James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) is certainly well-intentioned, but in the wrong direction. Earlier this year, I asked for $9 million in the supplemental, because I felt the Forest Service had insufficient funding to deal with storm recovery problems all across this Nation, including the disastrous storm that struck the Boundaries Waters canoe area in northern Minnesota in my district, blowing down 450,000 acres of trees, 6 million cords of wood, 26 million trees. And we have a calamity on our hands. We do not have enough money in the Forest Service budget to deal with this problem. But beyond the eighth district of Minnesota is 65 million acres of national forest land in a severe health crisis, high risk of wildfire disease and insect infestation. In the first 6 months of this year, 1.2 million acres of public lands had been consumed by wildfire. In the previous 10-year average, that was 719,000 acres by this time. We are more than 50 percent above 10-year average in wildfires principally because of these problems of forest health. To cut these funds would cut the ability of professional foresters to manage the renewable resource of this Nation, our forestry, to manage the ability of our forests to continue to absorb carbon dioxide and return oxygen to the atmosphere, to keep our air clean, but also to provide jobs and economic stability for communities that are dependent upon those national forests. And these forests pay for themselves in revenues returned to the Federal Government. The timber program generates over $300 million a year in tax revenue. The net contribution to the national economy is over $25 billion a year from these public lands that professional foresters manage in the public interests; and in our State of Minnesota, that is a $1.3 billion industry, forestry and allied products. 38,000 jobs in Minnesota, value of the products shipped, $7\1/2\ billion. Now, it is not all dependent on U.S. forest lands, but those forest lands are the cornerstone of our whole forestry program. The more those forest lands are cut back, and we have already had the road lists program that was announced last year, which we fought out on this floor and opposed, we already had cutbacks. We have already had rare 1, rare 2, rare 3. We have already had more lands added to wilderness, and I am for wilderness; but when we take it out of living forests and deny people job opportunities and livelihoods of community, we are squeezing us too hard. And when we put that pressure on the public lands, it shifts over to the less well-managed and less available private forestry lands. I would say well, this is $15 million, but this will take us below the President's budget, which is below what we need. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) of our subcommittee, for adding the resources that we need to manage these public resources in the best public interest. Do not take a short- sighted view. A forest is forever. Trees that were blown down in the boundary waters a year ago this summer, a year ago this July, were saplings at the time of the Civil War; managed well, they can last for another 150 years. I urge this body to oppose this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the Department of Defense authorization legislation (H.R. 4205) last week, I inadvertently voted yes when I intended to vote no on rollcall vote 203. I have consistently voted in support of life.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I close with an observation about the last campaign of President Truman about which he reminisced in Plain Speaking: Another thing about that election, I won it not because of any special oratorical effects or because I had any help from what you would call the Madison Avenue fellows but by a statement of fact of what had happened in the past would happen in the future if the fellow that was running against me was elected. I made 352 speeches that were on the record and about the same number that were not. I traveled altogether 31,700 miles, I believe, and it was the last campaign in which that kind of approach was made. Now, of course, everything is television; and the candidates travel from one place to another by jet airplane. And I don't like that.'' I think the American people do not like it much, either. I think they would like a return to the plain speaking of Harry Truman and to the personal contact that he made with people. If we could all live up to the very simple ideals by which he lived his life, ran the White House, steered us through the end of World War II and into the postwar period, we will all be a better country. That is why we are taking the step of naming the Department of State building for a man who is truly a statesman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to express at the outset my great appreciation to the chairman for moving so expeditiously on this matter. The naming of the building has been requested by a number of our colleagues and, in particular, by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who has been a vigorous advocate for naming the State Department building after one of our truly great heroes in American history. On April 12, 1945, most of us can remember, those who remember back that far, what we were doing on that particular day. I know exactly where I was sitting in my little hometown of Chisholm. Vice President Harry Truman was just off the House floor, one floor below, in what was known as the Board of Education Room, sharing a moment with Speaker Sam Rayburn. Word came from the White House Press Secretary, Steve Early, to get over to the White House immediately. Truman saw the urgency of that message, left, and there at the White House he learned from