James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make some concluding remarks. Mr. Speaker, another reason we, on the Great Lakes, have to celebrate this 210th anniversary of the Coast Guard is that, at long last, the Congress not only has, through our committee, provided the authorization but through the appropriation process provided the funding to build the first new replacement icebreaker for the Mackinaw, which has kept the lanes open, the shipping lanes in the winter months and in the early spring months to move the iron ore down lake and coal down lake as well as limestone and gravel and rock upstream. We desperately need a new icebreaker. The Coast Guard is now in the process of design and build. We are very grateful to see a replacement coming for the venerable Mackinaw that has provided such stellar service. I mentioned earlier that the Coast Guard is a very special service. The remarks of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) about christening call to mind that my wife, Jean, had the privilege of christening the William J. Tate, a buoy tender built at the Marinette Marine Shipbuilding Company on the Great Lakes. Captain William J. Tate was a member of the U.S. Lighthouse Service and a man of action who is a pioneer in many ways. My wife was truly honored and thrilled to have christened the Tate and to be a part in our family of that very special tradition of the U.S. Coast Guard. In 1998, the Coast Guard seized $2.6 billion in illegal drugs attempting to enter this country. It is ironic to note that, in that year, the Coast Guard's operating budget was $2.8 billion. Every year we get more in our investment back from the U.S. Coast Guard. Finally, it was a very good friend of mine who was Commandant of the Ninth Coast Guard District and later Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Jim Gracey, who said; ``It takes a very special person to wear this color blue, and we are all proud to wear it.'' We in the Congress are all proud that the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard day in and day out wear that color blue and serve our Nation so well.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) have his speakers?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for that splendid statement and congratulate him on his close working relationship with the Coast Guard over many years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend our committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), our ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), on combining forces to salute the Coast Guard on its 210th anniversary. Our committee, arguably with the Committee on Ways and Means, is the oldest committee in the House of Representatives. We passed the very first legislation in the first Congress in 1789 to establish a lighthouse, the Cape Henry Lighthouse. Concurrently with that action, the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, approached the Congress to establish a service to enforce our tariff laws. The Congress responded with the authorization to construct 10 cutters needed to patrol the coast along the northern States and enforce our revenue laws. They had to be larger than any previously built. They had to be heavier for winter conditions. They had to be faster than anything we had had before, to collect tariffs on imported goods. Ironically, these ships ended up costing as much as $500 more than the $1,000 each appropriated. All of the ships were built, but it is not clear from historical records where Secretary Hamilton found the money to complete the task. With that action, the Revenue Cutter Service was established, the forerunner of what we know today as the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is an amalgamation of five Federal agencies that also have their origins at the beginning of our country. The Steamboat Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, the Lifesaving Service, and a very special service, the Lighthouse Service. As I said, the very first action of our committee was to establish a lighthouse. The Coast Guard over the years has served our country in military conflict from the war with France in 1799 to actions today when they lead border parties to enforce the Naval blockade in Bosnia or Iraq or in World War II when they drove landing craft on to the beaches of Normandy or in Vietnam where they patrolled the rivers and bays to protect our soldiers. Over the years, the Congress, seeing a need to provide service to the American public and protection for water travelers, has authorized new and ever more far-reaching and more challenging missions for the Coast Guard: search and rescue; maintain thousands of aids to navigation; break ice in the Arctic and Antarctic; and on the Great Lakes and the East Coast: protect the environment, the cleaning up of oil spills and hazardous material spills; safeguard our ports by inspecting ships to ensure that they are safe when they are entering our ports; to manage the protection of our fishery stocks out to our 200-mile exclusive economic protection zone; and to protect our borders from drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. Every year the Coast Guard intercepts drugs and other illegal shipments destined for our shores, whose value is at least as great and in some years greater than the entire Coast Guard budget. I particularly pay tribute to those Coast Guardsmen and women of the Ninth District that covers over 296,000 square miles of the Great Lakes, spanning from Alexandria Bay in New York, to depending on your persective, either the western terminus or the western beginning point of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, Duluth, Minnesota. The 92 Coast Guard units that cover this area protect some and serve some 2.3 million recreational boaters. They keep the lanes and harbors open with icebreakers to ensure that the iron ore from my district gets down lake to the Lower Lake steel mills, and that small East Coast communities receive their winter heating oil. In the 1996/1997 winter season, icebreakers on the Great Lakes paved the way and broke ice for 16 million tons of iron ore, coal, stone and cement to be transported to Lower Lake ports and from the Lower Lakes to the Upper Lakes Region of Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Coast Guard every year undertakes missions to save 5,000 lives and over 65,000 search and rescue missions. Every year, their actions protect over $1.5 billion in private and public property. There is an old saying in the Coast Guard, ``You have to go out but you do not have to come back.'' Every year that they go out, every day that they go out on mission, our Coast Guard men and women know that they may never come back to their families. They risk their lives, but they do so in a thorough, professional manner that is in the highest tradition of this Nation. They deserve this tribute and much more. They deserve to be fully funded and adequately funded. There was a year in the mid-1980s when, on another committee on which I served, the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries which had jurisdiction over the Coast Guard before it was transferred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Coast Guard budget had been pared back so far that we called it ``Semi Paratus,'' but resolved that never again should that happen. Mr. Speaker, when we take time as we do today to pay tribute to the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard for the service they render all Americans, we shall always have a Coast Guard that is Semper Paratus. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and especially thank him for taking time to pay tribute to Mr. Barnett. I also appreciate the gentleman's kind words about my previous remarks on the Elliott bill. Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that our colleague on the subcommittee is leaving. I have memos in my files going back to the early 1990s when Mr. Barnett began service on the committee and our side had the majority. His memos were a model of rectitude and thoroughness then, as they are today. He has provided great service. He is a thoroughgoing professional, a gentleman in the fullest sense of that term, but especially a bicyclist. It is not well known that he is a superb competition-level bicyclist, and the only solace I can take in his leaving the committee is that I will now probably be the strongest bicyclist on the committee among members or staff, either side of the aisle. That is the only consolation we take. We regret greatly Mr. Barnett's departure from the committee and wish him success in all that he undertakes. Wherever he lands, he will be a success because he has demonstrated his professionalism here and his objectivity and thorough pursuit of the highest goal of public service. My congratulations.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will designate the Federal building in Jasper, Alabama, as the Carl Elliott Federal building. The Member whom we honor represented the 7th district of Alabama for 16 years. He was born in 1913 to a family of very modest means in Franklin County, Alabama. He graduated from the University of Alabama in 1933 and from its law school in 1936. He practiced law in Russellville, and later moved to Jasper. He was a World War II veteran. He came back to Jasper and got involved in civic activities and was elected to Congress 2 years after my predecessor, John Blatnik, with whom he was a very close friend. John Blatnik, Bob Jones, and Carl Elliott, a Northern Minnesota, but Northern Minnesotan and these two Alabamians, were very, very close friends. I served as administrative assistant for John Blatnik for 12 years and got to know Carl Elliott and Bob Jones very well. Congressman Elliott lost his seat in the House for an act of courage. He wrote a book entitled ``The Cost of Courage, the Journey of an American Congressman.'' The forward to that book says: ``I am not a man who shows much emotion. I can't remember crying too many times in my life. I cried when my son died. I cried when my wife died, but I don't show a lot of personal feelings. So all of those folks up in Boston probably didn't know how I felt when they brought me out in front of that crowd on a rainy Tuesday morning in the spring of 1990 to give me the first John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award.'' And he thinks back through time, saying, ``It has been a long time since those farmers and miners sent me to Congress in 1948, where I spent 16 years doing all I could for them, getting dams put up, libraries built, roads cut, mail delivered, doing as much as I could for the Nation; working 10 years to build and finally give birth to the National Defense Education Act,'' and he was the author of that education legislation, ``which opened college doors to millions of students who, without it, never could have afforded the education that change their lives. A long time since I rode the crest of a progressive liberal wave in Congress, spearheaded by my contemporaries from Alabama, Senators Lister Hill, John Sparkman, Congressman Bob Jones, Albert Raines, Ken Roberts and others, to a spot on the Rules Committee, working arm-in-arm with Sam Rayburn and the new President, John F. Kennedy. The world was in our hands. So much of it seemed to be changing for the better. And all of a sudden it came apart. George Wallace was elected Governor of Alabama in '62, Kennedy shot in '63, the tide of segregation and racism cresting, swamping the South in hatred and driving me out of Congress in 1964. It was a long time since I gathered to make a stand against that tide, to face the forces of Wallace, to fight the Klan and the Birchers, the gunfire and smears and hysteria that all became a part of the Alabama governor's race of 1966, a campaign the likes of which my State and this Nation had never seen before, and I pray will never see again. ``That race was 25 years ago, the last time a man seriously stood up to George Wallace in this State, and I paid for it. I paid in dollars, cashing in my pension fund to help finance that campaign, and watching debt follow debt in years to come. I paid in dignity, going to colleges I helped build asking to be hired to teach politics or history. I paid in friendship, seeing many who stood by my side suddenly turn away as they were swept up by the same forces that left me behind. I paid in reputation, still hearing people tell me today that I purely and simply had been a fool, that everything would be fine if I had just played the game, not to commit political and financial suicide for a cause that was hopeless. ``They were higher prices, these were, than I ever imagined. I am 77 now, and I am still paying those prices, but we have all paid the price when the walls of segregation began crumbling across America. The torment, the pain, the push and the passion on both sides of the civil rights movement nearly tore the country apart. America, especially the South, paid a high price then, and is still paying today. The force I faced 25 years ago, a pointed power of racial hatred and sullen resistance, is far from dead in this Nation. To fail to see this, to neglect to continue to do all that we can to resist and rise above it, is to pay a higher price than any of us can afford.'' In his speech at the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, he said, ``There were those who said I was ahead of my time. But they were wrong. I believe that I was always behind the times that ought to be. The thing that I cherish more than any award or honor is the National Defense Education Act. It is still putting equipment into schools, training teachers, giving good students an opportunity to go to college. More than 20 million students have taken that opportunity. I consider them my family. When everything is said and done, when all the shouting and the hullabaloo are over, and there are no postscripts left to write, all you have got is yourself and the way you lived your life, the things you stood for, or didn't stand for. If you can live with that, you are all right, and, me, I can live with that.'' I think we can all live with the Carl Elliott Federal Building. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), the Chair of the subcommittee, for yielding to me. Is it our intention that the legislation not conflict with existing Presidential decision directives, specifically PDD62, that this bill is, indeed, intended to create an entity to work within PDD62's working group structure?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act 2000 and want to offer my highest congratulations to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) on the splendid work that she has done, the persistence that she has demonstrated, and the determination to achieve something of everlasting value and significance to the country. I appreciate the support that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has given to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and our side, and I appreciate very greatly the steadfastness of the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) who has devoted considerable time and effort and talent to the achievement of this legislation. But I also express my appreciation to the Office of Management and Budget, which from the very outset has not only had reservations about the bill but at various points said they were steadfastly opposed to the legislation. I had felt all along from the time that this issue was raised at the very outset that there was a problem that needed to be addressed, that we needed to have the right vehicle, and if we could work together on both sides of the aisle, we could accomplish something good and lasting. And I think we are at that point. In response to terrorist attacks in the United States already cited by the chairwoman, the World Trade Center bombings in 1993, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the Federal Government has increased efforts across the board to establish preparedness against terrorist attacks. We in the Congress have enacted legislation to increase funding for preparedness to deal with terrorism. The President has issued Presidential Decision Directives, PDDs, to coordinate those efforts. The funding for Federal counterterrorism programs has almost doubled from $6.5 billion in fiscal year 1998 to over $11 billion for the coming fiscal year. That is all well and good. The problem is that these Federal programs were established without having an overarching national strategy. That led to programs being created independently of each other without coordination amongst the programs and with fragmentation and overlapping efforts and duplicative programs. There are more than 90 terrorism preparedness training courses offered by such agencies as the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. Many of these courses have similar content, but they often have different program criteria. As Members of Congress, we, our colleagues in this body, are approached by local government officials saying, ``we just do not know where to turn. We get the run-around. Do not see us, see some other agency.'' And then there are some parts of the country and some communities and local units of government that get no training whatever for a variety of reasons, not turning to the right place, not putting the right application in, not phrasing it in the right way. So the subcommittee, to the great credit of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and our ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), held three hearings on emergency preparedness against terrorism attacks and confirmed in the process of those hearings the lack of a structured, coordinated Federal effort. State and local emergency responders testified that the current framework is a complex structure of uncoordinated and duplicative programs. Now, to address this matter, the administration, to their credit, created a National Domestic Preparedness Office within the FBI for the purpose of offering one-stop shopping information on preparedness programs. But the hearings have shown that this office has fallen far short of expectations. The General Accounting Office analyzed the issue. The panel created by Congress, a very long name, Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, we cannot even put that in an acronym, we do not do very well ourselves, but both entities analyzed and reported to the committee the importance of establishing a national terrorism preparedness strategy to clearly define the end goal of preparedness for State and local responders. That is what this legislation is all about, to ensure the development and the implementation of a coordinated, effective program to support State and local efforts. The central entity here after a lot of compromise, a lot of discussion between the chairwoman, the ranking member of the subcommittee, myself, our staff, and the Office of Management and Budget, resulted in the establishment in this bill of the President's Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness. The first objective of this council is to establish coordination at a very high policy level. I believe that is the core. I think that is the most critical issue, and I say that based on my experience as a member of the Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. What we found, in the aftermath of Pan Am 103, after a year inquiry into the causes of that tragedy and the splintered governmental response, was that, at the very highest policy levels of government, the assistant secretary of one entity would not talk to the director of an agency. The director of an agency could not communicate with an ambassador overseas. Now, that is just nonsense. We need information to flow rapidly to the people who are in a policy position to make decisions that will have effect. And that was the