James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I join gladly in the praise of the retiring chairman, retiring from the chairmanship, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for his steadfast advocacy for safety in transportation, which has been very effective and has indeed made our Nation's transportation systems safer. This may indeed be a good bill, but the manager's report does not measure up to that standard. It includes a listing of 162 airport projects which the managers would like to see funded out of FAA discretionary funds. In the past, to be sure, there have been listings of projects for specific airports, but without specific dollar amounts and with less prescriptive language, and far fewer projects, only a handful compared to the 162 listed in this manager's report, or in excess of $300 million. I know that gold rush did not start in this body, it started with the other body. I would like to clarify the legal situation on these projects. The law governing aviation discretionary funds requires the FAA to establish, and they have established for decades, a priority system to decide which projects will get these very limited funds. The highest priority goes to projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety standards. Next are projects that allow the airport to accommodate large aircraft. The next is standards, standards that continue with other forms of development in aviation. Many of the projects listed in this manager's report, I concede, are of sufficient quality in and of themselves, as we have analyzed them, to qualify for funding under these established FAA standards in the regular order. But what I want to point out is that aviation is not like highways. An improvement to a highway project in Boston does not necessarily benefit California, but in the national system of integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, a major hub airport, means potentially a vast improvement for all of aviation. The FAA should have and does have discretion to fund improvements to increase capacity, to improve safety, to reduce bottlenecks. If next year we have the same kind of delays and problems in aviation that we have had this year and last year, travelers might not feel so comfortable traveling in an aviation system designed by Congress. I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to quote from the decision of the Comptroller General that was found in a report expressing congressional preference. The Comptroller General found that Congress cannot require the Navy to select a particular aircraft the language in the committee report wanted the Navy to require and to abandon normal procurement procedures. The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on Federal agencies.'' Accordingly, I believe it is incumbent on FAA to continue to use its priority system to award discretionary funds and assure that those funds will be directed to the greatest safety benefit and not to the specific, narrowly drawn, targeted little projects listed in this manager's report. As chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation for many years, I steadfastly resisted designating projects in our authorizing bill and have continued, as ranking member of the full committee, to resist such designation. It should not be done in a manager's report of appropriations.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the apologia pro vita sua we have just heard from the gentleman in the well is and represents one of the most intensely personal moments in this body; one of the most human experiences that we engage in. None of us, unless we stand in that well, as the gentleman has just done, can understand the pain and the difficulty, but also the strength of character it takes to deliver the statement the gentleman has just made, and to say ``I accept the judgment.'' But it is characteristic of the gentleman to do so. The gentleman has led the committee throughout all this ordeal with dignity and effectiveness. I know how pained the gentleman is over this report, but I am proud of this moment that he has taken to address his colleagues and to address the country and to address this institution, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for her clarification and explanation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the second time that we have had to take up this legislation in this body. This legislation represents tireless work on the part of the gentlewoman from Florida who has given exhausting hours of her time to fashion a bill that will be effective and that will respond to the concerns that she has already laid out so well, not only in Florida but elsewhere around this country. The cooperative work that she has undertaken with our ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), has been exemplary; and I appreciate the many visits that we have had about this and about the terrorism commission legislation which I will address in a moment. The benefits of the disaster mitigation bill are that first of all it establishes a predisaster mitigation program based on the very effective Project Impact initiative. This is the first time that we will be attempting at the Federal level to address problems before they occur. I think properly so, because if we address problems that we have learned cause increased losses, we can avoid those losses in future disasters that we know are likely to occur. These initiatives, rather modest in this bill, will translate into millions of dollars of savings. There is, however, one concern I have about the legislation, and, that is, both House and Senate bills require nonprofit entities to seek loans from the Small Business Administration as a precondition, a normal requirement of disaster legislation. But these nonprofits are singled out not for what they do but for who they are. They should not be discriminated against in this fashion. We ought to treat them as we do other entities. Certain facilities such as custodial care for aged or disabled, homeless shelters, senior citizens centers, community centers, museums, and libraries are less eligible for direct Federal assistance while private utilities and irrigation districts have a different standing. It is not a fatal flaw in the bill, not one that would cause me to oppose it but one that I hope can be revisited and substantially fixed in the future. The second portion that the gentlewoman has added to this legislation is the establishment of a President's Council on Domestic Terrorism and Preparedness within the Executive Office of the President. The gentlewoman has, as I said, again devoted tireless hours and very deep personal conviction, which I greatly respect and I want this body to understand and I want the other body to understand this as well. This is not something that she has undertaken as a gesture but as a matter of very deep conviction. I have been greatly persuaded by her activism, by her profound self-assurance based on case studies, careful analysis of the situation and the failure of the existing system to perform as we intended. I do support the initiative of the President's council. I have worked to mediate between the subcommittee and the Office of Management and Budget and White House staff. I think under the circumstances this is a sound, reasonable, responsible initiative. As the gentlewoman has said to me in years to come after she enters retirement, she does not want to look back on a tragedy and say, ``That could have been prevented. I could have done something while I was in Congress.'' She is doing something, Madam Speaker. She is doing something of great substance and of lasting value. I hope that the other body will concur in this initiative. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The amendment adopted by this resolution would change the definition of ``private nonprofit facility'' and ``critical services'' regarding irrigation facilities. I would like the gentlewoman to explain the intention of these changes.