First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt of the President's unexpected and untimely death. After a few silent moments, he asked Eleanor Roosevelt if there was anything he could do for her. Shaking her head, she said, ``Is there anything we can do for you? You are the one in trouble now.'' Well, that underscored or maybe in a very quiet way stated what a lot of people believed that maybe Harry Truman was not ready to be President. There is a companion story that when Truman was elected and took his seat in the United States Senate, he said to friends, I looked around and I saw names like Carter Glass, Robinson, Patman, this Patman in the House, others, and he said, what am I doing here? And after about 6 months on the floor of the United States Senate, he looked around and he said, what are they doing here? That was Harry Truman. There was one subject that Harry Truman's lifetime biographer Merle Miller wrote in Plain Speaking, one subject on which Mr. Truman was not going to have second thoughts: it was the bomb. The bomb had ended the war. ``If we had had to invade Japan, half a million soldiers on both sides would have been killed and a million more would have been maimed for life. It was simple as that. That was all there was to it. And Mr. Truman had never lost any sleep over that decision.'' Well, yes. And since Mr. Truman had made the decision to drop the bomb all by himself, no one else was around when he made up his mind. And that also characterized Harry Truman. When 1948 came along and he was running for election as President, he had taken some very strong positions. And, as we all know, he had asked for a fair employment practice commission and asked for a permanent commission on civil rights and was told, if he did that, if he persisted with his plan, some Southerners would walk out. And ``I said,'' Mr. Truman commented, ``if that happened, it would be a pity. But I had no intention of running on a watered-down platform that said one thing and meant another; and the platform I did run on and was elected on went straight down the line on civil rights. People said I ought to pussyfoot around, that I shouldn't say anything that would lose the Wallace vote and nothing that would lose the Southern vote. But I didn't pay any attention to that. I said what I thought had to be said. You can't divide the country up into sections and have one rule for one section and one rule for another. And you can't encourage people's prejudices. You have to appeal to people's best instincts, not their worst ones. You may win an election or so by doing the other, but it does a lot of harm to the country.'' That is Harry Truman, plain speaking, plain and simple, one of America's great heroes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the principal advocate and relentless advocate for this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is permanent normal trade relations for China. But the previous question, the larger question, the larger issue is fairness for domestic industries and our workers, equity for American workers. When subsidized goods from foreign sources flood our markets, not protection but prompt, vigorous, efficient enforcement of our existing trade laws, has not happened in the steel industry in the United States. We have lost 350,000 jobs in basic steel and 10,000 jobs in the iron ore mining country of my district. For the past 4 months, I have asked the administration and backers of this legislation to fix two problems with legislation that I have prepared on the Trade Act of 1934 and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act of 1974 to provide that equity and that fairness that I am asking for in international trade. It has not been forthcoming in this legislation. I have not been uncommitted but very clear about my position. If we can fix the problem and help the workers face an uncertain future, I would vote for this. But if not, I will vote against it. Symptomatic of what lies ahead are the defective issues in the U.S. agreement with China that are reflective of the broader pattern of international trade where we have failed to enforce existing law. What hope do workers in American industry have about the future of a broader trade agreement when existing law is not vigorously, effectively enforced? We ask only for that. It has not been forthcoming. I see no hope that it will. I am voting no.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, during the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization legislation (H.R. 4392) this morning, my vote was not recorded on several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 214; I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 215; and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 216. personal explanation

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join him. I think the reality is that the votes are there to support this amendment but I think it is misguided. This project, from my knowledge and my personal view of it, is it is a missing link to the interstate system in California. For 20 years, projects have been reviewed appropriately and met the environmental reviews necessary to advance the project. The Federal Highway Administration has supported the review and public involvement in the project. Federal funds have been made available for construction. The State supports the project and is willing to advance it. But I think the reality is that there are the votes marshaled already on the floor, as my colleague from Minnesota said, in the last session, the previous session of Congress, to support this amendment. It is unfortunate, and I agree that amendments of that kind should not be presented here. We will make the case but not make the vote.