concern of our commission on Pan Am 103. We recommended a central coordinating force that would operate as a clearinghouse and a coordinating force within and amongst the key domestic government agencies and those that do our work overseas, such as the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department Intelligence Office. Well, that is what we are going to do with this council, to coordinate and implement new efforts, eliminate duplication, eliminate overlapping, and assure that State and local emergency responders get all the assistance they need clearly, directly in a coordinated and focused manner. And the council can then turn and advise Congress on recommendations for allocating the resources, rationalizing government-wide budgets on terrorism preparedness, and help the Congress monitor the efforts to assure that we are developing and putting in place a defined, effective, national strategy, one that is centrally directed and that will be effective nationwide. That is the objective of this legislation. I think it moves in the right direction. There will be a few other issues to overcome, relatively minor ones in my opinion, but I think that we can overcome those issues working together as we have done up to this point. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do so just for the purpose of correcting what I think is a mischaracterization of the bill by my good friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee. This is not a half a loaf. This is virtually the whole loaf. To be sure, it does not include the original language of the bill to establish within the Executive Office of the President an entity to coordinate, but neither did we achieve that objective in the Aviation Security Legislation of 1990 after the report of our Presidential commission established by President Bush. When we reported to the President the recommendation to establish within the Department of Transportation a new office, a new assistant Secretary, the President's response was that is really the prerogative, the privilege of the executive branch to establish such new authorities. We acknowledge that is the prerogative of the executive. When the Office of Management and Budget in this context raised the same question, what we did was get together and ask how can we achieve the same objective and not transgress into what is appropriately executive branch prerogatives. I think this coordinating council which we have established here and a precedent for which is a coordinating council that was established also in the Bush administration to deal with a plethora of transportation programs when the subcommittee that I chaired at the time found 137 different transportation programs in multiple departments of government, none of them being coordinated. Then the Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget came and said, we agree with your idea to have a coordinating council, and we are here to support it. That initiative has worked very well, as I anticipate this coordinating council will work very well. Again, I compliment the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) on her initiative for being so stick-to-itive on this matter and bringing it to a very successful conclusion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentlewoman would yield further, subsection 14 of section 653 states that the council shall establish general policies regarding financial assistance to States. It is my understanding, I think our understanding, that these policies are not intended to specifically direct where grants should go or to micromanage the agency programs.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General today released the results of a study, done at my request, of the Department's rulemaking process. The IG's report conforms what many of us involved in transportation policy have suspected, that the DOT is doing a poor job meeting rulemaking deadlines. According to the report, DOT is taking, on average, twice as long to issue rules as it did just six years ago. The report compares the number of significant rules completed in 1999, and the average time it complete each process, with corresponding figures from 1993. The results are not encouraging. In 1993, the department issued 45 rules and took an average of 1.8 years to complete work on each; in 1999, the department issued 20 new rules after working an average of 3.8 years on each. In other words, DOT is taking twice as long to do half as much. The study further shows that the Office of the Secretary is the slowest among the operating administrations in the department, taking an average of 6.6 years in 1999 to complete action on proposed rules. In 1993 the Secretary's office took an average of 4.4 years. The office issued the same number of rules--three--in 1993 and 1999. The Federal Aviation Administration showed the most significant drop in rulemaking productivity in the study. In 1993, the FAA issued 17 significant rules and took an average of eight to nine months (0.7 years) to complete the process. In 1999, the FAA issued only three rules, and took an average of three years to finish work on each, four times as long to complete less than one-sixth the workload. Only the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit Administration showed improvement in the average time to complete rulemaking between 1993 and 1999. However, the FRA issued only two rules in each of the two years studied, and FTA issued two rules in 1993 and one rule in 1999. The report goes on to say that the department routinely misses statutory deadlines for issuing rules. The report shows that the DOT's record was poor in 1993 and has improved only marginally since then. In 1993, the department completed only 12 of 29 rules mandated by Congress (41.4 percent) and completed only four of the 29 by the mandated deadline (13.8 percent). In 1999, the department completed 21 of 43 such rules (48.8 percent) and met the deadline on 10 of them (23.2 percent). This is a dismal record. The IG's report cites several reasons for these delays. In the case of Congressionally mandated rules, work is often delayed by a disagreement between Congress and the department over the content of the rule. The complexity of the rulemaking process also contributes to the problem. However, the report cites poor management by the modal administrators as a significant contributor to the lack of progress on new rules. In its analysis of 54 completed rulemakings, the study that found rules languished an average of two years on the modal administrator's desk with no action taken. The report said in many cases the rulemaking process