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn we need to pass legislation to improve pipeline safety. The recent explosions in Bellingham, Washington (three fatalities) and Carlsbad, New Mexico (12 fatalities) are the most visible indications of a serious, long-term problem. Today I am introducing H.R. 5361, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000, a bill that I believe will help us to go forward quickly and pass this badly needed legislation. The bill is cosponsored by Congressmen Dingell, Inslee, Udall (NM), Pascrell, Lewis (GA), Pallone, Smith (WA), and Tierney; many of the cosponsors represent citizens in States that have had serious pipeline accidents. Our Nation has 2.2 million miles of pipeline carrying 617 million ton-miles of oil and refined oil products, and 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The pipeline system and the volume of products transported continue to grow. In the last ten years, pipeline mileage has grown by ten percent--at the same time that our Nation's suburbanization continues to bring more families near pipelines. Regrettably, as the industry has grown, safety has declined. In the last decade, there were 2,241 major pipeline accidents resulting in death, serious injury, or substantial property damage. These explosions killed 226 people and caused more than $700 million of damage to property and the environment. And pipeline safety is deteriorating: the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that the rate of pipeline accidents is increasing by four percent a year. To exacerbate the problem, we are dealing with an aging pipeline system. About 24 percent of gas pipelines are now more than 50 years old. The section of pipeline involved in the recent Carlsbad, New Mexico tragedy was almost 50 years old and had suffered substantial internal corrosion. Congress and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have long been aware of the unacceptable state of pipeline safety. A series of laws and NTSB recommendations have given the responsible federal agency, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of the Department of Transportation, direction as to the steps that need to be taken. Regrettably, OPS has not been responsive. A recent GAO study found that OPS has failed to implement 22 statutory directives for regulations and studies. Twelve of these provisions date from 1992 or earlier. OPS has the lowest rate of any transportation agency for compliance with NTSB recommendations. In addition, GAO has challenged OPS'new policy of reduced reliance on enforcement fines. During the past year, we have made progress in developing legislation to improve pipeline safety. The Senate has passed a bill, S. 2438, that includes some provisions that would enhance safety but, at the same time, the bill fails to deal satisfactorily with the most important safety issues. It is my judgment that it would be a serious mistake to adopt the Senate bill unchanged. The minimal contributions that the bill would make to safety are outweighed by the legislative reality that passage of this bill would make it extremely difficult to pass additional pipeline safety legislation during the period of the three- year authorization Provided by the bill. The Senate bill, as passed, is opposed by the families of the victims of the Bellingham, Washington, pipeline explosion, and the following organizations: the National Pipeline Reform Coalition; League of Conservation Voters; Environmental Defense; Clean Water Action; National Environmental Trust; Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department. I believe that the House should go forward with its own legislation and then work with the Senate to develop a joint product that would make an effective contribution to pipeline safety. Until a few weeks ago, this was the path we were following in the House. Several good pipeline safety bills had been introduced, including H.R. 4792, a bill sponsored by Congressman Inslee and 15 other Members. Within the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Committee with primary jurisdiction over this issue, there had been extensive bipartisan discussions and staff work, and draft legislation had been prepared and was within days of being ready for a markup in early I find the industries' assessment of the legislative situation to be obviously selfserving. When was the last time we heard an industry demand that a ``tough'' bill be passed to Improve its safety? How could anyone, three weeks ago, say with a straight face that the last five weeks, or the last two weeks, of this Congress provide insufficient time for negotiations on this relatively limited issue, when during the last two weeks the House and the Senate will have to resolve all the major issues associated with 11 of the 13 appropriation bills? The bill I am introducing today does not include all the provisions that I would like to see included in a pipeline safety bill. In the interest of facilitating prompt House action on pipeline safety, my bill is based largely on the House bipartisan staff draft bill that had been developed for an early September markup. I believe that this bill is a major improvement over the Senate product and can make important contributions to pipeline safety. In accordance with a joint statement of principles for improving pipeline safety endorsed by Congressman John Dingell, Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on Commerce which also has jurisdiction over pipeline safety, and me, the bill requires pipeline integrity management programs; requires periodic pipeline inspections; ensures that pipeline employees are qualified, well trained, and certified; expands the public's right to know; provides environmental accountability and increases enforcement; expands States' role in pipeline safety; enables more citizen involvement; and increases funding to improve pipeline safety. A summary of the bill may be found at the end of this statement. Although the Senate bill includes provisions on some of these issues, in most cases they are not effective to deal with the problem. Let me just focus on a couple of issues to illustrate the difference between my objectives and the Senate bill. I believe that any pipeline safety bill must require pipeline operators to adopt integrity management programs and must require periodic inspections of pipelines at least once every five years. Why is that so important?--two reasons: First, required inspections will prevent tragedy. The need for regular inspections is particularly acute because of the age of our pipeline system. As I have already said, about 24 percent of gas pipelines are now more than 50 years old. The section of pipeline involved in the recent Carlsbad, New Mexico tragedy was almost 50 years old, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found that the failed sections had significant internal corrosion and pipe wall loss in some areas of more than 50 percent. The NTSB stated that, based on their initial investigation, the 50-year-old pipeline was never properly tested. The company never conducted an internal inspection of the pipeline involved in the explosion. I believe that inspections probably would have uncovered these corrosion problems before they led to a tragedy. Without requiring pipeline inspections, there will be more tragedies. We don't need another Carlsbad, New Mexico, Bellingham, Washington, Edison, New Jersey or Mounds View, Minnesota. Second, a subtle, but important, distinction between this bill and the Senate bill is that the Senate bill does not require the pipeline companies to do anything. The Senate bill only requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to adopt regulations dealing with the issue. This approach has been tried and failed. In 1992, Congress passed legislation that directed OPS to adopt regulations requiring inspections by 1995. Now, 13 years after the NTSB recommended required periodic inspections and eight years after the statutory mandate, the Office of Pipeline Safety has not issued a single regulation imposing pipeline inspection requirements. For important parts of the industry NTSB has not even issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The failure of the Office of Pipeline Safety's failure to comply with statutory inspections mandates is just one example of OPS' lack of responsiveness to Congressional directives and NTSB recommendations when it comes to pipeline safety. The GAO has found that the Office of Pipeline Safety has not complied with 22 existing statutory requirements regarding pipeline safety, many of which had statutory deadlines that have long since past. We should not pass a bill, like S. 2438, that imposes a 23rd statutory requirement telling OPS to do the right thing. It is time for the House to lead; it is time for these needless pipeline tragedies to stop. The House should go forward with its own pipeline safety legislation and we should get a truly effective pipeline safety bill on the President's desk before we adjourn. Summary of H.R. 5361, The Pipeline Safety Act of 2000 1. Requires pipeline integrity management programs Statutorily requires that hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators adopt integrity management programs, regardless of whether the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) completes pending and planned rulemakings to require these programs. The Department of Transportation (DOT) must review each operator's integrity management program, and either accept it or require changes. 2. Requires Periodic Inspections (at least once every five years) Statutorily requires periodic inspections of pipelines at least once every five years in areas of high population or environmental sensitivity; methods for monitoring cathodic protection on the operator's entire system; follow-up actions which will be taken if inspections reveal deficiencies; and programs for installing emergency flow restricting devices. 