James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing less than a great tribute to our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He has been a warrior for keeping faith with the traveling public, whether highways, transitways or airways, and for fully investing the trust funds, the revenues that we agreed to tax people for to deposit in trust funds for surface and air transportation; to make sure that those funds are invested as intended in the compact between the traveling public and its government. He has been a champion, and I salute him for the success he has achieved here in negotiating between the Senate and the House, the role that we together played with the administration in coming to this agreement, and to achieving this outcome that will result in significantly greater investment in aviation from those taxes derived from the traveling public. It is also fitting that this is a tribute to former, now retired, Senator Wendell Ford. It was my great pleasure to work with Senator Ford for many years on aviation issues, during which I came to have a great appreciation for his dedication to improving air travel, capacity, safety, and security. His persistent country, down-home wisdom and his folk humor kept us always on track and on message, and he deserves the recognition of having this bill, ultimately this law, named in his honor. Aviation is the most rapidly growing sector of our Nation's economy. It is, in fact, a $600 billion sector of our economy. It is the element that makes America a leader worldwide in technology. Every modern nation on the face of this earth, every industrialized country, every country seeking to be an industrialized nation patterns its aviation development after the United States. They want to acquire our air traffic control technology, they want to fly to our shores, to our airports, and operate in our airspace. They want to be a partner with us, whether it is code sharing or in development of new technology or investment in airports. We are the leader. But we will not be the leader if we do not make the investments in modernizing the air traffic control system, if we do not make the investment in expansion of our airport capacity. We will not be able to handle the growth that is projected toward a billion air travelers in the U.S. airspace alone. Today, worldwide, over a billion people travel by air, but 650 million of those travel in the U.S. airspace. That means that nearly two-thirds of all air travel in the entire world occurs in the U.S. airspace, and that is the safest airspace in the world. And it does not happen by accident. It happens because year after year the FAA does its job overseeing the airlines, the airlines do their part, and our air traffic control system maintains safety in the air and on the ground for aircraft maneuvering at airport terminals. But we cannot expect to make those investments in expansion of airside capacity, in runways and taxiways, or in the efficiency of the air traffic control system without sustained investment, without a dedicated revenue stream; and this legislation gives us that dedicated revenue stream. Mr. Speaker, I want to make just one comment about the high-density rule which was discussed during debate on the rule. Lifting of the high-density rule under this legislation, ultimately, in 2 years at O'Hare, will mean new service, with new economic impact at O'Hare in the amount of over $1.3 billion. It will produce net consumer benefits of well over $630 million. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, has spent long hours crafting the language we know today as the modification of the high-density rule. And I give him great credit for his dedication, his hard work, his perception of what needs to be done and how to accommodate the concerns of airport neighbors to minimize noise impact but also maximize the capacity of this world's greatest airport, this treasure that we know as O'Hare. The gentleman deserves great credit and appreciation from all who travel through that airport and whose lives and livelihoods are dependent upon it. Affected airlines, when the HDR is ultimately lifted, will be able to freely set schedules in cooperation with each other, with the FAA, and with the airport. Availability of gates and air traffic control flow management will act as controls on the number of flights a carrier will schedule for a particular time period. Under no circumstance will the FAA allow more departures or arrivals than controllers can safely manage. In other words, the 130 per-hour arrival and departure rule will remain in effect, but it will be managed in the interest of safety not on the basis of some other considerations. That is extremely important. This airport must be freed from these constraints so that our national air traffic system can operate to its maximum capacity, which it will do when, ultimately, the high-density rule is lifted. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is an important step toward restoring faith with the American people. This bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), unlocks the aviation trust fund and ensures that we will make critical investments in our nation's transportation system and future economic growth and development. The demand for aviation has grown dramatically over the last several decades, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In 1998, 656 million passengers flew commercially, twice the number that flew in 1980. Over the next ten years, this number of passengers is expected to grow to almost 1 billion a year. In addition, the air cargo market is growing faster than any other sector of the aviation industry. It is crucial that the capacity of the U.S. aviation system keep pace with this ever growing demand and it is our job to make sure there is sufficient funding to provide for the needed capacity. Unfortunately, aviation funding levels have fallen short of late and demand is growing faster than the system can handle. We have seen evidence of this in the