stalled because the administrator would not make a decision on whether a rule should advance or be terminated, did not consider the rule a priority, or waited for future events, such as the development of new technology, that would affect the rule. When the modal administrator considers a rulemaking to be a priority, the process can move quickly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration took less than one year to produce a rule providing grants to states with a legal blood alcohol limit of 0.08. Yet, NHTSA still has not completed action on a rule on the flammability of materials on school buses after working on it for 11 years. The report states that NHTSA has wanted to terminate the rule, but the Federal Transit Administration and the Deputy Secretary opposed terminating it. Even though the Deputy Secretary charged NHTSA to work with FTA to work out their differences, NHTSA has not worked on the rule for the past three years. These rules affect public safety--children on school buses, passengers in airplanes, ships at sea, motorists at rail crossings, neighborhoods near gas pipelines. We cannot allow bureaucratic gridlock to put people's lives at risk. To its credit, the DOT, according to this report, has accepted the IG's findings and is taking steps to improve its management of the rulemaking process. I have discussed this matter with Sec. Rodney Slater and urged him to use these remaining months to take significant action to reduce or eliminate this backlog of pending rules and provide a clean slate for the next administration. I am very pleased with Sec. Slater's firm commitment to follow through and press the modal administrators to put the rule making process into high gear. In doing so, the Secretary can show the American people that government can work efficiently, can be responsive to their concerns, and can adopt the same attitude of compliance that it demands of the private sector it regulates.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken a bold and necessary step toward fulfilling the promise of fishable, swimmable waters that the Congress made to the American people in the Clean Water Act nearly 30 years ago. EPA has finalized the rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads. This will address the last frontier of the Clean Water Act--discharges from open spaces, runoff from land that gets into our waters through creeks and streams, into rivers, lakes, and estuaries. EPA proceeded in all proper fashion in developing this rule. It provided for an extended comment period, which was further extended by Congress for a full 5 months. EPA subsequently received and responded to over 30,000 comments. The agency made changes in the rule to make it more flexible, more responsive, and more effective in addressing water quality needs. EPA even went as far as to withdraw the proposal for forestry, choosing to focus efforts on comprehensively, effectively, and thoroughly addressing the fundamental issue of runoff from nonpoint sources. Notwithstanding this monumental effort, Congress responded with a direct assault on TMDL rule and the Clean Water Act. Regrettably, it seems as though we go down this road every year--EPA seeking to advance protection of human health and the environment, and the Congress pushing anti-environmental riders in appropriations bills. Just a few short weeks ago, the majority, with much fanfare, claimed to have adopted a policy of no anti-environmental riders in appropriations bills. Unfortunately, that policy lasted only until the first vote on a conference report, when the majority inserted language to prevent EPA from improving the quality of the Nation's waters. The majority's rider would prevent EPA from proceeding with the TMDL rule by prohibiting the agency from spending any money to advance the process of developing and implementing the program. The opposition to the TMDL rule is badly misguided and fueled by an unwillingness to achieve water quality in a fair and timely manner. The TMDL process is an effective, rational, and defensible process by which to achieve the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act. The EPA estimates that some 20,000 rivers, lakes, streams and other bodies of water in this country are polluted to the point of endangering public health. The TMDL rule would help states address this problem by setting a daily limit on the amount of polluting substances entering these waters, in effect, creating a ``pollution budget'' for them. This is how the process works: First, states identify those waters where the state's water quality standards are not being met. Second, states identify the pollutants that are causing the water quality impairment. Third, states identify the sources of those pollutants. Finally, states assign responsibility for reducing those pollutants so that the waters can meet the uses that the states have established. We have made great improvements in water quality through the treatment of municipal waste and industrial discharges. Thanks to billions of dollars invested by industries and municipalities, these point sources are no longer the greatest source of water quality impairment. Nationally, the greatest remaining problem is nonpoint sources--not pollution from a single, easily identifiable source such as discharge from a sewer pipe, but from a wider area, such as runoff from a farm field or parking lot. Now, nearly 30 years after the Clean Water Act, it is time for the states to get all sources of pollution-- including nonpoint sources--to be part of the solution. I have heard the arguments that the TMDL rule is not based on science. In my considered judgment, the TMDL rule is not only based on science, it is based upon the facts. Just this June, EPA published its biennial report entitled National Water Quality. This report provides Congress with information developed by the states, and the states tell us that there are still major water quality problems to be addressed. Further, the states tell Congress that for rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs and ponds, the leading source of water quality impairment, by far, is runoff from urban lands under development and from those agricultural lands that are not properly managed to contain runoff. The TMDL process is the most fair and efficient way to finish cleaning up the Nation's waters. The TMDL rule is not perfect, and EPA has been responsive in making adjustments to the rule. Many have criticized it, including some in the environmental community, but the TMDL process is the tool the states need to achieve water quality. EPA has changed the TMDL rule to make it clearer and more responsive to the concerns of the agriculture community. EPA has also withdrawn in its entirety the rule relating to forestry, and has promised to work with stakeholders to develop a new rule sometime next year. Now, the vast majority of the environmental community supports going forward. The Department of Agriculture supports going forward. I applaud EPA for going forward, and will work to allow EPA to fully implement the rule and achieve the water quality goals of the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of H.R. 4762, legislation to require Section 527 disclosure, my vote was not recorded on final passage. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall 341. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record after Rollcall Vote 341.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly great American, Thomas J. Ryan, whom the Lord claimed for eternal life earlier this month. Tom Ryan's 87 years were lived with the joy, wit, humor, intensity, and love of life unique to his Irish ancestry. Tom Ryan was husband twice: to Eileen, who preceded him in death; and to Miriam, with whom he shared 42 glorious years; he was father of 13, grandfather of 42, and great-grandfather of 36 and loved them all equally and dearly. Tom Ryan served his country in the Navy during World War II; and, again, during the Korean conflict, as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting OPS violations. He served the city of St. Paul as assistant city Attorney, the people of the 55th legislative district in the Minnesota House of Representatives, and served the people of Pine, Isanti, and Chisago counties in the Minnesota State Senate, making his mark with important legislation affecting the judiciary, towns and counties, veterans, and highways. This brief recitation of only the highlights of Tom's professional life shows abundantly that he was a man who, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, ``lived grandly in the law''--meaning that he was devoted to and an advocate of the law. He was also devoted to public service as a calling and a vocation. Tom Ryan was my friend, counselor, and role model in his commitment to his family first, and to the people whom he so ably served in both elective and appointive office. Tom Ryan's life and legacy might best be summed up by a scripture verse I have always loved, from Proverbs, ch. 18, v. 31: ``Gray hair is a crown of glory;'' it is gained by virtuous living.'' I will miss Tom greatly; but he will always be a part of my life and an inspiration to my public service. Tom, and especially Miriam, as well as all their beautiful family, will always be in my prayers. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following obituary which appeared in numerous newspapers, as well as the beautiful poem, ``The Heart of Solid Gold,'' written by Tom's loving daughter, Gloria Baker. Thomas J. Ryan 10/3/12--6/8/00 On October 3, 1912, Irishman, Thomas Joseph Ryan was born in Portland, Oregon. In 1935 he graduated from College of St. Thomas with a BA degree in social and political science. In 1943 he graduated from the William Mitchell School of Law with an LLB degree and was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Minnesota. His personal commitment to the field of law would not allow him to retire and he continued his private practice until the time of his passing. From 1943 to 1946 he served in the U.S. Navy as Lieutenant J.G. After his discharge he was engaged in the general practice of law in Milaca area. During the Korean war he was appointed Special Assistant U.S. District attorney in the prosecution of OPS violations. Thereafter, he was appointed assistant city attorney for the city of St. Paul, in which capacity he served six years. He had been connected with the Minnesota attorney general's office as special assistant in the trial of jury cases in highway condemnation matters and in writing opinions on municipal law. His specialty while in the city attorney's office was in research and drafting legislation and in presenting proposals to the legislature. He served as state representative of the old 55th district. As a member of the legislature he served upon many important committees such as the committees on judiciary, highways, towns and counties, and veterans and military affairs. He ran for the office of state senator in the new 21st district comprising of Chisago, Isanti and Pine counties in 1962. He served as Pine County Attorney from 1974-1980, until his retirement, at which time he continued his private law practice in the Pine County area. Thomas was preceded in death by his first wife Eileen (Fitzgerald), his parents, Thomas and Alice (Doyle) Ryan, brother Dr. James Ryan, son, Thomas J. (Ryan) Jr., infant Mary (Ryan), infant grandson Patrick Johnson, and numerous other relatives and friends. He is survived by and sorely missed by his second wife and best friend of over 42 years, Miriam (Young Mueller), 13 children; Kathleen (Ryan) and Terrance Oakes, Ortonville; Constance (Ryan) and Thomas Oakes, Marine on the St. Croix; Thomas and Phyllis Mueller, Aitken; John Ryan, Astoria, Oregon; Patricia (Ryan) and Denis Paine, Isanti; Paul and Judy Mueller, Apple Valley; Michael Ryan and fiance Helen Bartell, Mora; Carol (Mueller) and Roger Abdella, Pine City; Rosemary (Mueller) and Lawrence Perreault, Pine City; Gloria (Mueller) and Ralph Baker, Pine City; Mary (Mueller) and Dennis Willert, Pine City; Therese (Mueller) and Richard Prihoda, Pine City; Shawn (Ryan) and Douglas Johnson, Pine City, also survived by 42 grandchildren, 36 great grandchildren, many nieces and nephews. Visitation and prayer service at Swanson Funeral Chapel, Pine City, Sunday, June 11, from 4:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Funeral mass celebration and burial will be on Monday, June 12, at 10:30 a.m. at the Immaculate Conception Church in Pine City, with Father Michael Lyons officiating. His legacy of love for family, involvement and vitality for life will continue to be an inspiration to us all. In life he was teaching us, in his passing he taught us. Rest in the peace and love of the Lord, and meet us at heaven's gate when it is our turn. Thomas graduated from the College of St. Thomas and William Mitchell School of Law. He served in the U.S. Navy as Lieutenant J.G. 1943 to 1946. After discharge he practiced law in the Milaca area. During the Korean War he was appointed Special Assistant U.S. District Attorney in the prosecution of OPS violations. He was appointed Assistant City Attorney for the city of St. Paul, and served for six years. Through the Minnesota Attorney