3. Ensures that pipeline employees are qualified, well trained, and certified Statutorily requires that each pipeline operator develop and implement a program for ensuring that all employees performing safety sensitive functions are qualified. Qualifications of employees must be established by testing and may not be established by observing on-the-job performance only (as would be permitted under a recent OPS regulation). Requires DOT to review all pipeline operator programs, and either accept them or require changes. Establishes a pilot program in which DOT will develop a test for certifying persons who operate computer-based systems which control pipeline operations. OPS will use its test to certify these employees at three companies. 4. Expands the public's right to know Requires pipeline operators to establish programs to educate the public on the use of the one call program prior to excavation, and on how to identify and respond to a pipeline release. Requires pipeline operators to make useful information available to state emergency response committee and local emergency planning committees, and to make maps of pipelines available to municipalities. Requires pipeline operators to provide DOT, and DOT to provide the public, with pipeline segment reports including histories of incidents and inspection, enforcement actions affecting the segment, and the results of periodic testing of the segment. 5. Provides environmental accountability and increases enforcement Establishes a new penalty with strict liability (no fault required) for oil spills, of $1,000 per barrel of hazardous liquid (e.g., oil) discharged. This is the same penalty as is currently imposed for oil spills in water. Raises maximum civil penalties from the current law level of $25,000 per violation and $500,000 for a related series of violations to $100,000 per violation and $1,000,000 for a series of violations. Expands the Attorney General's authority to pursue civil actions and get appropriate relief. 6. Expands States' role in pipeline Authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with states to enable the states to participate in pipeline safety inspections and oversight, and to comment on pipeline operators' integrity management programs. 7. Enables more citizen involvement Establishes a pilot program to establish and fund nine Regional Advisory Councils to enable public and local government representatives to make substantive recommendations to the pipeline industry and regulators regarding improving pipeline safety. 8. Increases funding to improve pipeline safety Significantly increases authorizations for pipeline safety programs to enable the Office of Pipeline Safety to carry out an active, aggressive inspection program.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill developed through a bad process, and ought to be badly defeated. It has a disarming title: Small Business Liability Relief. But it is nothing other than a wolf in sheep's clothing. It relieves large businesses of the responsibility for cleanup of toxic wastes such as dioxin, PCBs, nerve gas, by simply letting them include those substances in their trash. That is an egregious circumvention of the Superfund law. It puts at risk the health and welfare of the public in order to give oil, chemical and other industries a windfall benefit. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked for 6 years to develop a bipartisan bill that could have broad support. We reported that bill out by a vote of 69 to 2. It may not be perfect, but it reflects good faith and hard work. This bill does not. Our bill addressed responsible liability relief for small businesses and makes the liability system more flexible and fair for all parties. This bill does not. The key element of our bill was that it was paid for. It called for the reinstatement of Superfund taxes, guaranteeing cleanup for the next 8 years. This bill creates a favored class of businesses, absolves them of liability, and leaves it up to taxpayers and other parties to pick up the tab. Since the Superfund taxes expired in 1995, oil, chemical and other industries have enjoyed a $4 million a day tax break, a tax holiday from the refusal to reinstate taxes to pay for Superfund cleanups. They have saved over $6 billion. As the gentleman from Ohio has said, enough indeed is enough. Mr. Speaker, the majority's refusal to reinstate Superfund taxes is shifting the cost of cleanup on to the taxpayer and States who are footing that bill. This year alone half of the nearly $1.5 billion in Superfund costs was taken from general revenues. We are borrowing from the future, our surplus, in order to provide a $4 million a day tax break for America's biggest polluters. That is wrong. We ought to be addressing all of Superfund's needs instead of this flawed legislation. We ought to vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I commend Economic Development Subcommittee Chairman Franks for his interest in safety at childcare centers, and especially his interest in stopping the terrible destruction and injury caused by flying glass. The General Services Administration (GSA) childcare program is a very successful program, with 85 percent of its childcare centers accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Approximately 7,000 youngsters, ranging in age from infancy to 5 years old, are enrolled in GSA childcare centers located in 113 Federal facilities across the country. H.R. 4519 will ensure that parents of children in GSA childcare centers have the best available information regarding the tenants at these Federal facilities. H.R. 4519 instructs GSA to notify parents before they enroll their children in a childcare center located in a Federal building of the current Federal agencies occupying the building and the level of security of that particular Federal building. It also requires GSA to notify parents of any change in the Federal tenants in the building. This bill will ensure that this information is readily available to parents. The short title for this bill is ``Baylee's Law''. It is named for Baylee Almon, a one-year-old child attending the childcare center located in the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City at the bombing in 1995. She and fourteen other small children were killed in that tragic incident. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I underwent corrective surgery on my hand yesterday, and was not present to record my vote during the consideration of legislation under Suspension of the Rules. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 477, for I supported similar Debt Lockbox legislation in July; and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 478.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to honor today Mr. Raymond C. Burton, who will retire at the end of this year, bringing to a close a distinguished career in railroading that has spanned three decades. When Ray began working for the old Santa Fe Railway in 1963, he could not have foreseen the profound changes coming to the railroad industry. Particularly since 1982, however, when he was elected president and Chief Executive Officer of TTX Company, Ray Burton has been on the cutting edge of those changes. Under Ray's leadership, TTX has led the way in innovation, design, and deployment of the equipment needed to construct today's modern, intermodal transport network. It was this exceptional leadership that twice earned him the Railway Age ``Railroader of the Year'' award-- making him one of just three individuals to be so honored. This past July, Ray Burton was promoted to the post of Chairman and CEO of TTX, a fitting reward for a man who has led his company--and his industry--into the 21st Century well equipped to meet the challenges ahead. Ray will be missed when he retires, but the seeds he planted will continue to bear fruit for many more years to come.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to, again, express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for bringing this legislation to the committee and to the floor so expeditiously, and to compliment the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his dogged pursuit of this legislation. He has been a relentless advocate for action on the Mississippi Sound. The restoration act that he brings to the floor tonight is one that he has championed for many years and advocated vigorously within the committee and is one that will stand as a crown jewel in his legislative achievement. Much progress has been made under the Clean Water Act since 1972, but many bodies of water still require additional attention and resources to achieve the clean water goals that we set forth 28 years ago. The unique ecosystem in southern Mississippi that covers 2,400 square miles with a drainage basin, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) said, that extends from Mississippi into Louisiana, is one of the great jewels of our natural resources in the United States. But much of the problem that this legislation will address bears a made-in- other-States label. The runoff from 10 States all along the Mississippi drainage basin all the way to Canada wind up in this ecosystem. All the rest of us have a responsibility to help Mississippi and Louisiana and the Mississippi Sound area protect this diverse environment, this essential habitat for an extraordinary variety of species of fish, birds, mammals, and plants. The legislation the gentleman has so thoughtfully crafted will move us along in that direction, and I greatly appreciate his leadership, that of our committee, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman tonight who presents the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who has been such a strong voice for protection of the Great Lakes and the nonindigenous invasive species legislation that he championed and I have cosponsored with him. His understanding there brings to bear a new dimension, an important dimension on this legislation being considered tonight. I urge its enactment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for moving this legislation in such an expeditious fashion in bringing it to the House floor in order to address and, in the process of addressing, resolve a long-standing problem. I want to express my great appreciation and admiration to and for the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who has been dogged and persistent in his determination to address this issue. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) who recently spoke, I would like to express my appreciation for his kind words, but also for his persistence, practically from the first day he arrived in this body, in literally descending upon me and other members of our committee in appealing for legislative action to address the problem of clean water, the quality of water of the beaches along San Diego, the use of which he is so well known, and for his partnership with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the rest of the San Diego area delegation. I would just like to address a couple of issues here that I think are very critical. The question has been raised, why should the United States be providing financial support for, in this case, in effect guaranteeing the financing of a project built in Mexico? Well, the first very simple fact is, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) well expressed, the Tijuana River flows into the United States, part of its course, and then out into the waters that both the United States and Mexico share. Furthermore, while there are 1 million- plus people in Tijuana and about 3 million in the U.S. San Diego side, this is 4 million headed for 6 million in a very few years. The growth is absolutely explosive, both population growth and economic growth in this very dynamic region of the North American continent. If we do not act now, the waters into which the Tijuana flows will be destroyed, perhaps for decades to come. Now is the time to act. Secondly, this is not an issue without precedent. We have in the past provided authorization for and financing of works constructed in another country that benefit the United States. Specifically, Canada. The Red River on which Minnesota and North Dakota border flows north into Canada. The way weather works, it is a little bit warmer in Minnesota and North Dakota a little bit earlier than it is in Canada, so that by the time the ice breakup reaches Canada, it is still frozen in Canada, the water backs up and floods Minnesota and North Dakota. So our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, then the Committee on Public Works, 4 decades ago authorized the construction by the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Canadian authorities, of works in Canada to free up ice so the Red River of the north could flow freely without backing up and causing flooding in the United States, a benefit to U.S. citizens from work constructed in another country and paid for by the United States. The same principle applies here. That is what is at stake. It is important that we undertake this work and that it go forward. Of course, it will require a further international agreement between the United States and Mexico, which I am confident will be forthcoming. Again, in conclusion, I commend the gentlemen from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. Bilbray, for their farsightedness in addressing this issue and bringing this legislation to the floor, and I urge its overwhelming passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for yielding me this time, and I support the somewhat unusual process that we are using here to expedite the action of this body on very important legislation that our committee has already considered. I particularly appreciate that one of the bills included here is that authored by our late colleague on the committee and colleague in the House the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). I missed the opportunity earlier in the day to participate in the eulogies because I was committed to a number of meetings in my office with constituents, but I just want to say that we have lost one of the truly amiable, decent, distinguished, caring people ever to serve in this body. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) was one of the most gentle, thoughtful, considerate people I have ever known, and as a colleague one of the most thoughtful and sensitive people. His legislative work was truly significant. He was an advocate for our Nation's defense establishment. He was, I think as one of his colleagues in the Virginia delegation said so well, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), he knew about readiness. He knew there was a readiness problem in the military before the military knew it. That was the way of gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). I greatly appreciated the companionship that with shared and the cooperation on a number of issues in our committee, and in his committee of previous service, the Committee on Armed Services on which he jointly served throughout this last term. I extend to Laura, his dear, wonderful wife, very beautiful and treasured person, my deepest sympathies and those of my wife. I know this is a great loss. Herb was looking forward to retirement. One could just see the twinkle in his eye of the enjoyment that he was looking forward to, spending time with his family and time for himself to travel and to see more of America and to see more of the beloved area of Virginia that he served so well. My prayers are with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and with his family in their hour of need.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to compliment the gentleman on a very comprehensive statement of the issue at hand, and also express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for their continuing surveillance and attention to detail and hard work on this critically important aspect of our environment. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland has been dogged in his persistence in his pursuit of protective legislation which he has so eloquently, very touchingly described tonight. The disappearance of the Nation's wetlands is one of the greatest losses of this country. In the Central Mississippi Flyway, we have lost well over 50 percent of the wetlands that existed at the time of the formation of this Union. That is an irretrievable loss. No matter what we do, we cannot recreate those wetlands that have been lost. What we can do, at least what this legislation gives us the opportunity to do, is to protect those wetlands and those estuaries that remain. The great salt water estuaries of this world, of which the Chesapeake Bay is uncontestably the greatest, are the meeting places of salt and fresh water where new life forms take place, the creation of new life from the mixing of fresh and salt water. It is recognized as one of the extraordinary reserves of nature. We must understand these estuaries better. We must work to protect their integrity. As the gentleman from Maryland has so well said, while we have addressed the problems of point source discharge that have served to vastly clean up our lakes and rivers, we have not yet adequately, not in the least, adequately addressed the matter of nonpoint source runoff. If we fail on the one hand to protect wetlands and fail on the other hand to prevent senseless runoff from open lands, whether urban and suburban, residential and shopping center construction, or agricultural land that is inadequately able to protect runoff, if we fail to protect the wetlands on the other hand that serve as a great filtering place, then we will destroy the estuaries of this country and the rest of the world. This legislation moves us in the right direction. It does not deal with the fundamental problem of nonpoint source cleanup, which I hope we will be able to address in the forthcoming sessions of Congress. As reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this legislation would have prevented nonprofit entities to serve as local sponsor of estuary habitat restoration projects in coordination with the State and local appropriate officials. However, during negotiations with the Committee on Resources, this provision was amended to require that nonprofit organizations obtain the recommendation of the governor before, before they, the nonprofits, would be eligible to serve as local sponsors. I felt that this would be a very substantial burden for nonprofit in light of the fact that the legislation creates a multilayer competitive review process to ensure funding of only the most worthy restoration projects and requires local sponsors to provide 35 percent of the costs. I do not think we should be providing or saddling another restriction on who is eligible to be a local sponsor. I have raised this with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full committee. He has given me his personal assurance that we will review this matter in further detail as the bill moves forward through this body and into conference with the Senate. I thank him for his commitment to work with me on this matter. I also appreciate the remarks the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) made about the Great Lakes being included in the auspices of this legislation. The Great Lakes represent one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. That resource, too, is vital as we consider this estuary legislation. We consider the unique resources. While the rivers that discharge into the Great Lakes are not the meeting of salt and fresh water, they are the meeting place of different aquatic species that, again, result in the creation of new life. It is important that these areas, these Great Lakes estuaries be considered in the ambit of this legislation. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation, his work with me to come to this legislation. I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for the purposes of yielding time to others, as well for the purposes of managing 5 minutes. Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, not to oversimplify this issue, but to put it in very plain terms, there is more money being collected in taxes from workers in railroads than is necessary to pay out benefits under the current system. The agreement reached does equity for both the railroads and the workers. The railroads, on the one hand, get money they can invest in improving their infrastructure, rolling stock, and trackage, and the workers--specifically retirees, widows and widowers, get benefits that they would not otherwise receive. That is what this is all about. I want to point out that there was not 100 percent agreement between rail management and rail labor. Just after the agreement was reached, representatives of those labor unions, the majority, that supported the agreement and those labor unions, the minority, that opposed it, asked for my support, each on their terms, to support their viewpoint. I felt it would be in everyone's best interests if rail labor were united in support of the agreement. So in attempting to reach a consensus with all of rail labor, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and I made a proposal to rail labor which we then made to rail management to improve the benefit package. We recognized we could not radically alter the agreement, but hoped to make the proposal more palatable to those who opposed it. Specifically, we suggested that the railroad companies allow workers to retire at age 58 with actuarially reduced benefits, but with full medical coverage until the employees become eligible for Medicare at age 65. Today, rail employees can retire at age 60 with reduced benefits. They are not eligible for medical coverage until age 61. We thought we had made a reasonable, modest proposal. It was considered deliberately by railroad management, but unfortunately, we could not get the parties on both sides to agree to coalesce around this change. In the end, having made that effort, I concluded that this was the best package that could be negotiated under the circumstances. Most of rail labor is in support of this legislative package. It is good for both sides. It is a great improvement for retirees. The legislation ought to go forward. We ought to approve it in this body today. I, of course, give it my full and strong support. Mr. Speaker, enacting H.R. 4844 will bring substantial benefits to the more than one quarter million men and women who work on America's railroads and the 700,000 retirees and survivors of retired railroad workers. At the same time the bill allows for a significant reduction in the payroll taxes paid by U.S. railroads. This is clearly a win-win proposition for railroads, railroad labor, retired railroad workers and their survivors. This bill is the product of an historic agreement reached by railroad labor and management following two years of often-difficult negotiations. The benefit improvements that the two sides agreed upon are made possible by changing the current law that limits the investment of Railroad Retirement Trust Fund assets to government securities. Railroad retirement is a two-tiered system: Tier I largely mimics the Social Security system in terms of taxes and benefits, while Tier II provides additional benefits and might be considered the equivalent of a defined benefit employee pension plan. Tier II benefits are financed by a combination of a 4.9 percent payroll tax on employees and a 16.1 percent payroll tax on employers. Analysis provided by the Railroad Retirement Board's actuary demonstrates that the proposed changes should not affect the solvency of the Railroad Retirement system. The Tier I portion of the program will continue to be invested only in government securities as has long been the case and is appropriate for the social safety net. Only Tier II funds will be eligible for investment in assets other than government securities. The expected improvement in income to the trust fund is based on a fairly conservative projection of the rates of return on such a diversified portfolio--about two percentage points above the return on government securities. In addition, if the investments fail to perform as well as expected, workers' pensions are further protected as the legislation requires that the railroads absorb any future tax increases that might be necessary to keep the system solvent. This legislation provides the first major benefit improvements to retired railroad workers and their dependents in more than 25 years. The primary improvements are: (1) Lower retirement age. The age at which employees can retire with full benefits is reduced from 62 years to 60 years with 30 years of service. Today, employees who retire at age 60 or 61 have their annuity permanently reduced by taking 20 percent or more off the Tier I benefit. The annuities of their spouses are also reduced. Lowering the age to 60 actually restores railroad workers to the retirement age that existed before adjustments made back in 1983 to shore up the program's solvency. (2) Fewer years for vesting. the number of years required for vesting in the Railroad Retirement System is reduced from ten to five years. This change puts the Railroad Retirement System in line with the pension plans of most other industries. (3) Expanded benefits for widows and widowers. Under current Social Security Law, a widow or widower of a deceased worker receives the full amount of the retirement benefit previously paid to the retiree. In contrast, a widow or widower of a deceased railroad worker is eligible for 100 percent of the Tier I benefit, but only 50 percent of the late retiree's Tier II benefit. The surviving spouse often experiences a dramatic reduction in income at a time when life has already been made more difficult. Under the proposed change, the surviving spouse's annuity would be guaranteed to be no less than the amount the retiree was receiving in the month before death. (4) Cap on benefits eliminated. Currently, there is a statutory limit on the initial benefit amount that can be paid to an employee. This limit is computed under a complex formula based on the employee's highest two years of Railroad Retirement and Social Security earnings during the 10-year period immediately before retirement. This limitation has proved to be unintentionally harsh in two situations. The first involves employees whose lifetime pattern of earnings deteriorated in their last 10 years before retirement due, for example, to job loss or part-time employment. The second situation involves employees with long railroad careers at modest compensation levels. The Tier II benefit amount is computer under a formula that takes into consideration not only an employee's compensation level, but also length of service. Thus, employees with modest earnings can build up their Tier II benefits through may years of rail service. Because the cap takes into consideration only their modest pre-retirement earnings and completely ignores their long years of service, these employees may have their benefit reduced upon retirement. Under this legislation, the cap would be repealed for both new and preciously awarded annuities. (5) Automatic future improvements should the retirement plan become overfunded. Should the plan's assets become greater than an amount deemed necessary by the Railroad Retirement Board to pay benefits, employees and the railroads will be able to use the surplus on a 50-50 basis to improve benefits and lower taxes. H.R. 4844 also reduces significantly the payroll taxes paid by the railroads. This bill allows the railroads' payroll tax for Tier II benefits to decline from the current level of 16.1 percent to 13.1 percent. By the third year following passage of this bill, the railroads stand to gain