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

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the Chair and express my appreciation to the Chair for his earlier admonition that Members address the Chair and not refer to each other by name; to observe the rules of the House, a practice that is becoming observed more in the breach than in the respect. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a good example, an object lesson, for the reason the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation, both Democratic and Republican leadership, has always resisted individual designations of airports or runways in the authorization bill. Those are not issues for this body to resolve. I take no position on the merits of the issue being debated this morning, but I do take a position on the initiative offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) to have this body interfere as a matter of national law in what is essentially a local decision-making process. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately referred to the process that Congress established for the resolution of the management of airport capacity at both national and Dulles. The reason Congress acted is that those are the only two airports the national government owns in the United States, of 17,000 airports. In the national plan of integrated airport system, only two airports are owned by the Federal government. They were turned over in fact, in a management sense, although the Federal government continues to retain the ownership of those airports, to a regional council. Whether the airport in New Orleans should be expanded or retracted, whether it should be managed in this or that manner, is a matter not for this body to resolve but for the people of New Orleans and the surrounding communities, be they parishes or cities. All should be done in accordance with the national plan of integrated airports established by the FAA which establishes a national system. If we improve a highway in Duluth, if improvements are made to Interstate 35 in Duluth, that has virtually zero effect on I-35 in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. But if the airport in Duluth is improved, it does have an impact on the national airport system. If the airport in Louisiana is improved, it has a beneficial, or if it is not improved, it has a negative effect on the National Airport system. Airports are vastly different from highways. For the Congress to take the initiative proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana is to insert ourselves into essentially a local decision-making process which is going to be reviewed at an appropriate time in its developmental stage by the FAA. We should let that process run its course. The debate we have heard unfold this morning is a replica on the national scene of a debate in the city council of New Orleans. We are not at city council. We are not the governing council for parishes. The gentlemen from Louisiana, the respective gentlemen from Louisiana, are having a fine debate that they ought to have back home, not on this floor. This floor ought not to resolve this matter. This amendment ought to be defeated. In accepting such an amendment, we set the stage for innumerable debates. The discussion about New Orleans airport, MSY, will be picayune compared to the debate that will unfold on this floor if we get into a third airport for Chicago, of which we saw only a minuscule discussion earlier today. I say to my colleagues, the gentlemen from Louisiana, please take their issue back home and get the local governments to resolve it. Bring the FAA in to help. I am sure the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) would be willing to help in that process. I would be willing to help. But this floor ought not to resolve this issue. We ought to defeat the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I would have supported striking funds altogether. From the very inception of this council it is clear that many of its members have already made up their mind that Amtrak will not meet its goal of self-sufficiency and are devising their own plans that in effect assure failure; for example, holding closed conferences where the statute requires open meetings; their empire building by hiring consultants and contractors. In their preliminary assessment of Amtrak they set out a plan calculating operating expenses that Congress never intended to include in the Amtrak reform.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned but mal-aimed. It should be an initiative on this floor to fully fund the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program that was established in 1998 under our TEA-21 bill. If that were fully funded, California would benefit enormously by vastly cleaner air. Mr. Chairman, by offering this amendment, the gentleman makes a good point. I include the following article as further explanation. How Congress Is Keeping LA From Cleaning Up Its Air (By Rep. James L. Oberstar) Los Angeles and other urban areas around the country are being robbed, and Congressional appropriators are holding the gun. The City of Angels is famous for its smog. Every day, the exhaust gases emitted by cars, trucks, buses and industry hang over the city like a dirty brown blanket. But LA is not alone. Denver, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, even Duluth in my home district in Minnesota and many other cities large and small across this country are fighting the smog each and every day. Federal and state programs have been put in place to help Los Angeles and these other cities address their air quality problems. One such federal program would help reduce pollution through the purchase of transit buses that burn cleaner fuels, but not all the money allocated for that purpose is reaching those cities in greatest need. Buses make ideal candidates for alternative fuels and technology programs. They are operated predominantly by government agencies and use centralized fueling stations. Transit agencies spend about $1 billion annually to purchase buses, and this provides a tremendous opportunity to purchase alternative fuel buses and facilities. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Energy is considering a regulation to require transit systems to switch to vehicles that burn alternative fuels. California has already moved in this direction. In January, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued regulations requiring transit operators to switch to alternatives to conventional diesel-fueled buses. The regulation affects about 8,500 buses at 75 transit agencies in California, including an estimated 3,300 buses in the South Coast Air Basin. The regulation moves forward in several steps over the next 10 years, and allows transit agencies to choose a clean diesel or alternative fuels path to lower air emissions. On an average day, transit buses throughout the state emit some 24 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1,000 pounds of particulate matter, according to CARB estimates. In contrast, natural gas engines have significantly lower emissions of these pollutants than comparable diesel engines. (Some of these engines also emit slightly higher levels of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, but the increase is small compared to the reduction of nitrous oxide and particulate matter.) On federal initiative, the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program (CFFGP), commonly called the Clean Fuels Bus Program, can play an important role in cleaning the air. The program was established in 1998 under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). It authorizes $200 million per year over five years to help transit agencies purchase low emission buses and related equipment and construct alternative fuel fueling facilities. Eligible technologies include compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biodiesel fuel, battery, alcohol-based fuel, hybrid electric, fuel cell, clean diesel, and other low or zero emissions technologies. Under this program, transit authorities would buy clean fuel buses for areas that are working to address their air quality problems (nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act). Funds would be distributed each year to local transit systems who apply, using a formula based on the area's air quality non-attainment rating, number of buses operated, and bus passenger-miles of service. The formula directs funds to areas of greatest need for clean fuels technology and provides an opportunity to improve air quality in areas such as the South Coast Air Basin, where air quality problems are the most severe. This worthwhile program has never been implemented. The appropriators in Congress continue to ignore the law establishing the Clean Fuels Bus Program. In crafting the annual spending bills, the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate have been earmarking all of the Clean Fuels Bus Program funds for pet projects, instead of distributing funds in accordance with the formula. Money is being appropriated for conventional diesel fuel projects without regard to the program's focus of improving air quality. This practice has eviscerated the clean fuels grant program, slowed the pace of urban air quality improvements, and robbed cities of federal funds to which they are entitled. Los Angeles, for example, will lose $20 to $25 million in Clean Fuels Bus Program funding in Fiscal Year 2001 alone, an amount that could have easily covered the federal cost of 100 new clean fuel buses. Los Angeles will probably continue losing $20 to $25 million a year as long as the program continues to be implemented this way. The solution is to put an end to the egregious earmarking practice by the appropriations committees and let the program operate as the law provides. The case for full-scale implementation of the Clean Fuels Bus Program is clear. The program will reduce harmful emissions in cities that have the greatest air quality problems, marginally reduce the demand for conventional diesel fuel, and help reduce the price of conventional diesel fuel for industries such as interstate trucking. The program will go a long way toward helping Los Angeles make the switch to alternative fuel transit buses. The time is ripe to invigorate the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Reform Act. Joint Resolution H.R. 853 changes the current non-binding concurrent resolution to a joint budget resolution that would be signed by the President and have the force of law. Such a process would weaken the role of Congress (particularly the House of Representatives), authorizing committees, and rank-and-file Members. We know this from history--think back to the major budget agreements of the past decade, beginning with the 1990 Andrews Air Force Base budget summit during the Bush Administration. These agreements were negotiated by the House and Senate Leaderships and the President, without the participation of authorizing committees or rank-and-file Members. In practice, creating a budget resolution with the force of law means we will have these budget summits each and every year. Budget targets and committee allocations would be negotiated by the Budget Committees, the House and Senate Leaderships, and the President, without the participation of authorizing committees or rank-and-file Members. Most Members would be shut out of the process. In addition to the budget being negotiated by the House and Senate Leaderships and the President, the bill eliminates Members' ability to alter this Leadership-negotiated package. Members would no longer have the ability to offer amendments to either the reconciliation instructions or the functional allocations assumed by the joint budget resolution because these times would now only be included in the report accompanying the law. Finally, I am extremely concerned that once we head down the road of a statute implementing budget policy, the Budget Committees, the House and Senate Leaderships, and the President will use this must-pass legislative vehicle to legislate