General's Office he was a special assistant in the trial of jury cases in highway condemnation matters and in writing opinions on municipal law. He was state representative of the old 55th district. In 1962 he ran for the office of state senator in the new 21st district comprising of Chisago, Isanti, and Pine Counties. He served as Pine County Attorney from 1974-1980, until his retirement, at which time he continued his private practice in the Pine County area until his passing. Preceding him in death are his first wife Eileen (Fitzgerald), parents Thomas and Alice (Doyle) Ryan, brother Dr. James Ryan, son Thomas, infant Mary, grandson Patrick Johnson, and numerous other relatives. Survived by second wife of over 42 years, Miriam, 13 children, 42 grandchildren, 36 great grandchildren. Visitation and prayer service at Swanson Funeral Chapel, Pine City, Sunday, June 11, 4:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Funeral mass and burial are Monday, June 12, 10:30 a.m. at the Immaculate Conception Church.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to the anti-environmental provision of this conference report. That provision is a direct assault on the Clean Water Act. It prevents the EPA from proceeding with a final rulemaking on the Total Minimum Daily Load proposed rule which has been under consideration for several years and which is important to addressing the last frontier of the Clean Water Act: discharges from open spaces, runoff from land that gets into our waters through our creeks and streams, into lakes and rivers, and into estuaries. The EPA was proceeding in proper fashion with this rulemaking. It has removed from the final rule any reference to and effect upon silviculture, forestry, in order to deal more comprehensively, effectively and thoroughly with the fundamental issue of runoff from nonpoint sources. It is regrettable that language was inserted in conference in this bill to prevent EPA from moving ahead to improve the quality of the Nation's waters. Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago, the majority, with much fanfare, claimed to have adopted a policy of no antienvironmental riders in appropriations bills. That policy did not last until even the first conference report--which does contain language preventing EPA from improving the quality of the Nation's waters. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conference report which prevents EPA from proceeding with the TMDL rule is a direct attack on the Clean Water Act--preventing EPA from spending any money to advance the process of developing and implementing the program for Total Maximum Daily Loads. The TMDL program is the final phase of the Clean Water Act. It is the mechanism by which we will fulfill the promise made to the American public in 1972 to make the Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. The opposition to the TMDL rule is badly misguided and fueled by an unwillingness to achieve water quality in a fair and timely manner. The TMDL process is an effective, rational, and defensible process by which to achieve the water quality goals of The Clean Water Act. This is how the process works: First, states identify those waters where the water quality standards which the states have developed are not being met. Second, states identify the pollutants that are causing the water quality impairment. Third, states identify the sources of those pollutants. Finally, states assign responsibility for reducing those pollutants so that the waters can meet the uses that the states have established. We have made great improvements in water quality through the treatment of municipal waste and industrial discharges. Thanks to billions of dollars invested by industries and municipalities, these point sources are no longer the greatest source of impairment. Nationally, the greatest problem is nonpoint sources. Now, nearly 30 years after the Clean Water Act, it is time for the states to get all sources of pollution to be part of the solution. I have heard the arguments that the TMDL rule is not based on science. In my considered judgment, the TMDL rule is not only based on science, it is also based upon the facts. Just this week, EPA published its biennial report entitled ``National Water Quality.'' This report provides Congress with information developed by the states, and the states tell us that there are still major water quality problems to be addressed. Further, the states tell Congress that for rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, the leading source of water quality impairment, by far, is runoff from urban lands under development and from those agricultural lands that are not properly managed to contain runoff. Mr. Speaker, the TMDL process is the most fair and efficient way to clean up the Nation's waters. The TMDL rule is not perfect. Many have criticized it, including some in the environmental community, and EPA has responded by making adjustments. EPA has changed the TMDL rule to make it clearer and more responsive to the concerns of the agricultural community. EPA has also in its entirety withdrawn that part of the rule which addresses forestry, and has promised to work with stakeholders to develop a new rule. The vast majority of the environmental community supports going forward. The Department of Agriculture supports going forward. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies supports going forward. I hope that EPA does in fact move forward, and that this inappropriate, unnecessary rider will be revered in subsequent legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to honor a remarkable family in my congressional district: the Cerkvenik family, who will celebrate their heritage on July 6th, 2000, with a gathering on the Mesabi Iron Range in Northeastern Minnesota. The Cerkvenik family had its beginnings in the Republic of Slovenia in northwestern Yugoslavia. As the people of Slovenia celebrate their ninth year of independence from Yugoslavia this week, it is an appropriate time to recognize the people of Slovenia and those of Slovene ancestry in the United States. I am delighted that the Cerkvenik family is preparing to honor their Slovene ancestral roots next week. Anton Cerkvenik was born in the small village of Vreme Britof on March 4, 1876, in a large pink stucco house, which his grandfather Joseph built in 1790. The family called it the House of Jelovsek. Joseph's daughter, Maria, married Matije Cerkvenik, son of Jacob, and from this union six children were born--a girl, Mary, and five boys, Matije, Franc, Joze, Pavel, and Anton. When Maria married Matija, the name of the house changed to