James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has maintained a vigilant eye on the bay and on the water quality thereof. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the great estuaries of the world, perhaps the greatest, the meeting place of salt and fresh water where new forms of life are created. Those forms of life, whether new forms or existing ones, are increasingly endangered in the world's estuaries by the pollution that we discharge into the waters and into the meeting places. In 1983, the Federal Government and the States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Four years later, the Federal Government and the Bay States and the communities within them reached agreement on the problems facing the Bay, the shared responsibility for deteriorating conditions, and on the joint actions that were needed to slow and reverse the destruction of this resource. In the past 17 years, the hard work of all those involved is beginning to bear fruit. The Bay is showing signs of improvement. But the work is never over. This legislation will take a further step toward improvement of water quality and improvement of the overall health of the Bay ecosystem. The legislation will reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency's successful Chesapeake Bay Program for an additional 6 years, giving stability and strength to this very important initiative. It will increase the program funding level. The Program Office of EPA has been very successful in working collaboratively with the States and the communities adjacent to the Bay in identifying causes of pollution, building partnerships to restore the health of that enormous resource. Under this legislation, EPA will continue the cooperative collaborative approach of developing interstate management plans, control harmful nutrients, control the addition of toxins to improve water quality, and restore habitats to the ecosystem. In addition, the legislation will incorporate into the Chesapeake Bay Agreement those improvements jointly recommended by the participating States, including recommendations for the administrator and authority for the administrator to approve small watershed grants to fund local governments and nonprofit organizations for local protection and restoration programs. If we do not address the health of the Bay by including the watersheds that drain into that Bay, we have not accomplished the purpose of preserving, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the waters of the Bay. That, I think, is the most important feature of this legislation, that it deals with the watershed and not just with the discharge points. I strongly support the legislation and urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the sense of Congress language terminates with subsection (a) but subsection (b) is a requirement upon Federal agencies to provide notice. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), is that the understanding of the chairman? Part B of the Buy-American provision is a requirement upon Federal agencies providing assistance to provide a notice and to report. Mr. Chairman, is that consistent with the understanding of the chairman? I just want to make this clear.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), of course we have had buy-American provisions in other legislation of this committee. But the Part B of the sense of Congress, does the notice to recipients in Part B flow from the sentence in the previous subsection (a), that is, the sense of Congress, so that Part B is also a sense of Congress and not a requirement in law that, in providing financial assistance, the head of each agency shall provide a notice?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, for his vigilance, his concern, and for his statesmanship in making this unanimous consent request. And I want to assure the gentleman that we will work very closely and very diligently toward his objective.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that WRDA is the appropriate vehicle, and I further yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) regarding the formulation. I think we may be at the end of hearings, or there may be an opportunity for further hearings on the WRDA bill, but it is my understanding that the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure intends to proceed with a WRDA bill for 2000.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. So I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, on his vigilance on this matter, but I feel that the vehicle is not appropriate. It has, first of all, not had widespread scrutiny in our committee. We have not had an opportunity until just now to review the approach the gentleman takes. It has been my intention that, in cooperation with the gentleman from Michigan and others of our colleagues in the Great Lakes States, to approach this subject in the forthcoming Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I would like to ask my colleague if he would consider withdrawing the amendment, preserving the option and, of course, protecting his right to come forth in the WRDA bill and to cooperate with us in a similar venture.