Alabama. However, I want to make it clear that this bill should not be viewed as a precedent for diverting revenues from the sale of airport property. Since 1982, and in subsequent reauthorization legislation, Congress has placed very strict conditions on the use of airport revenues to ensure that the revenues would be used primarily for airport purposes. In 1999, FAA issued its final revenue use policy, which states that any revenue from the sale of airport real property not acquired with Federal assistance will be considered airport revenue. Accordingly, the policy requires that the airport operator deposit the fair market value from the sale of the property into the airport account. In the situation at hand, a master plan for Lawrence County Airport prepared by the Industrial Development Board of Lawrence County in the late 1980's showed more airport property that was needed for the current and foreseeable requirements of the airport. The excess property was included in exhibits to Federal grant agreements as airport property, but was not material to any FAA decision to award Airport Improvement Program funds for the development of the airport. However, the FAA recently approved an airport layout plan allowing for limited commercial development on approximately 200 acres of land surrounding the Lawrence County Airport. This bill would confirm the boundaries of the airport shown on the airport layout plan approved by the FAA on March 12, 1999, and release the sponsor from the obligation to put the proceeds of sale for property not within the agreed boundaries of the airport into the airport account. This narrow legislation is based on a unique set of circumstances and should not be considered a precedent for a change in the clear policy on use of airport revenues. I am strongly supportive of requiring that proceeds from the sale or rental of airport property must be used for the capital and operating costs of the airport.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report on S. 2790, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the biennial authorization bill for programs and projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the landmark water resources legislation of 1986, the former Public Works and Transportation Committee, now renamed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has worked to maintain a consistent two-year authorization schedule for the Corps. It is critical to maintain this two-year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainly to the non-federal, local sponsors who support Corps projects. This biennial cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the workings of the Corps program. This Conference Report authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil works program. It includes navigation, flood control, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration and protection. This bill both builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It will allow us to expand international trade through projects to improve our coastal ports and inland navigation system. Through flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction measures, it will help to meet critical needs to protect lives and property. It is no secret that one of the issues that delayed House consideration of this bill until last month was the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to non-federal contributions to federal projects of the Corps. I have always believed that Davis-Bacon applies to all aspects of a federal public works project, regardless of whether the Corps is performing the work, or a non-federal sponsor is contributing the work. The key element is that these have always been federal public works projects, and Davis-Bacon should apply. I was surprised that the Corps was not consistently applying the Davis-Bacon wage protection provisions to the non-federal contribution for Corps projects. I was prepared to offer legislative language to the bill to rectify this situation--ensuring that the Corps would apply Davis-Bacon Act protections to all aspects of its program. I am pleased to say that such legislative action is no longer necessary. Following numerous meetings with the Corps, the Department of the Army, and the Department of Labor, there is agreement within the Administration that my view of the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act is the correct one. The Davis-Bacon Act wage provisions apply to non- federal contributions to federal Corps of Engineers projects. It applies regardless of whether the non-federal contribution is in cash, or in-kind work for which credit or reimbursement is sought. I appreciate the Administration working with me to make sure that the protections of the Davis-Bacon statute are provided to all workers on all federal public works. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains an important tribute to our late colleague, and my friend, Bruce Vento. This bill will rename a portion of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness in my district as the Bruce Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Bruce served people of his district nobly, with dignity, with passion, and with purpose. He did the same for the Nation, particularly in preserving and enhancing its parks and wilderness areas. Bruce has been credited with championing hundreds of bills into law that protect and preserve our precious natural resources. I believe that it is most appropriate that one of those precious resources in our home state of Minnesota bears his name in perpetuity, and I am proud that this tribute will be in my Congressional district. Mr. Speaker, local newspapers have devoted a lot of time and effort over the past nine months to criticizing the Corps. But, the Corps is a proud institution with a long history. It deserves our praise and respect. Let me share some of its history with my colleagues. First, I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the organization frequently mentioned in debate here but whose accomplishments are almost never discussed, the Corps of Engineers. The Corps celebrates its 225th birthday this year. During those years it has established itself as the Nation's oldest, largest, and most experienced government organization in the area of water and related land engineering matters. It has provided extraordinary, competent, lifesaving, economic development enhancing service to this country for two and a quarter centuries. Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many responsibilities, once had jurisdiction over Yellowstone National Park. The Corps managed Yellowstone Park for 30 years. Lieutenant Dan Kingman of the Corps, who would later become the Chief Engineers, wrote: ``The plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth to no one.'' A few years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said: ``The best service in forest protection, almost the only efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in two years, the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.'' Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That was Mark Twain. Those statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers has done so admirably, and the great legacy they have left for all Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs, and, of immense importance to me, by protecting the great resource of the Great Lakes--one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. The Corps of Engineers deserves recognition for all of these works and the great contribution it makes to the economic well-being, and to the environmental enhancement of this country. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that even while some criticize the Corps, the central piece of this legislation is a project to invest nearly $8 billion in federal, state, and local funds for the greatest environmental restoration project ever conceived. A project that has the support of the Administration, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, the environmental community, Florida, affected Indian Tribes, local governments, and the business community of South Florida. This critical project has not been entrusted to an agency incapable of carrying out its mission. No, the project has been entrusted to the only agency capable of carrying out the mission. The Everglades are dying from years of population growth, and a Corps project that works all too well in draining them. While some criticize the existing Corps project for having harmed the Everglades, it should be recalled that the current system of canals, levees, and pumps that redirect water from the Everglades to the ocean was built with the support and encouragement of Florida and local residents. The project has provided the desired flood and hurricane protection, as well as water supply for South Florida. Unfortunately, when the project was constructed, no one envisioned the dire consequences for the Everglades ecosystem. The restoration project initiated in this bill will help restore the Everglades by changing the plumbing of South Florida to more closely resemble historical patterns and amounts. Today, the Everglades receive the wrong amount of water at the wrong times of the year. The Everglades restoration project, when fully implemented, will provide a more natural flow through the Everglades, and the Everglades National Park. It will do so without diminishing flood and hurricane protection for South Florida. Mr. Speaker, scores of individuals worked for many years to develop the comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades. For many, their efforts have been acknowledged here and in the Senate. However, I will compliment one individual who has worked tirelessly toward the Everglades restoration project, and whose name has not been mentioned on this Floor. Mr. Gary Hardesty of the Corps of Engineers headquarters office has given of himself above and beyond the call of duty to make the Everglades restoration happen. He coordinated the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, was responsible for drafting the Report of the Chief of Engineers, wrote Congressional testimony for numerous hearings, and provided detailed and accurate information to the House and Senate in the drafting of the bill. As Members of Congress know well, there are less visible individuals who make the work we do possible. For the Everglades, Mr. Hardesty is one of the individuals that made the Everglades restoration possible. He deserves the Nation's recognition and gratitude. The Conference Report is not just the Everglades and other projects. It also includes a number of provisions to improve the operation of the Corps program. But, I am disappointed that more of the program improvements contained in the House amendment were not acceptable to the Senate. In particular, it is unfortunate that the Conference Report does not include House language to ensure that Corps' projects will successfully mitigate any adverse environmental impacts associated with its projects. I intend to revisit this issue next Congress. The Conference Report expands the ability of non-governmental entities to participate as non-federal sponsors of projects. This is particularly important for environmental restoration and improvement projects where local organizations are anxious to work with the Corps to improve the environment. Mr. Speaker, this water resources bill is worthy of strong bipartisan support. It is consistent wiht other Water Resources Acts that Congress has approved overwhelmingly over the past 15 years. We should give this Conference Report that same overwhelming support today. I urge all Members to support the Conference Report on S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, from a transportation perspective, there are good reasons to oppose this bill, but the most significant is repeal of the 4.3 cent fuel tax for the railroads. That action goes against the spirit of the agreement worked out between rail labor and rail management on a railroad retirement benefit. The parties agreed to divide up equally between management and labor the benefits of a payroll tax reduction. Our committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Ways and Means crafted a bill, H.R. 4844, that reflected this agreement. Under the bill, the payroll taxes paid by railroads would be reduced $4 billion over 10 years. Railroad retirees and survivors would get roughly the same amount in improved benefits. It was a win for all parties. During Committee on Ways and Means consideration of the bill, there was an amendment added to repeal the 4.3 cent fuel tax. That would have upset the balance of benefits agreed to by management and labor and would have unraveled the unified rail coalition. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on a bipartisan basis said, we would not bring the bill to the floor with this provision in it. The offending provisions was stripped prior to floor consideration, and the bipartisan railroad retirement reform legislation passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 391 to 25. Now, we have the fuel tax repeal in here. That is a windfall benefit to the railroads with no commensurate benefit to rail workers and retirees. That is not fair. That is not right. That unravels the agreement that we put together, that labor and management voluntarily put together. We should not pass this legislation with that provision in. On this issue alone, the bill deserves to go down.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, although I have commented many times in committee and on the several bills that we have had, since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is sounding a note this may, indeed, may be our last major bill on the floor, I just want to emphasize for our colleagues that in an era of rancor and divisiveness publicly in the body politic and between the parties and between the two bodies of Congress, this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has stood as a model of legislative achievement, as an example of how we can advance the commonweal of the Nation by working together in a relationship of trust and of understanding and of mutual respect. Mr. Speaker, that is the bond that draws us together and the bond of respect that I hold for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our chairman, and for his leadership, steadfast throughout these 6 years of holding an ideal and working to achieve it. Together we have accomplished something of lasting value for America, and I compliment the chairman on his leadership, his distinguished contribution to America. That will stand for all time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, she may not serve on this committee, but she has been so persistent in pursuit of the issues that she and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have both coordinated on, that this is a better bill because of the gentlewoman's persistence.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman. But, Mr. Speaker, no one has been more persistent or vigorous in pursuit of a goal than has the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). He has doggedly pursued with the determination and with copious documentation the goal that we achieve today on this floor, and I compliment the gentleman on his extremely able representation of the people of his district. And I appreciate the partnership that has resulted also with the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) in equally pursuing. Practically the first issue that he discussed with me after his swearing into the Congress a few years ago was this very issue, and I have not forgotten. I concur in the remarks of the able chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources. Our distinguished full committee chairman, on many occasions I have referred to his extraordinary leadership and record of accomplishment. But I am just a little puzzled. This should not be the last bill that the chairman brings to the House floor. We are hopeful that there will be another that will be a fitting cap to the chairman's distinguished career in the House and we finally act on the Water Resources Development Act. I also want to pay deserved tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) who has devoted an enormous amount of time to this legislation, of course to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his pursuit of environmental protection on our committee. I appreciate the partnership that we have had and the leadership that he has given, Mr. Speaker. The primary focus of this legislation is restoration of estuaries. In the Nation's ocean coastal regions, the estuary is the great meeting place of salt and fresh water, the great meeting place where new forms of life are created. All through the world, there are about a handful of truly extraordinary great resources, estuaries. The Chesapeake Bay is one of those. There are others that we address today in this legislation. And the reason that we focus our attention on this legislation is that whatever drains into the estuary from the land, wherever the ocean meets that fresh water, either we are doing good for the generation of new species or the maintenance of existing species or we are doing irreparable harm. The legislation that we act on today moves us in the direction of doing right by the fish and the wildlife in these vital transition areas between fresh and salt water. In the most recent national water quality inventory, States reported that 44 percent of the Nation's assessed estuaries do not meet their designated use, fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life. In the Great Lakes, it is even more troubling; a matter that I spent a great deal of time on over my service in the Congress as a Member and previously as a member of the staff. The data on the Great Lakes are troubling. Ninety-six percent of the assessed shoreline miles of the Great Lakes do not meet one or more designated uses. As expressed in one of the most important indicators of quality of water, fish consumption advisors, if we live anywhere in America, we have five parts per billion PCBs in our body. If we live within 25 miles of one