their agendas. Look at the tens and sometimes hundreds of legislative riders included in the Omnibus Appropriations Acts of the last several years--the last thing this Body needs is more Leadership-driven, must-lass legislation. Given the experiences of past budget summits, it is unlikely that this process will include authorizing committees, including those Members with the most specific issue expertise, or rank-and-file Members. We will simply be urged: ``Don't break the deal''--a deal in which almost all of us will have had no input. I recall that three years ago this week, the House considered the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement negotiated by the House and Senate Leadership and the President. The Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, and I offered an amendment to increase highway and transit infrastructure investment, adjusting the deal by one-third of one perecent--one-third of one percent. ``A deal is a deal,'' intoned our colleagues. ``Do not break the deal,'' said a panicked White House. ``Stick to the deal,'' said the Budget Committee. As I said then, ``Who are a part of this deal? Not me, and not many in this Chamber. We did not have much to say about the deal, so why are we being asked to stick with it?'' We lost that vote by two votes and it made TEA 21 impossible in 1997. Now, the proponents of this bill want us to have that debate each year. Moreover, by eliminating the functional categories from the budget resolution, they want to even take away our ability to offer amendments to alter their Leadership-negotiated package. Effect on Transportation Committee Programs I also rise in opposition to H.R. 853 because I am concerned about the impact of this bill on transportation trust funds. I believe that this bill will undermine the enormous progress we have made in infrastructure investment with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), and will make it more difficult to reauthorize these programs in the future. H.R. 853 does not acknowledge the important budget reforms contained in TEA 21 and AIR 21--including the reform that transportation revenues must be used for transportation purposes. Rather than updating the budget process to reflect a link between transportation trust fund spending and transportation trust fund receipts--a budget process change that was mandated by the overwhelming majority of the House in TEA 21 and AIR 21--H.R. 853 merely strengthens the old budget process, which assumes that transportation trust fund revenues are no different from general revenues. H.R. 853 would also shift power to entities that are institutionally opposed to the trust fund reforms that our Committee achieved in TEA 21 and AIR 21, and would effectively shut most Members and committees out of the budget process. As a former Member of the Budget Committee (1987-1993) and a Member of this Body and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 25 years, I know that the Budget Committee and the Office of Management and Budget have always opposed the trust fund reforms that the Transportation Committee has advocated and an overwhelming majority of this House have supported. Not only does H.R. 853 fail to institutionalize the trust fund reforms enacted in TEA 21 and AIR 21, it assumes flat spending from transportation trust funds for purposes of calculating the budget surplus after TEA 21 and AIR 21 expire. This assumption is made despite the fact that transportation trust fund revenues will continue to increase each year as our economy and highway and air travel continue to grow. A flat-spending assumption would result in a return to the old days of trust fund surpluses being used for non-transportation purposes. If the link between trust fund revenues and trust fund spending is to be maintained, budget procedures and the assumptions for transportation spending must reflect the annual growth in trust fund revenues. Conclusion Do not be lulled into thinking that this bill simply changes a technical House procedure. This bill significantly alters the congressional budget process. The budget process is where we decide priorities for America's future. It is the process where, to a large degree, we decide what our values are, and put a price tag on them. It is a process in which all Members and all committees should play a role H.R. 853 will shut Members out of that process. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 853.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I compliment him on his leadership in standing up and offering a rationale on this issue we can all heed. The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was crafted for the purpose of giving the Congress a coequal role with the President in setting the budget of the United States. That law created a process whereby the Congress, after reviewing the administration's spending and policy priorities, would establish priorities and investment levels that reflect the appropriateness of our ideas, the people's body, and the people we represent. This bill turns that initiative on its head. The joint resolution proposal brings the President into this Chamber and gives him three cracks at the budget ball; his budget, our budget, and the appropriation bills. That is a formula for failure. That is a formula for surrender of the prerogatives of the legislative body to the executive body. Some of the advocates for this bill decry the 1990 budget summit, but, ironically, they are creating a formula for annual budget summits. Budget targets and committee allocations will be negotiated by the Committee on the Budget, the House and Senate leadership, and the President, without the participation of authorizing committees and the rank-and-file Members of this body. Most of us will be shut out of the process. If my colleagues do not think so, think back on 1997. Three years ago. Three years ago this week we considered the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and I offered a substitute to increase highway and transit spending, adjusting the deal