increasing number of delays experienced in the last few years. In 1999, the U.S. recorded more flight delays than in any year. Delays through October 1999 were up 22.6% over 1998. Delay is costly: in 1999 alone, delay cost the airline industry and the air travelling public over $6 billion. If we don't act now and ensure adequate funding for our air traffic control system (ATC) and the nation's airports we will reach gridlock in our aviation system. In the U.S. the General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated the capital development needs at the country's 3,304 airports to be $10 billion annually. The current sources of funding leave an annual gap of $3 billion. Moreover, this estimate does not take into account the needs that will soon arise, such as accommodating larger aircraft; addressing airport access issues and terminal expansion; dealing with environmental problems; and providing for technological advances, such as GPS/WAAS. Taking care of the airport needs alone will not be enough to ensure that our aviation system will be able to accommodate the growing demand. We must also make sufficient investments in our ATC system. Modernizing the ATC system is a very demanding and costly enterprise. The FAA operates over 30,000 pieces of equipment: 470 air traffic control towers, 176 terminal radar control facilities (TRACONS) and 21 enroute centers (ARTCCS). The U.S. air traffic control system is the world's most vast and complex, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It serves half the people using commercial airlines in the entire world. As I have said before, modernizing the ATC system is like rebuilding your car, while driving down the freeway at 65 miles an hour. Modernizing our ATC system is not only important for capacity or efficiency purposes, but for safety. Currently, the U.S. ATC system is the safest in the world, but maintaining this level of safety will require continued investments. As the airspace becomes more densely populated, we will need to improve the information available to controllers and pilots. More accurate navigation and surveillance equipment combined with automation tools will increase the margin of safety for every flight. Better weather detection and prediction equipment, common situational awareness for pilots and controllers, and improved communication systems will also raise the bar of safety in our air traffic control system. We must simultaneously maintain the current systems and ensure a safe transition to new technology. Aviation safety and efficiency also requires that the FAA has the resources to hire, train and compensate the air traffic controllers, safety and security inspectors, and maintenance technicians to ensure that the system is operated safely, 365 days a year. This year, significant reductions in the operations budget of the FAA, which affects staffing, training and travel, are making it more difficult for FAA to inspect airlines and improve aviation safety and maintain security. The FAA cannot sustain high levels of aviation safety and security with such funding uncertainties and shortfalls. AIR 21 begins to address the needs of our aviation system. This bill will ensure that the attention and focus our interstate highway system has received over the years is extended to aviation. As DOT Secretary Slater has said: ``Aviation will be to the 21st Century, what the Interstate was to the 20th.'' As we did in the 20th Century, it is time to meet the challenges of the new Century. AIR 21 meets four pressing challenges of our aviation system: Enhancing capacity and access at our nation's airports; accelerating the modernization of the air traffic control system; promoting competition in the airline industry; and increasing safety in the aviation system. H.R. 1000, with its provisions on both AIP and PFC's, will help fill the need for airport development. An AIP funding level averaging over $3 billion annually, along with the ability to raise PFC's by $1.50 for projects significantly reducing congestion, safety, noise or enhancing competition, will mean that there is a balanced financing package in place to ensure that airports will be able to meet the tremendous growth in aviation over the next ten years. AIR 21 also establishes a new entitlement program for general aviation airports that will help meet the needs of smaller communities. Modernizing the air traffic control system has been a constant struggle for the FAA. There have been successes: the Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS), the Display System Replacement (DSR), and the Host and Oceanic Computer System (HOCSR) have been put in place successfully at 20 enroute centers across this country. But too often, other programs, like Standard Terminal Automations Replacement System (STARS) and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), end up being delayed and over-budget. There is no single answer to these problems. Accordingly, H.R. 1000 proposes a number of changes to improve the acquisitions systems at the FAA. First, by providing sufficient and stable budgets, averaging around $2.8 billion a year for air traffic control equipment--a dedicated revenue stream, paid for by air travellers--managers at the FAA will be able to plan and manage programs more efficiently. Tony Broderick, former FAA Assistant Administrator for Regulation and Certification, asked the key question in this regard: ``We would never expect a business to run efficiently if the funding stream fluctuated widely, so why do we expect this of FAA managers?'' With stable funding in place, and procurement and management flexibility for FAA managers, we will ask for more of them. An air traffic control management board, created by this bill, will increase the focus on FAA acquisitions managers' performance, holding them accountable for meeting schedule and budget targets. We cannot use problems at the FAA to justify inaction. Instead, we must make the necessary reforms and the necessary investments in safety and air traffic