of the Great Lakes and eat fish once a week, we have up to 440 parts per billion PCBs in our body. We need to clean those estuaries. We need to remove the sediment on the bottom. We need to take those permanent toxins out of the bottom where they have been deposited over decades and remove them so that we can restore the health of the fishery and the health of the people who depend upon that beneficiary. This bill does not address that issue, nor do I raise an issue about that. I just make the point that there is much more work for us to be done. The $275 million over the next 5 years authorized under this bill will enable the Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers to restore estuarine habitat. The cost will be shared with local sponsors to improve degraded estuaries and estuarine habitat, the goal of building a self-sustaining system integrated into the landscape surrounding the estuaries. One important aspect of this program is the participation of nonprofit entities as local sponsors. The conference report allows nongovernmental organizations to act as local sponsors of estuary restoration projects after consultation and coordination with the appropriate State and local officials. Unlike the House-passed version of the bill, the conference report does not require the approval of the governor of a State before a nongovernmental organization can act as the non-Federal cosponsor. I want to express to the chairman my great appreciation for his cooperation in working this matter out. It was very important to me and to the regions that I represent of Minnesota and those throughout the Great Lakes to have come to this accommodation, and I appreciate the chairman's assistance.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2330, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000. S. 2440 makes several needed changes to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) airport security program. Whenever I consider aviation security, I first reflect on the Pan American World Airways flight 103. On December 21, 1988, the world of aviation security changed forever when a terrorist bomb tore apart a Boeing 737 killing all 259 passengers and crew, and 11 residents of the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. This terrorist act propelled the families of those victims on a tireless mission to prevent such future tragedies, culminating in the creation of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, on which I served as a commissioner. The Commission's 1990 report found the nation's civilian aviation security system to be seriously flawed, and made 64 recommendations to correct those flaws. First and foremost among its recommendations was that the FAA aggressively pursue a research and development program to produce new techniques and equipment that will detect small amounts of explosives in an airport operational environment. I introduced legislation implementing the Commission's recommendations. My legislation was enacted in the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. Six years later, spurred by initial concerns that a terrorist act was responsible for the TWA 800 explosion off Long Island, President Clinton organized another commission, the 1996 White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The Gore Commission, as it was known, made 31 recommendations for enhancing aviation security. Again, Congress acted swiftly and, in the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, included measures to heighten security. Since the passage of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, Congress has provided more than $350 million for deployment of security equipment, and more than $250 million in research funds. Recently, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR 21), which was signed into law by the President on April 5, authorized $5 million annually for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to carry out at least one project to test and evaluate innovation security systems. In addition, AIR 21 authorized such sums as may be necessary to develop and improve security screener training programs and such sums as may be necessary to hire additional inspectors to enhance air cargo security programs. To date, the FAA has installed 92 FAA-certified explosive detection (``EDS'') machines at 35 airports, 553 explosive trace detection devices at 84 U.S. and foreign airports, and 18 advanced technology bulk explosives detection x-ray machines at eight airports. In addition, the FAA has deployed 38 computer-based training device platforms at 37 airports. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has commented, however, that at many airports EDS machines are underutilized. S. 2440 directs the FAA to require those air carriers whose EDS machines are underutilized to develop a manual process whereby extra bags would be selected to go through EDS screening. While deploying EDS equipment is a critical component to increase aviation security, with millions of passengers and pieces of baggage passing through our airports each day, it is also of paramount importance to maintain passenger-screening checkpoints and ensure that the screeners that operate them are well qualified. In March of this year, the House Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing on aviation security. During that hearing, both the GAO and DOT's Inspector General uniformly described security screener performance as the ``weak link'' in the aviation system. The FAA and the airlines share the responsibility to ensure optimal performance of security screeners. However, high turnover, low wages, and lack of adequate training hinder security screener performance. S. 2440 directs the FAA to finalize by May 1, 2001, its proposed rule that would implement the Gore Commission recommendations to certify screening companies, and enhance screener training. In addition, S. 2440 mandates minimum training standards for screeners: 40 hours of classroom training and 40 hours on the job. Certification of screening companies and mandatory training requirements