by one-third of 1 percent. What did we hear? ``A deal is a deal,'' intoned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. ``Do not break the deal,'' said a panicked White House, ``Stick to the deal,'' said the Committee on the Budget. At 2 a.m. in the morning, when I got a chance to debate the issue, I said, ``Who is a part of this deal? Not me. Not the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Not most of those in the Chamber. We did not have anything to say about the deal. So why are we being asked to support it?'' Well, that is where we will be if we pass this goofy idea. With this bill, we will be in that kind of debate every year, eliminate functional categories from the budget resolution. We even take away our ability to offer amendments to the leadership-negotiated deal. Well, the budget process is where we set our priorities, where we decide what the values are for America. It sets the priorities for the future. It is a process where every Member of this Chamber ought to have a voice and a say and have an equal role. This proposition cuts us out of that role. We ought to defeat this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for his diligent effort, and it was diligent and all- encompassing to bring this bill forward today. I know that he does so with great sincerity and with great respect for Senator Moynihan and for the times that we spent together in 1991 drafting ISTEA, in which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) played a dominant and significant role. This bill honors one of America's truly great legislators, a person who is a distinguished public servant, an educator, and an author. A Senator from New York for almost 25 years, Senator Moynihan first won election to the Senate in 1976, but his career in the Senate was just one chapter of a life filled with dedication to excellence and devotion to the highest principles of public service. Though he was not born in New York, like so many New Yorkers who migrated to that city, he was actually born in Oklahoma, but he certainly is a son of New York. He attended public and parochial schools there, graduated from Benjamin Franklin High School in East Harlem, and briefly attended City College of New York. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served on active duty from 1944 through 1947. His last tour of duty was as a gunnery officer aboard the U.S.S. Quirinus. He earned his Bachelor's Degree from Tufts University, an M.A. and Ph.D. from Tufts' Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. From 1950 to 1951, Senator Moynihan was a Fulbright Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He holds the distinction of being the first person to serve in four successive administrations, in the cabinet or subcabinet of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. He has been Ambassador to India, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, President of the U.N. Security Council, assistant to the legendary Governor Harriman, assistant to Secretary of Labor Art Goldberg, later a Supreme Court Justice, Director of Urban Studies at Harvard and MIT, Vice Chair of the Board of the Woodrow Wilson Center, Regent of the Smithsonian Institution. He is the author of 18 books on race, ethnicity and social policy. Since 1977, every year Senator Moynihan has published an annual account of the flow of tax dollars from New York State to the Federal Government, underscoring the reality that New York is consistently, in many arenas, a donor State. An independent-minded Member of the Senate, known for his individuality, he is witty, has an extraordinary memory, a great gift with words, and always brilliant. Just a couple of vignettes, Mr. Speaker. I recall in 1981, when we were in conference with the Senate on the Budget Reconciliation Act in our Committee on Public Works and Transportation on the economic development program, which the Reagan administration had proposed to abolish. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) may recall, although I think it was Mr. Hammersmith who was on the conference with me, and together we made an appeal to the Senate to preserve EDA and Appalachia. At the end of my presentation, Senator Moynihan turned to the chair of the Senate conferees and said, ``Doesn't the eloquence of the gentleman from Minnesota move our colleague?'' And the chair on the Senate side said, ``Yes, I am deeply moved, but I can vote with him.'' And so, Senator Moynihan, rather than getting peevish about it, smiled and said, ``In time, we will prevail.'' And, of course, in time, we did. It took the chairmanship of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to prevail, but we have, indeed. Then again in 1991, when we were crafting the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, in which Senator Moynihan was on the Senate side and author of what came to be known as the enhancements provisions, he insisted time and again that we needed a broader view of transportation, and that some of our trust fund dollars should be used for purposes that will strengthen transportation, ease pressure on roads, give citizens other opportunities in our urban environment. As always an urban philosopher. And I think it will be to his everlasting credit that he prevailed in the councils of the Senate and persisted in our House-Senate conference on the enhancements, which have been so widely accepted and such a strong point of support for what later became TEA-21. He certainly is the model of the philosopher politician that our Founding Fathers hoped would lead the Congress that they were crafting. It is indeed appropriate to name this particular building, this very distinguished structure, for a distinguished member of the United States Senate, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to compliment the chairman of our committee again on bringing forth this very well deserved and truly earned recognition for a beloved colleague. I want to thank the gentleman in the chair, our Speaker pro tem, for his cosponsorship of the legislation as