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise not so much in opposition to the concept. In fact, not at all in opposition to the concept. I support very vigorously the idea that the gentleman is trying to advance, but I do not support the vehicle that he has chosen to approach this subject. The matter of diversion of water from the Great Lakes is an issue of very great concern to those of us who live in this heartland of the United States. The Great Lakes represent 20 percent of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. Lake Superior represents half of that water. Lake Superior is equal to all the water of the other four Great Lakes. It is a vast resource. The only other lake in the world that approaches the volume and the enormity of Lake Superior is Lake Baikal in Russia. We have been vigilant, on both the U.S. and the Canadian side, about the water quality, about the volume of water, through the international joint commission; about the rising or falling levels of water in the Great Lakes. We have also been concerned that there may be attempts by water-short areas of the North American continent and water-short areas of other places on the face of the Earth that may have their eyes fixed on the Great Lakes. Beginning with the coal slurry pipeline in 1970, the eyes of the western States were fixed on the Great Lakes, admittedly under the guise of selling low sulfur coal in an economical transport means of pipeline to the lakehead in Duluth, where then it could be transferred to tankers for lower lake port power plants. But those of us who maintain vigil on the shores of Gitche Gumee said this also has the capacity of draining the water out of the lakes. They could reverse those pumps. Once they are that close to Lake Superior, they could just drop a pump in the lake and start shipping the water westward. We vigorously opposed and ultimately stopped the coal slurry pipeline. In 1986, in furtherance of this concern, I offered an amendment in committee in the Water Resources Development Act, in cooperation with Democrats and Republicans throughout the Great Lakes States, to require, before any water could be diverted out of any of the Great Lakes, unanimous consent of the governors of the Great Lakes States and, though we could not bind, the province of Ontario. That province is so vast it covers all five of the Great Lakes. And we succeeded in getting that language enacted. It has been successful until very recently in scaring off potential diverters. Then, in 1998, a Canadian company based in the Province of Ontario got up the idea of selling, in bulk means, water from Lake Ontario to overseas sources. An immediate outcry rose in the Province and, of course, on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes that resulted in the Province of Ontario denying a permit to withdraw water. But the potential remains for withdrawing water from one of the Great Lakes and bottling it in little containers. And if it can be bottled in pint and quart and gallon and 5 gallon sizes, then what is to prevent someone from shipping it in larger containers of 5,000 or 10,000 gallons or more? So the concern of my good friend, who maintains a watchful eye from his northern peninsula, upper peninsula, a Michigan outpost, on the lake is well placed and fully founded and justified.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4052. This bill restores reports that ``sunset'' on May 15, 2000, pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, as amended. The Reports Sunset Act eliminated all annual or periodic reports listed in the 1993 Report of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Some of these reports, such as the President's annual budget, are tremendously important and should not be eliminated. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has reviewed the reports that fall within our Committee's jurisdiction and determined which reports are necessary to maintain. This bill ensures that those important reports will not sunset. I thank Chairman Shuster and all of our Subcommittee Chairmen and Ranking Members for working together to develop this bill. I urge all Members to support H.R. 4052.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1567, a bill to designate the courthouse in Albany, Georgia, as the ``C.B. King United States Courthouse.'' Chevene Bowers King was a native of Albany, Georgia, the third child in a middle-class African-American family. He attended local schools and attended Tuskeegee for a year before he decided to join the Navy. After his three years in the service, he enrolled at Fisk University. After graduating from college, he attended Case Western Reserve University, School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio. Over the course of his career, C.B. King led the legal fight in the courts for civil rights in Albany, Georgia. Using his intimate knowledge of the court system, King was able to advance the cause of civil rights by defending his colleagues who participated in marches and sit-ins. He worked closely with the NAACP, and was the cooperating attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. King played a key role in cases involving important civil rights issues such as school desegregation, voting rights, political rights, and employment discrimination. King was also a pioneer in his community to advance employment opportunities for African Americans--encouraging people to move from low-skilled, low-paying jobs to high-paying, professional occupations that required advanced degrees. In particular, King firmly believed that courts were an agent for change and he strongly encouraged young African Americans to turn to the law for a career. King was a devoted family man, husband, and father. His public career is marked with great success and his private life was enriched with family, children and friends. It is fitting and proper to honor the significant contributions of C.B. King by designating the U.S. courthouse in Albany, Georgia, in his honor. The Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, has introduced a companion bill to the Senate bill that we consider today and I thank him for all of his efforts on behalf of this legislation. I urge Members to support S. 1567.