nearly $400 million annually from lower payroll taxes. All of these savings go directly to the railroads' bottom lines and can be used to make investments needed in the railroad infrastructure and to improve the wages and working conditions of railway workers. Higher net returns also should make railroad stocks look better to potential investors and improve the railroads' ability to engage in equity financing. Clearly, this is a win-win proposition for both the railroads and its workers. While I believe this bill provides significant benefits to railroad workers and retirees, I recognize that railroad labor is not united in support for this bill. Two unions, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, do not support this legislation. They believe that the distribution of benefits should be weighted more favorably toward railroad workers and retirees as the monies involved are, after all, part of their overall compensation package. They were especially interested in securing a further reduction in the retirement age as the agreement only returned them to the retirement age that prevailed in 1983. Just after the agreement was reached, representatives of both those labor unions that supported the agreement and those labor unions that opposed it solicited my support. I felt that it would be in everyone's best interest if railroad labor were united in support of the bill. To work toward achieving consensus within all of rail labor, the Gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and I made a proposal to railroad management to improve somewhat the benefit package. We recognized that we could not radically alter the agreement, but we sought to make the proposal more palatable to those who opposed it. Specifically, we suggested that the railroads allow workers to retire at age 58 with actuarially reduced benefits, but with full medical coverage until the employees become eligible for Medicare at age 65. Today, employees can retire at age 60 with reduced benefits; they aren't eligible for medical coverage until age 61. Mr. Rahall and I believed this was a modest proposal, but unfortunately we were unsuccessful in getting the parties to coalesce around this change. Although, I would prefer to see unified labor support for this legislation, I believe that this bill is the best that can be obtained under current conditions and therefore I have given it my full support. At the request of the Ways and Means Committee, we have made some modifications of the mechanics of how these reforms would be implemented. Those relatively minor modifications deal with how the monies would be administered, with the composition of the group responsible for the investments, and with the way the benefits will be disbursed, but we have not, in any way, altered the fundamental nature of the program. Railroad retirement benefits will continue to be guaranteed, in the final analysis, by the United States Government. This continues to be a federal program and the Congress continues to have authority over it and responsibility for it. The proposed changes do not in any way represent a step toward privatization. This is a good bill. It is good for workers; it is good for retirees and their survivors; it is good for the railroads, and it is good for the country. I urge all Members to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. The legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, will bring substantial benefits to the more than 1 quarter million men and women who work on America's railroads and the more than 700,000 retirees and survivors of retired railroad workers. At the same time, this legislation allows for a significant reduction in the payroll taxes paid by the Nation's railroads. It is a win for railroads. It is a win for railroad labor. It is a win for retirees. I want to compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for the splendid work that he has done and the cooperation extended across the aisle, as we have done so often on so many issues in our committee. Once again, we have brought a very contentious issue to fruition, through the committee process, through collaboration and cooperation and working out something that is in the best public interest. I want to thank our ranking member on our side, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for his leadership and working together with railroad labor railroads and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the work that he did in previous years as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads and for his continued interest in and support of this issue and many other Members on our side and on the Republican side who have worked so hard to bring us to this point. This point is an historic agreement reached by railroad labor and management after 2 years of very tough negotiations. The benefit improvements and tax cuts are made possible by changing current law that limits the investment of railroad retirement trust fund assets to only government securities. The proposed changes govern how railroad retirement trust fund assets can be invested. The changes will not affect the solvency of the railroad retirement system. The Tier I portion, which is Social Security benefits, will continue to be invested only in government securities. Tier II, the part of the system that offers pension plan type benefits above the Social Security benefit levels, will be eligible for investment in assets other than government securities. The projected increase in trust fund income from these changes are based on fairly conservative forecasts of the rates of return that can be earned from such a diversified portfolio, about 2 percentage points above the return on government securities. Most importantly, if those investments fail to perform as well as expected, workers' pensions are further protected as this legislation and in the agreement that underlies the legislation which requires that the railroads absorb any future tax increase that might be necessary to keep this system solvent. Ultimately, the Federal Government continues to be responsible for the security of the railroad retirement system. This legislation offers the first major benefit improvements in the railroad retirement program in more than 25 years. Just a few of the improvements, and I will cite the primary benefits. First, the age at which employees can retire with full benefits is reduced from 62 to 60 years with 30 years of service. Second, the number of years required for vesting in the railroad retirement system is reduced from 10 years to 5 years. Third, the benefit of widows and widowers will be expanded. Fourth, the limits on certain Tier II annuities are repealed. Fifth, the bill calls for automatic future improvements if the retirement plan becomes overfunded. The bill allows for railroads' payroll taxes for Tier II benefits to decline from the current level of 16.1 percent to 13.1 percent. By the third year following passage of the bill, the railroads stand to gain nearly $400 million a year from lower payroll taxes. These savings go directly to the railroads' bottom lines, can be used to make the investments they need in improving railroad infrastructure and to improve the wages and working conditions of railway workers. It is important for us to point out that nothing in the legislation alters the fundamental nature of the railroad retirement program. Benefits will continue to be guaranteed in the final analysis by the Federal Government. This is a good bill. It is good for workers. It is good for retirees. It is good for their survivors. It is good for the railroads and for the national economy. I urge all Members to give it their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled over the possibility of mergers of major domestic airlines. Many observers have predicted that if the proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways is allowed to proceed, it will be followed by mergers of other major carriers, and soon we will have an industry dominated by three mega- carriers. This would be devastating to consumers. The father of deregulation, Alfred Kahn, observed ``Because of the United-US Airways threatening to set off a series of imitative mergers that would substantially increase the concentration of the domestic industry, there is a possible jeopardy here to the many billions of dollars that consumers have been saving each year because of the competition set off by deregulation.'' I am strongly opposed to the United-US merger and other mergers that likely will follow. I have asked the Department of Justice and Transportation to use all available authority to stop the mergers under the antitrust laws, and many Members have indicated they share those concerns. At hearings held in several House and Senate committees there was little support for the United-US merger. Members raised concerns about the impact of the merger on service to the areas they represent as well as to the Nation at large. As one Member in our hearing in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure observed, ``I don't think the merger is a win-win for the consumer. As a matter of fact, it might be a lose-lose