well. General Montgomery, and that is how most of us referred to him, is one of those rare people who have served in this body who was not only respected by diligence, by hard work, by command of the subject matter, as a master of the issues over which he held jurisdiction, but at the same time truly beloved of Members on both sides of the aisle, as was evident by the remarks of our distinguished chairman the gentleman from Pennsylvania; a vigorous and formidable champion of veterans rights, of veterans benefits, because he had served our country nobly and understood the sacrifices that the men and women made who went forth to defend freedom and advance the cause of righteousness for our country. Never was his command of the subject matter and his respect more tested than at the beginning of the 104th Congress when there were major budget cuts across the board, submitted by the administration, coming from the House Committee on the Budget that would have significantly reduced benefits for veterans and their families. Singlehandedly, Chairman, former Chairman, no longer Chairman Montgomery was the voice of reason, of responsibility, the architect of veterans legislation for so many years. Singlehandedly by that stature, he was able to protect those benefits, preserve veterans from unjustified cuts, to remind us all of why we have a veterans program, and that we have and will continue to have an obligation to serve the veteran, his widow and orphan. Seven-term chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, author of the veterans education bill that now bears his name, a watchdog for veterans, a compassionate voice but as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, a prayerful voice. And as the gentleman from New York also mentioned, founder of the House prayer breakfast, to bring Members together for at least one day a week on one subject on which all could agree, and that is respect for our maker and the author of life. We do not name rooms in this august building lightly or frequently. When we do, it must be with great consideration of the role, the contribution that the person we are so honoring has offered to our Congress and to our country. The name must be as distinguished and as hallowed as this building. I think those terms of respect reflect properly the service and the career of G.V. Sonny Montgomery, the gentleman from Mississippi, for whom we designate H-130 in the U.S. Capitol to be named in his honor.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3313, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act. The Long Island Sound is a unique, urban watershed nestled among one of the most densely populated regions of this country. Like many of the salt-water estuaries along the coast of the United States, the Long Island Sound supports a variety of uses and demands, including providing vital habitat to numerous fish and wildlife species, as well as recreational and commercial activities. However, increasing pressures from residential, industrial, and agricultural development have dramatically altered the natural conditions of this region, and have increased the discharge of pollutants into the Sound. In 1987, upon the realization that additional efforts were needed to protect our Nation's salt-water estuaries, Congress authorized the establishment of the National Estuaries Program (NEP), within EPA, to restore and protect these resources. The Long Island Sound was one of the original waterbodies to be designated as an Estuary of National Significance under the NEP. The Management Conference convened to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the Long Island Sound identified several issues meriting special attention, including low oxygen conditions due to excessive nutrient loading, toxic and pathogen contamination, and the degradation and loss of marine habitat. Of these concerns, hypoxia, caused by excessive discharges of nitrogen from both point and non-point sources, was identified as the priority problem. In 1990, Congress recognized that additional resources were needed to realize improvements in the Sound, and created a new office within the Environmental Protection Agency to assist in achieving these improvements. The Long Island Sound Program Office has been charged with assisting and supporting the implementation of the Long Island Sound CCMP. The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 3313, extends the reauthorization of this office, as well as make additional changes aimed at achieving greater improvements to the Sound watershed. The bill, as amended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, reauthorizes the Long Island Sound Program Office through 2003, and authorizes $80 million per year through 2003 in grants for projects and studies which will help implement the CCMP. In addition, this legislation encourages the Administrator of EPA, through the Long Island Sound Program Office, to use existing regulatory authorities to implement the CCMP, including efforts to establish, within the process for granting watershed general permits, a system for trading nitrogen credits and any other measures that are cost-effective and consistent with the goals of the CCMP. It is important to note that this legislation does not expand the authorities of the EPA with respect to pollution credit trading; it merely encourages the Administrator to use existing authorities to achieve water quality goals within the Sound. Finally, H.R. 3313 provides enhanced assistance to distressed communities within the Long Island Sound basin for repayment of construction loans under the Clean Water Act. This legislation grants the Administrator authority to provide additional loan subsidization, including principal forgiveness, to distressed communities within the Sound. Principal forgiveness provides significant assistance to distressed communities in the repayment of construction loans without the unintended consequence of significantly diminishing the corpus of State Revolving Loan funds. I support this bill and urge its approval.