control equipment. AIR 21 also takes steps to extend the benefits of deregulation to more of the American traveling public. Deregulation has saved air travelers billions of dollars over pre-deregulation pricing. However, we also know that the quality and frequency of service to some communities has declined and that some consumers--because of single carrier dominance at major hubs--pay too much. This bill creates a program to help small and medium size communities obtain and receive better air service. Secondly, it provides that large and medium hub airports that are dominated by one or two airlines must file a competition plan before they receive AIP grants or have a PFC application approved. Airports have already begun looking at ways to enhance competition through different leasing arrangements for gates, and requiring a competition plan should accelerate that process. H.R. 1000 also sunsets the High Density Rule at three of the four slot-controlled airports in this country. This will help increase competition at these airports. A 1995 Department of Transportation study concluded that the net benefit to consumers from lifting the HDR at these three airports would be over $700 million a year from fare reductions and improved service. The largest benefits will be at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Furthermore, as more effective air traffic management techniques are developed and new technology introduced, these annual benefits will grow. All of these benefits of this bill will mean nothing if we fail to address safety issues. The funding increases in the bill will mean that FAA will have the resources to hire, train and compensate the air traffic controllers, safety and security inspectors, and maintenance technicians necessary to operate the system safely on a daily basis. In addition, funding will be set aside to help small airports enhance their safety standards. Further, no airport will be permitted to impose a PFC above $3 without ensuring that their ``airside'' safety needs are being met. AIR 21 also addresses the problem of collisions between aircraft and other vehicles on the runway surface. H.R. 1000 would authorize $3 million annually, beginning in 2001, to ensure steady, persistent effort to reduce these incidents. H.R. 1000 also includes important safety legislation to provide whistle blower protection to FAA and airline employees so they can reveal safety problems without fear of retribution. Finally, cargo airlines would be required to install collision avoidance devices by December 21, 2002. AIR 21 is the bill that will allow you to say that you have honored the agreement with a passenger who pays that tax. With your vote, you will help ensure that the U.S. has the safest, most secure and efficient aviation system in the world as the second century of aviation begins to be seen on the horizon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pose a question to the chairman. In the conference report's joint explanatory statement, critical language directing the FAA administrator to ensure that all runways at civil airports have standard runway cost safety areas in accordance with the most cost-effective and efficient method appears out of sequence. This language, which ensures that future AIP runway grants include provisions of bringing runway safety areas in accordance with FAA regulations should be included in section 514 rather than 515. Is that the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), an aviator and strong advocate for aviation. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say to my good friend that the issue is not trust funds. The issue is whether we should have trust funds at all. That is a different debate. If you do not want trust funds, abolish them all and make everything subject to general revenues. But we do have a trust fund, and we are keeping faith.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special member of the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Michelle Katherine Mihin, who is leaving us this week to return to her home in Ohio and accept a position with the Charles Schwab organization, an exciting and richly deserved opportunity. Originally from Youngstown, OH, Michelle came to the Washington area to attend Marymount University where she earned her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science. Of particular relevance to us, Michelle was active for a number of years in, and served as President of, Marymount's Society for Political and Government Awareness. After graduation she stayed in the area and worked as an intern in the office of her Ohio Congressman, our colleague, Jim Traficant. Shortly thereafter in 1996, Michelle joined the Committee to work as a staff assistant with both our Aviation and Railroad Subcommittees. During her time with us, she has earned a solid reputation for excellence and dedication in her work. What has especially impressed us is the initiative she has taken to reach beyond her assigned responsibilities. Michelle has always been ready to volunteer and see what jobs needed to be done and plunge in to help to do them no matter what the issue or hour of the day. As an avocation, she has become our unofficial ``Social Director''. If there is an occasion to celebrate or a staff member to bid farewell, Michelle is always ready to volunteer and put her organizational talents to work. Above all, we will miss the sparkle, enthusiasm and the laughter she brings to the Committee. On many occasions I have quoted one of those gems of wisdom where the thought stays with you but the author's name does not: ``Success is getting what you want, happiness is wanting what you get''--Michelle has earned both. I join with all Michelle's friends on the Committee in wishing her every success and happiness in her future endeavors.