look for the consumer.'' A number of Members expressed the sentiment that if Congress were to vote on the proposed United-US merger, it would fail. I hope and expect that the Department of Justice will heed those strongly-held views. At the same time, however, I believe we have to begin thinking about steps we would take to protect consumers if competition in the industry is reduced to a point where it is no longer an affective check on monopolistic behavior. I must emphasize that this type of legislation is not my preference. I would greatly prefer an environment in which consumers are protected by adequate competition in a free market. The legislation I am introducing will give the Department of Transportation extended authority to protect the American consumer should a series of mergers or acquisitions be approved, leaving our domestic market with three or fewer carriers, who would account for over 70 percent of scheduled revenue passenger miles. The authority that I would extend to the Department of Transportation in this legislation will include oversight of air carrier pricing, anti- competitive responses to new entrant competition, and other unfair competitive practices. This is not reregulation. Airlines will remain free to set prices and enter or leave markets without prior government approval. But the bill will give DOT authority to intervene if the airlines take unfair advantage of the absence of sufficient competition. I just want to cite the highlights of this legislation. The bill would take effect when, as a result of mergers between two or more of the top seven carriers, three or fewer carriers control more than 70 percent of domestic revenue passenger miles. Monopolistic fares. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to require reduction in fares that are unreasonably high. When the Secretary finds that a fare is unreasonably high, he may order that it be reduced and that the reduced fare be offered for a specified number of seats and that rebates be offered. Preventing unfair practices against low-fare new entrants. If a dominant incumbent carrier responds to low-fare service by a new entrant, and matches that low fare, and offers two or more times the low-fare seats as the new entrant, the dominant carrier must continue to offer the fare for 2 years, for at least 80 percent of the highest level of low-fare seats it offered. Increasing competition at hubs. If a dominant carrier at a hub airport takes advantage of its monopoly power by offering fares 5 percent or more above industry averages in more than 20 percent of hub markets, DOT may take steps to facilitate added competition at the hub. And, finally, the measures to encourage competition may include measures relating to the dominant carrier's gates, slots, or other airport facilities, to travel agent commissions, frequent flyer programs and corporate discount programs. I hope we do not ever have to come to a point where this legislation must be enacted and must take effect. I hope that the Justice Department will disapprove the United-US merger and discourage all other mergers that are likely to follow this one. If not, and if the domestic airspace and the world airspace is reduced to three globe- straddling mega-carriers, then we will need this legislation in place to protect competition and protect consumers. Mr. Speaker, I want to go into a little more detail about some of the problems my legislation seeks to address. monopolistic fares If the airline sector is reduced to three major carriers the remaining mega-carriers could substantially reduce competition and raise fares. The way airline competition works today, when established carriers control markets, the tendency is for the carriers to follow each other's fare changes so that the fares are identical, and the passenger choice is limited. These tendencies would be magnified if there were only a few major airlines. There would be enormous incentives for each carrier to avoid competing with the others at their strong hubs and routes. This strategy would likely lead to the greatest mutual profitability, while strong competition across the board could prove suicidal. As the DOT aptly stated, ``[e]conomic theory teaches that the competitive outcome of a duopoly is indeterminate: the result could be either intense rivalry or comfortable accommodation, if not collusion, between the duopolists.'' Collusion to fix prices is not new to the airline industry--in 1992 it was caught red-handed in an elaborate price-fixing scheme using computer reservations software. The impact of mergers on fares goes beyond the effects of having only three major competitors. Each merger by itself eliminates competition between the parties to the merger; history shows that this reduction in competition will lead to higher fares. The General Accounting Office, in a 1988 report, found that after TWA bought Ozark, it raised roundtrip fares 13 to 18 percent on 67 routes serving St. Louis. An October 1989 report by the Economic Analysis Group, a DOJ research arm, noted that: ``The merger of Northwest and Republic appears to have caused a significant increase in fares [5.6 percent] and a significant reduction in overall service on city pairs out of Minneapolis-St. Paul.'' That happened despite the fact the number of cities served from Minneapolis-St. Paul increased after Northwest/Republic merger. My bill will give DOT authority to intervene if carriers take advantage of the absence of competition by raising fares above competitive levels. The bill gives DOT authority to require reductions in fares which it finds to be unreasonably high. The bill gives examples of situations in which a fare might be found to be unreasonably high: if the fare in a particular market is higher than the fare the carrier charges in other markets with similar characteristics, or if the fare in a market is increased beyond increases in costs. The bill provides that if DOT finds that a fare is excessively high it may order that the far be reduced, specify the number of seats at which the reduced fare must be offered, and order rebates. unfair competitive practices against low fare carriers A second problem that my bill deals with is unfair competitive practices against new entrants. New entrants providing low fare service have been a critical element in airline competition under deregulation. In fact, history has shown that the public experiences real competition only when low far carriers like Southwest Airlines enters a market. DOT called it the ``Southwest effect.'' Studies have shown that when Southwest begins service to a new city, competitors tend to lower their fares and more people start flying. DOT studies show that average fares in markets served by low- fare carriers were $70-$90 lower than average fares in other markets. On the other hand, fares were higher in markets not served by a low- fare carrier, even when these markets had competition from several established carriers. New entrants with low fare service will be even more important in an industry dominated by three large carriers. In recent years, low fare carriers have faced great difficulty in establishing their services. Last year on the House floor, I expressed my concern over unfair competitive practices that incumbent airlines have used when new entrant low fare carriers try to compete. In the typical scenario, the low fare carrier enters a market with a limited amount of low fare service. The incumbent carrier responds by matching the low fare and adding service so that the low fare will be available on many times the number of seats offered by the low fare carrier. This flooding of the market frequently drives the low fare carrier out, and permits the incumbent to raise its fare to the prior level. The adverse effect of these practices on competition does not end with the particular challenger. Once it becomes known in the industry that an incumbent will respond aggressively to a challenge by a low fare carrier, other prospective competitors will also be deterred in the future. This is not a theoretical problem. DOT investigations and Congressional hearings have uncovered a number of instances in which major airlines have adopted money-losing strategies to drive out new entrants who have instituted low fare service at the major carrier's hub airports. The Transportation Research Board (TRB), in its 1999 study Entry and Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry, examined 32 complaints of unfair competition on file with the DOT, concluding that ``it is apparent that some of the actions described are difficult to reconcile with fair and efficient competition.'' The TRB reported that one-half of the cases involved sharp price cutting and excessive increases in capacity. In fact, last year the DOJ filed suit against American Airlines to enforce the antitrust laws against alleged predatory practices by American Airlines to drive new entrants out of its Dallas/ Ft. Worth hub. If the industry is reduced to three mega-carriers, these carriers will have greater financial resources and general freedom from competition. This will enhance their ability to eliminate new entrants by unfair