will go a long way toward ensuring a proficient and highly qualified screening workforce. In addition, the Inspector General has made some very startling findings regarding the ineffectiveness of FAA's background investigative procedures, and the vulnerabilities in airport access control. An Inspector General study of security procedures at six airports concluded that compliance with existing FAA regulations was lax. Of the 35 percent of employee files reviewed, the IG found no evidence that a complete background investigation had been performed. Despite this failure, airport identification cards were issued to these employees. In addition, 15 percent of the files reviewed showed an unexplained employment gap, but with no requisite criminal background check being performed. To ensure effective background investigations, S. 2440 requires criminal history record checks for those individuals who apply for a position as a screener or a screener supervisor, or who apply for a position that allows for unescorted access to secured areas of an airport. Importantly, S. 2440 adds several crimes, including illegal possession of a controlled substance, to the list of crimes that would disqualify an individual from holding a security-sensitive position. Further, S. 2440 requires the FAA, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand its electronic fingerprint transmission pilot project into an aviation industry wide program. This program will allow for a quick turnaround on criminal background checks for individuals applying for screener or other security-sensitive positions. The FAA must take a holistic view toward its security responsibilities to ensure that all areas of vulnerability are addressed. However, the airlines and airports also share in that responsibility--and should not put cost considerations above passenger safety. S. 2440 directs the FAA to work with all responsible parties to eliminate access control weaknesses, requiring airport operators and air carriers to adopt training programs so that all employees are aware of the importance of complying with the access control procedures. S. 2440 also requires airport operators and air carriers to develop programs that award compliance with access controls procedures, penalize non-compliance, and hold individuals accountable for their actions. I made a promise when I was on the President's 1990 Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism that I would not let that Report gather dust on a shelf. Passage of S. 2440, in combination with the AIR 21 provisions, is just another milestone on the infinite continuum of enhancing aviation security. We must remain vigilant in our oversight of the FAA's progress in resolving these very significant and complex security issues. We owe it to the American traveling public both here and abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the dedication of the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism. As with all events on the Capitol Grounds, this event will be open to the public and free of charge. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its predecessor, the Public Works and Transportation Committee, has a long, proud history associated with this Memorial and the event. In 1991, our former Committee colleague, the gentleman from California, Norman Mineta, introduced House Joint Resolution 271. This Joint Resolution, which Congress adopted in October 1992, authorized the Go For Broke National Veterans Association to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia to honor Japanese American patriotism in World War II. In November 1995, I had the honor of introducing H.R. 2636, co- sponsored by the gentleman from California, Mr. Matsui, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. King. The bill authorized the transfer of certain parcels of property to establish and build the memorial. In 1996, the bill was passed as part of the Omnibus Parks and Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333). Finally, today, nine years after then-Congressman Norman Mineta began this process, we authorize use of the Capitol grounds for the dedication ceremony and celebration to open the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism on November 9, 2000. The Memorial honors the patriotism of Japanese Americans who served the armed forces of the United States during World War II. More than 33,000 Japanese-Americans were drafted or volunteered for U.S. military service during the war. The Japanese-American 100th/442nd Regimental Combat Team is one of the most highly decorated military units in American history. Its members received more than 18,000 individual decorations. Just last week, this body considered and passed a bill to name the new courthouse in Seattle, Washington, after just one of this unit's many heroes, William Kenzo Nakamura. Mr. Speaker, this beautiful Memorial is more than a fitting tribute to World War II veterans of Japanese ancestry. It also recognizes one of our nation's darker moments--the sacrifices of approximately 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were interned as a matter of ``military necessity'' for up to four years during the War. One of those interned was my friend, Norm Mineta. We came to Congress together 25 years ago and I will never forget his story. He was only 11 years old when he and his family were forced from their California home at gunpoint. Norm was wearing his Cub Scout uniform and carrying his baseball, bat, and glove. Before he boarded the evacuation train, a Military Police officer confiscated his bat because it could be used as a weapon. Norm and his family would spend the next 18 months interned in the Heart Mountain concentration camp, outside Cody, Wyoming. Many, like our former colleague, now-Secretary of Commerce Mineta, although placed in internment camps during the war, never lost their faith in America. They lost their jobs, their homes, and their livelihoods, but they clung to their belief in the justice of the American system. At a time when so many were faced with terror and adversity, they held in their hearts a steadfast belief in the American system. It is fitting that this Memorial to Japanese-American Patriotism is within a stone's throw of the U.S. Capitol. I support the resolution and wish to extend my thanks to Secretary Mineta, the gentleman from California, Mr. Matsui, and the gentleman from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for their perseverance in their long struggle to create this Memorial, and their many contributions to our country. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say it is a matter of concern to me that the gentleman brings this matter to the floor. Certainly that should not have occurred, and we will work with the gentleman in the future to address that matter and bring about comity between the Corps and sister Federal agencies. Yes, we did have a memorandum of agreement earlier between these agencies. I thought this had been worked out and, unfortunately, that memorandum of agreement is now treated as if it is irrelevant.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, have greatly sympathized with the concerns of the Mississippi Delta Region counties and the area's Members of Congress who are working on ways to address the economic distress this area has experienced far beyond that of Appalachia. President Clinton, while he was Governor of Arkansas, served as chair of the Lower Mississippi Development Commission to study the needs of the economically distressed area. There are some ways that we can help establish the Mississippi Delta Commission in the course of further work on this WRDA legislation as it moves through conference. I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is sympathetic and I certainly am and we will see what we can do.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I will close for our side. Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported that the issue or one of the issues certainly that delayed this bill from floor consideration was the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to the non-Federal contributions to Corps projects. It has always been my belief and experience that Davis-Bacon applies to all aspects of Federal public works projects, regardless of whether the Corps is doing the work, or a non-Federal sponsor is contributing to the work. These are Federal public works projects. Davis-Bacon should apply. The Corps was not consistently applying Davis-Bacon wage protections to the non-Federal contribution for Corps projects, and I was prepared to offer legislative language to remedy the situation. Such action is not necessary now that the Corps, the Department of the Army, the Department of Labor and the White House itself got together, reviewed the matter in a meeting in my office and have come to an agreement that Davis-Bacon does apply. The wage provisions apply to non-Federal contributions to Corps of Engineer projects and an appropriate statement of policy on this matter is being formulated to make this matter very clear. Mr. Speaker, the Corps of Engineers even in some debate here on the floor, but also in news accounts widely distributed across the country has come under assault. I would like to pay tribute to the Corps of Engineers as they celebrate their 225th anniversary. During that 2\1/4\ centuries, it has established itself as the Nation's oldest, largest, most experienced government organization in water and related land engineering matters, extraordinary, competent, life-saving, economic- development enhancing service has been provided to this country and its people by the Corps of Engineers during these 2\1/4\ centuries. Few people know that the Corps of Engineers once had jurisdiction over Yellowstone Park and over Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, until the National Park Service was established in 1916. Lieutenant Dan Kingman of the Corps in 1883, and later Kingman would become the Chief of Engineers, wrote of the corps' work on Yellowstone, quote, ``The plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will preserve as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth to none.'' A few years later, John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said, quote, ``The best service in forest protection, almost the only efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert, as far as underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But in 2 years, the skin of the mountains is healthy again; blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.'' Another great American said, ``The military engineers are taking upon their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That was Mark Twain. Together, those statements say a lot about the Corps of Engineers and pay tribute to its work, to its legacy for all Americans: protecting people, protecting cities against flood, enhancing river navigation, America's most efficient means of transportation of goods; and, for me, protection of the Great Lakes, one-fifth of all the fresh water on the entire face of the Earth. The Corps of Engineers deserves recognition, which it does not sufficiently receive, for all of these works and the great contribution it makes to the economic well-being, to the environmental enhancement of this country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that there is a provision in here that names a unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in my district as the Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Bruce Vento understood the great oration of Chief Seattle at the signing of the treaty of 1854 when he said, ``The Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth.'' Bruce Vento dedicated his career to man's responsibility to the earth, to environmental protection. Cicero, the great Roman orator and Senator said, ``Gratitude is not only the greatest virtue, it is the parent of all others.'' In gratitude for Bruce Vento's service to the enhancement of our environment, I am very pleased that we are able to include this provision in this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)