the House of Cerkvenik. It held this distinction for over 100 years until Stanka Cerkvenik married and the name changed to that of her husband and the house then became known as the House of Milavec. Anton had a great love of adventure, which led him astray from his homeland to the coffee fields of Brazil. He later returned to the army in Yugoslavia and immigrated to the United States. From Ellis Island, he traveled to Mountain Iron, Minnesota, where he worked in the iron ore mines. He lived in a boarding house owned by John and Agnes Simonich who became his best friends and godparents to his children. He met and married Johanna Intihar at the Simonich boarding house. She came to the United States from Strajesce, near Cerknica, Slovenia, in 1906. She was the daughter of Franc and Ursula Sevc Intihar who had five other children--John, Ursula, Niza, Mary, and Frank. Anton and Johanna had nine children, Anton, Mary, Ann, Florence, Frances, Frank, Amelia, Rose, and Edward. Anton built a house in the Costin location of Mountain Iron, where the family had a large garden, farm, and animals. All helped pick blueberries, can garden vegetables, and put up wood for heat and cooking. Every child received a good education and graduated from Mountain Iron High School. Most went on to college to become professionals in their work, which ranged from teachers to nurses, and to become outstanding members of their communities. Ed and Frank served in World War II, as did Rose, a civilian radio instructor. The Cerkvenik family has a strong tradition of public service in northern Minnesota; sons Anton and Frank served the City of Mountain Iron as Clerk and Mayor; the next generation of Cerkveniks has also continued to serve the state of Minnesota and the country. Second generation members Paul worked in Congress at the Democratic Study Group; Peter served on the Mountain Iron City Council; Steve was elected to the School Board; and Gary and his wife Kim both worked in my congressional office. Gary was also elected to the St. Louis County Board and Kim ran for Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota. In addition to Kim, other spouses who have joined the Cerkvenik family have participated actively in politics and government, including Ann Mulholland who worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and on Paul Simon's presidential campaign, and Kathleen Murray who has worked on Mayor Richard Daley's campaigns. On the Iron Range in Mountain Iron, Tony and his wife Mitzi opened a grocery store and meat market which has continued under Frank and his family. For nearly 40 years, Cerkvenik's Super Market has been known for great meats, good service, and a fair trade. Most importantly, it became a center of political and social life in Mountain Iron. Other descendants continue to make their unique marks on our country. One Cerkvenik family member, Barrett, graduated from West Point and helped negotiate the START treaty. Others are business owners, computer specialists, bus drivers, teachers, lawyers, designers, advertisers, civil servants, biologists, and mothers and fathers. Together, they are a proud Slovene family who have not forgotten their roots and heritage. Now there are four generations of Cerkvenik descendants in the United States of America. They are truly part of the unique fabric of lives and histories that make America the richest and most vibrant nation in the world. As they gather on Minnesota's Iron Range this July, I salute the Cerkvenik family for their invaluable contributions to this great land of ours.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, last Thursday, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways. In the course of that hearing, I used an inappropriate and unwarranted term to describe the status of the spin-off carrier DC Air that would be created if the merger were to be approved. Mr. Robert Johnson, CEO of Black Entertainment Television and proposed owner of DC Air, took justifiable exception of that characterization of the proposed new carrier. In a letter to me late Friday, Mr. Johnson said he is personally hurt and offended and called upon me to change my attitude. I take the well today to apologize to Mr. Johnson and to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for my careless, inappropriate, and offensive remark. Madam Speaker, in my years of Congress, I have staunchly maintained an attitude of support for civil rights in the United States and human rights abroad. I will not detail that history today except to say that, in the most recent civil rights issue before my committee, TEA 21, I championed the inclusion of language to give a fair share of Federal transportation accounts to disadvantaged businesses. Before coming to Washington, I spent 3\1/2\ years working in Haiti. During my time of Congress, I worked to bring economic and political stability to that first black republic in the world. I cannot let that record of 40 years be tarnished by one ill-chosen, inappropriate, offensive word. In the spirit of Psalm 51, verse 19, ``My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite heart. A heart contrite and humbled, O God, you will not spurn.'' Madam Speaker, it is further my responsibility and that of my colleagues in Congress to stay focused on the main issue here, the effects of this proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways on air service in Washington and throughout the country. I have reviewed DC Air's business plan and am concerned it would be tied too closely to the newly merged United and not be an effective competitor. The concern is not based on Mr. Johnson's ownership of the airline, for I have great respect and appreciation for Mr. Johnson's abilities as a businessman and his success as an entrepreneur, but on the new carrier's dependence on its much larger partner. If the Justice Department sees fit to approve this deal, I would hope that it would require the merging airlines to divest additional assets to DC Air to make the start-up carrier a stronger, more viable competitor. I am opposed to the United-US Airways merger on its merits. I believe it will diminish competition, spur additional consolidation in the airline industry, and result in fewer choices and poorer service to the flying public. It is a bad deal for aviation and for the consumer.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to these gentleman, I know how these budgets work. We cut $15 million here, then we have to shift that money someplace. So it is going to come out of the hide of the resources that I have just addressed, and so I really cannot agree. We must oppose this amendment.