practices. To deal with this problem, my bill adopts a concept suggested by Dr. Kahn and others to discourage unfair tactics against new entrants. In cases where a dominant carrier at a hub airport meets new low fare competition by reducing its fares and offering the new low fare on more than twice the number of seats as the new entrant carrier on that route, the bill requires the dominant carrier to continue to offer the new low fares for two years. During this two year period, the low fares must be made available on at least 80 percent of the highest number of seats per week for which that fare has been offered. This will ensure that a dominant carrier's efforts to defend its market, route or hub will be a truly competitive response, not one designed only to drive a new competitor out of business and then recoup reduced profits or losses by raising fares. monopolistic abuses at hub airports Another major problem that my bill addresses is monopolistic practices at hub airports dominated by a single airline. Several studies have shown that fares for hub airports are higher than fares in markets where there is more competition. The recent TRB study concluded that ``the consistency with which hub markets appear among the highest- free markets is noteworthy and raises the possibility that the hub carriers are exploiting market powers in ways that would not be sustained if they were subject to more competition.'' In an environment of less competition, the hub problem can be expected to grow worse. My bill addresses this problem in several ways. First, as I have previously discussed, the bill gives the Secretary authority to require that fares at hub airports be reduced if they are higher than fares elsewhere. Secondly, the bill includes provisions to encourage more competition at hubs. The bill provides that, upon a finding that a dominant carrier is exploiting its position at a hub airport by offering unreasonably high fares in more than 20 percent of the hub's markets, the Secretary may require the dominant air carrier to make gates, slots, and other airport facilities reasonably available to other carriers. We have often heard of dominant air carriers that refuse to give to other carriers, especially new entrants, access to key airport facilities. The ability to prevent other air carriers from competing effectively at hub airports will only be magnified if the industry is reduced to three major carriers. My bill would also give the Secretary the authority to require that the air carrier exploiting a hub monopoly make adjustments in commissions paid to travel agents, in frequent flyer programs, and in corporate discount arrangements. Each of these marketing programs has served, in the past, to make it nearly impossible for new entrants to gain a foothold in a dominant hub market. The recent TRB report noted that use of these programs to drive out competition ``merits further investigation by DOT.'' unreasonably high fares for business passengers A final problem the bill addresses is excessibly high fares for business travelers and others who cannot meet the conditions on discount tickets. In the last several years, airlines have been charging increasingly higher airfares to business travelers who do not qualify for discount tickets. The TRB noted that the: ``higher-fare travelers . . . are now paying 5 to 25 percent more. Also evident is that these travelers are paying fares much higher than the median, at least in comparison with earlier periods (1995 to 1992). For instance, travelers paying the highest fares in 1992 paid 2 to 2.1 times the median fare. In 1998, these travelers paid 2.7 to 2.9 times the median.'' If the aviation industry were to consolidate to just three globe-straddling mega-carriers, the business traveler is the one who would bear the brunt of the super-premium airfares that are sure to be charged in those monopoly power airport markets. My bill would give the Secretary power to require reductions in fares that are unreasonably high, either in and of themselves, or by comparison to the lower fares offered other passengers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are at a critical point for the future of a competitive airline industry. The inescapable lesson of 22 years of deregulation is that mergers and a reduction in competition often lead to higher fares for the American traveling public. We cannot stand idly by and allow the benefits of deregulation to be derailed by a wave of mergers. If these mergers are approved, we will need a new legislative framework to give the Secretary of Transportation appropriate authority to combat anti-competitive practices by the new line-up of powerhouse mega carriers, to preserve competition in the public interest, and ensure the widest range of travel options at the lowest possible prices for air travel. If the mergers proceed without the competitive protections I am proposing, then the ultimate irony of deregulation will be that we will have traded government control in the public interest, for private monopoly control in the interests of the industry. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record herewith a section-by-section summary of my legislation: Airline Competition Preservation Act--Section-by-Section Summary section 1--short title This section provides that the Act may be cited as the ``Airline Competition Preservation Act of 2000.'' section 2--oversight of air carrier pricing Subsection (a)(1) provides that the Act takes effect immediately upon a determination by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation that, as a result of consolidation or mergers between two or more of the top 7 air carriers, three or fewer of those air carriers control more than 70 percent of scheduled revenue passenger miles in interstate air transportation. Subsection (a)(2) states that the Secretary shall, in determining the number of scheduled revenue passenger miles under subsection (a)(1), use data from the latest year for which complete data is filed. In addition, subsection (a)(3) provides that the Secretary in making the concentration determination in (a)(1) should attribute to the remaining airline those routes acquired from the air carrier with which it has merged or consolidated. Subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) give the Secretary the authority to investigate whether an air carrier is charging a fare or an average fare on a route that is unreasonably high. The factors in making this determination include whether the fare or average fare in question: is higher than fares charged in similar markets; has been increased in excess of cost increases; and strikes a reasonable relationship between fares charged to passengers who are price sensitive and those charged to passengers who are time sensitive. Under subsection (b)(3), if a fare is found to be unreasonably high, the Secretary may order, after providing the air carrier with an opportunity for a hearing, that it be reduced, that the reduced fare be offered for a specified number of seats and that rebates be offered. Subsection (c) provides that if a dominant air carrier, on any route in interstate transportation to or from a hub airport, responds to low fare service by a new entrant by matching the low fare, and offering two or more times the low fare seats as the new entrant, the dominant carrier must continue to offer the low fare for two years, for at least 80 percent of the highest level of low fare seats it offered. Subsection (d)(1) authorizes the Secretary to investigate whether a dominant carrier at a hub airport is charging higher than average fares at that airport. Subsection (d)(2) provides that the Secretary may determine that higher than average fares are being charged where an air carrier is offering fares that are 5 percent or more above industry average fares, in more than 20 percent of its routes that begin or end in its hub market. If higher than average fares are being charged, the DOT may, after providing the air carrier with an opportunity for a hearing, take steps to facilitate added competition at the hub, including measures to relating to the dominant carrier's gate, slots, and other airport facilities, travel agent commissions, frequent flyer programs and corporate discount programs. Subsection (e) defines the terms ``dominant air carrier,'' ``hub airport,'' ``interstate air transportation,'' and ``new entrant air carrier.'' ``Dominant air carrier'' is defined, with respect to a hub airport, as an air carrier that accounts for more than 50 percent of the total annual boardings at the airport in the preceding 2-year period or a shorter period as specified by the Secretary. A ``hub airport'' means an airport that each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in the United States. ``Interstate air transportation'' is defined as including intrastate air transportation. A ``new entrant air carrier,'' with respect to a hub airport, is defined as an air carrier that accounts for less than 5 percent in the preceding 2-year period or a shorter period as specified by the Secretary.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), the author of the legislation.