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 279 to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 200th birthday celebration of the Library of Congress. This public event will be held on April 24. The daylong celebration will include musical performances and the opening of a major Library of Congress exhibition on Thomas Jefferson. As with all events held on the Capitol Grounds this event will be free and open to the public. The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board will determine the conditions under which the event will be held. On April 24, 2000, the Library of Congress celebrates its bicentennial commemoration. The Library was established as the fledgling legislature of the new Republic prepared to move from Philadelphia to the new capital city of Washington. On April 24, 1800, President John Adams signed into law an act that appropriated $5,000 to purchase ``such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress.'' The first books, ordered from London, arrived in 1801 and were stored in the U.S. Capitol, the Library's first home. The collection consisted of 740 volumes and three maps. A year later, President Thomas Jefferson signed the first law defining the role and functions of the new institution. This measure created the post of the Librarian of Congress and gave Congress, through a Joint Committee on the Library, the authority to establish the Library's budget and its rules and regulations. From the beginning, however, the institution was more than just a legislative library. The 1802 act permitted the President and Vice President to borrow books; a privilege that, in the next three decades, was extended to most government agencies and the judiciary. President Jefferson, a man who stated he could not live without books, was a key architect to the Library that we know today. Jefferson took a keen interest in the Library and its collection while he was President of the United States from 1801-1809. Throughout his presidency, Jefferson personally recommended books for the Library and he appointed its first two Librarians. In 1814, the British army invaded the city of Washington and burned the Capitol, including the 3,000-volume Library of Congress. In response, Jefferson, then retired at Monticello, sold his personal library, the largest and finest in the country, to Congress to ``recommence'' its library. The 6,487-volume library that Jefferson sold to Congress, not only included twice as many books as the destroyed Library, it expanded the scope of the Library far beyond the bounds of a legislative library devoted primarily to legal, economic, or historical works. The ``new'' Library contained books on architecture, the arts, science, literature, and geography. It contained books in French, Spanish, German, Latin, Greek, and one three-volume statistical work in Russian. Anticipating the argument that his collection might be too comprehensive, Jefferson argued that: ``There is, in fact, no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.'' As today's Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, recently pointed out: ``That statement has guided the collecting policies of the Library of Congress to this day and is one of the main reasons why the institution's collections have a breadth and depth unmatched by any other repository.'' Today's Library contains nearly 119 million books, maps, manuscripts, photographs, sound recording, and motion pictures. It has more than 18 million books, 30,000 newspapers, 4.5 million maps, and 12 million photographs on its 530 miles of bookshelves. The Library collects materials in more than 460 languages and has acquisition offices throughout the world, from Rio de Janeiro to New Delhi. There have been 13 Librarians of Congress since its inception, and each Librarian has faced unique challenges. Throughout the 1990's and into the new century, the challenge is adapting the Library to the digital age. As it has throughout its history, the Library leads the way. The Library has enhanced public access to the Library through the National Digital Library. The Library's THOMAS system of legislative information serves Congress and the public each day. We join Dr. Billington in acknowledging how libraries have influenced our lives, and we celebrate with him one of America's true national treasures, the Library of Congress. I urge all Members to support adoption of this resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 278, to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Each year on May 15th, we, as a Nation, have an opportunity to honor the devotion with which peace officers perform their daily task of protecting us, our families, our co-workers, and friends. There are approximately 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving the American public today. During 1999, 134 peace officers were killed in the line of duty. In addition, approximately 65,000 officers are assaulted each year, with 23,000 sustaining serious injury. It is most fitting and proper to honor the lives, sacrifices, and public service of our brave peace officers. I urge support and adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 278.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1605, a bill to designate the Federal building located at 402 North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ``Judge J. Smith Henley Federal Building''. Judge J. Smith Henley had deep, long-standing roots in Harrison, Arkansas. He was born in 1917 in St. Joe, Arkansas, and died in October 1997 in Harrison. Judge Henley attended local schools, and received his law degree from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1941. His long and distinguished career included work here in Washington for the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. Judge Henley was appointed to the United States Circuit Court for the Eighth Circuit in March 1975. In 1982, he took senior status and continued to perform substantial judicial work until his passing. He is remembered for his kindness and fairness and for his deep reverence for judicial work. He was a devoted father to his two daughters, and is survived by his wife of 59 years. Judge Henley was an active volunteer and member of various bar associations, including the American Bar Association, the Arkansas Bar Association, and the American Judicature Society. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1605.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 281, which authorizes a series of summer concerts, sponsored by the John F. Kennedy Center to be conducted here on Capitol Hill. Consistent with past summers, the concerts are held from Memorial Day throughout the summer, and conclude at the end of summer, around Labor Day. The musical performances feature the best of American talent, and provide hours of enjoyment for all listeners. The Kennedy Center is to be commended for its solid commitment to educating the American public to the joys of the performing arts. The Millennium stage at the Kennedy Center has been an enormous hit. Free concerts are arranged each day in the Great Hall, all you need to do is to show up and be treated to wonderful free performances. The summer concerts series is another sign of the Center's commitment to bring performing art to all Americans, consistent with President Kennedy's devotion to the arts. As with all events on Capitol grounds, these concerts are free, open to the entire public, and will be arranged in accordance with rules and regulations of the office of the Architect of the Capitol, and the Capitol Police. I look forward to this very enjoyable summertime entertainment and I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 281.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1359, a bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse under construction in Youngstown, Ohio, as the Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse. This bill recognizes the careers, contributions, and friendship of two very distinguished worthy public servants. Judge Battisti was a Youngstown native, born on October 4, 1922. He attended local schools and received his undergraduate degree from Ohio University in 1947, and his law degree from Harvard in 1950. From 1950 to 1953, he served as the Assistant Attorney General of Ohio. In 1961, President Kennedy appointed him to the position of Judge of the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio, and in 1969 he became the Chief Judge. While serving as a Federal judge, he played a courageous and central role in ending school segregation in Ohio. In 1976, Judge Battisti was named ``Outstanding Trial Judge'' by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Nathaniel R. Jones is also a native of Youngstown, born in 1926. He attended local public schools, and is a veteran of World War II, serving in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He received his law degree from Youngstown State University. Jones' career is highlighted by extensive devotion to human rights, and service to the civil rights movement. Attorney General Robert Kennedy appointed him as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland. In 1967, he was appointed by President Johnson to serve as Assistant Counsel to the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as the Kerner Commission. In 1969, Roy Wilkins asked Jones to serve as the NAACP's general counsel. Judge Jones held that position for over a decade. In 1979, President Carter appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In addition to his outstanding legal career, Judge Jones is very active in numerous civic and professional organizations, including the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and the Judicial Committee on Codes of Conduct. It is fitting and proper to honor the lives, careers, and lasting contributions of these two gentlemen with this designation. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1359.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the appropriators come to the floor fulminating that we have made aviation the highest priority. ``Before all others,'' they said. Well, not before all other issues that have a trust fund. Housing does not have a trust fund. If it did, we would be advocating the same thing. My good colleague from Minnesota said he would like to put other issues in the care of our committee. Give them to us. We will deal with them. But it does not have a trust fund, housing. This does have a trust fund, and what we are simply doing is keeping faith with the traveling public, who agreed to be taxed for a specific purpose. All increases come from spending the taxes and interest out of the trust fund. What the Committee on Appropriations would argue here is that they should be allowed to hoard those dollars in the budget, hold the trust fund hostage, in order, as one conferee from the other body said in the course of our debate in the conference, so we could fund Amtrak. They want to fund Amtrak out of the surplus they want to keep in the Aviation Trust Fund. That does not keep faith with the traveling public. We have taken care of Amtrak, goodness knows, in this committee and in the Committee on Ways and Means, giving them $2.3 billion in previously-earned tax benefits from their predecessor railroads. What this legislation does in fact with respect to the general fund is cut in half the general fund historic contribution to aviation, from 36 percent to 18 percent. All the rest is funded out of the trust fund. If you want to say we would like to hold that trust fund, we would like to build up a surplus so that with that surplus we can fund other things, then be honest with the public and say that. But do not come and cry crocodile tears about priorities that are supposed to be set by the Committee on Budget and by the Committee on Appropriations itself. My dear friend from across the water, with whom I differ on maybe one or two issues, called this a ``turkey of a bill.'' Well, I want to say to my good friend that domesticated turkeys today do not fly, and his constituents will not either if we do not pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.