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695, a bill that would allow for the sale of certain Federal public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada to Clark County for the purposes of building a new airport. I applaud the efforts of the Gentlewoman from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley, not only for her early recognition that a third airport is key to accommodate the explosive growth in the Las Vegas area, but also for her dedication to ensure that the construction of any new airport will be balanced with environmental concerns in the nearby Mojave Preserve. As of a few days ago, many issues with regard to H.R. 1695 were still unresolved. However, through Congresswoman Berkley's tireless efforts to bridge the gap on a bipartisan basis, those issues have been resolved such that H.R. 1695 has full support from all parties involved. The demand for aviation has grown dramatically over the last several decades, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In 1998, 656 million passengers flew commercially, twice the number in 1980. This number is expected to grow to almost 1 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the air cargo market is growing faster than any other sector of the aviation industry, an average of 6.6% a year. To accommodate that growth, the Boeing Company estimates that the world's jet freighter fleet will have to double by 2017--that means adding 1,000 more aircraft. No where has this explosive growth in aviation been evident as in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. Passenger traffic at Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport has increased by 64 percent since 1990, with growth at 13 percent alone in 1999. In less than eight years, McCarran will be at full capacity. To accommodate this rapid growth, several options have been carefully considered, such as adding a 5th runway at McCarran. However, the costs of constructing an additional runway are estimated at upwards of 1.7 billion--four times the cost of the Ivanpah proposal--and would have involved the condemnation of several homes surrounding the airport. After careful consideration of other possible sites, the Department of Aviation concluded that the site located in the Ivanpah Valley was the most suitable. Importantly, the site located in the Ivanpah Valley is the only area that will allow aircraft to use a full precision instrument approach that will not result in airspace conflict with nearby McCarran Airport. Although H.R. 1695 will allow for the sale by the Bureau of Land Management of approximately 6,600 acres of public land located in Ivanpah Valley to Clark County for purposes of developing this third airport, it also contains many safeguards to preserve environmental interests at the Mojave Preserve. First, H.R. 1695 would require the Secretaries of Transportation and Interior to work together to develop an airspace management plan to restrict arrivals or departures over the Mojave Preserve, unless necessary for safety. In addition, Clark County would have to conduct an assessment, with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval, to identify potential impacts on access to the Las Vegas Basin under VFR flight rules. Importantly, the Managers Amendment to H.R. 1695, offered by the Gentleman from Utah, Congressman Hansen, would require, prior to construction of the airport, a full environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, with the Departments of Interior and Transportation as co-lead agencies. If, at the conclusion of the NEPA process, the FAA and Clark County determine that the site is not suitable for an airport facility, custody of the land would revert back to the Department of Interior. This provision is pivotal in ensuring that all potential impacts of aircraft overflights on the Mojave Preserve are assessed before any construction begins. Passage of H.R. 1695 will allow the Las Vegas area to plan for its future growth by increasing air capacity, while preserving the integrity of the environment in the Mojave Preserve. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to enhance the protection of the Great Lakes, and to begin the cleanup of our industrial legacy. My bill will reauthorize the Great Lakes Program of the Environmental Protection Agency, significantly increasing the authorization for this highly successful program, and authorize the funding for cleanup of contaminated Areas of Concern as provided in the President's budget. The Great Lakes are the Nation's largest fresh water resource and the largest system of fresh water on Earth, containing nearly 20 percent of the world supply. The Great Lakes contain 5,500 cubic miles of water and cover 94,000 square miles. Only the polar ice caps contain more fresh water. Great Lakes Basin is of critical importance to the economy of two nations. The Basin is home to more than one-tenth of the U.S. population, and one-quarter of the Canadian population. One of the world's largest concentrations of economic capacity is located in the Basin--some one-fifth of U.S. industrial jobs and one-quarter of Canadian agricultural production. Notwithstanding the immense size of the Lakes, outflows from the Lakes are less than 1 percent per year. When pollutants enter the lakes by pipe, as wet weather runoff, or as air deposition, they are retained in the system and become more concentrated with time. They settle in the sediments, and accumulate in the food chain. We may have restored certain fisheries, such as walleyes in Lake Erie, but these fish still bear the burden of pollution and contamination sediments. Fish continue to be found with cancers and sores and high levels of PCBs and dioxin. If you eat fish once a week and live within 20 miles of one of the Great Lakes, you are likely to have 440 parts per billion PCBs in your body. That is more than 20 times higher than people living elsewhere in America and not exposed to Great Lakes fish. It is past time that we aggressively clean up the persistent pollution captured in the sediments of the Great Lakes. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act established the Great Lakes National Program Office and called for a demonstration project for the removal of toxic pollutants from sediments. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 required the establishment and implementation of Great Lakes water quality guidance. Now we should permanently address the problem of contaminated sediment. The United States and Canada have jointly identified 43 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. Thirty-one of these fall wholly or partly in U.S. waters. Even though over 1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been remediated over the past 3 years, the challenge is so great that remediation is not complete at any U.S. Area of Concern. The bill I am introducing today, in support of the President's budget proposal, represents a dramatic increase in support for Great Lakes' states and communities. This bill will: Reauthorize the Great Lakes Program at $40 million annually for 2001- 2005. Authorize $50 million annually for 2001-2005 for projects to improve water quality at Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. The federal share would be 60%. Amend the current Great Lakes Program to authorize projects to improve degraded fresh water estuary habitat. The federal share would be 65%. I will be working toward the swift enactment of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in protecting this precious fresh water resource.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special member of the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Jack Wells, who is leaving us this week to accept an appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. On behalf of the Committee, I am pleased to express our gratitude to Jack for his effective and loyal service, and valued friendship. Jack has served on the Committee--and its predecessor, the Committee on Public Works and Transportation--since 1993, initially as the Staff Director of our Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, and more recently as the Democratic Staff Director in charge of railroad issues on our Ground Transportation Subcommittee. As our resident expert on rail issues, Jack has been indispensable to me and all of the Members on our side of the aisle, advising us on rail safety, mergers and competition issues, and ensuring the survival of Amtrak's fair treatment of employees, and the development of high speed rail. Jack has the rare ability to explore problems in great death, while never losing sight of the overriding basic issues involved. His briefing memos were models of outstanding staff work. In the 104th Congress, Jack worked on the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, which abolished the ICC, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Amendments Act of 1996, which increased daily unemployment benefits for railroad workers. In the 105th Congress, he worked on the AMTRAK Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 and the rail title of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). During his tenure, he drafted several bills dealing with railroad safety, labor and competition. Jack Wells, a native of Wilmington, Delaware, received his Bachelors Degree from Harvard and Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University. He originally came to the Committee from the United States General Accounting Office where he was the Assistant Director for Surface Transportation Infrastructure Issues. His expertise and reporting at GAO involved overall transportation policy, trucking competition and deregulation issues, antitrust and science technology policy, and general economics issues. Of direct interest to our Committee, Jack did a lot of the leading studies and analysis on airline deregulation and airline HUB issues. GAO routinely recognized Jack's abilities with meritorious service and outstanding performance awards. I remember reviewing Jack's resume which covered six pages--he did indeed need that much room just to get everything in--and being truly impressed with the multitude of official reports and publications Jack produced--extraordinary diversity that made him a perfect candidate to head up the Committee's investigations and oversight activities. Also, he has a wide range of teaching experience at the graduate and undergraduate levels. While carrying out his heavy congressional workload, Jack has also been actively involved in his community as a PTA treasurer, and a member of the Victorian Lyric Opera Company, and has supported his daughters' athletic activities. Jack has such a breadth of experience that the label ``Jack-of-all-trades'' aptly applies. I join with Jack's many friends in wishing him, his lovely wife Heidi Hartman, and daughters Katharine, Laura and Jessica, all the best. Jack, Godspeed and success in your career pursuits.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I am greatly troubled by this effort to undermine the sound, bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. For more than 20 years, both Democratic and Republican Administrations have maintained a policy of ``strategic ambiguity'' regarding our relations between China and Taiwan, a policy that has served our nation well. The thrust of this legislation abandons the long-standing and successful policy of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and I oppose this misguided attempt to impose a fundamental shift in our policy. I firmly believe that over time, our strategic interest is best served through increased economic ties and expanded cultural relations with China. Efforts to promote travel and tourism to China and encouraging additional Chinese students to attend our universities will significantly improve our relations with China. However, I do not want this vote to be misinterpreted. The United States and the world community do not approve the increasingly belligerent tone of rhetoric and actions on the part of China against Taiwan. China must understand that the world community expects a peaceful resolution of the China/Taiwan issue.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today H.R. 3446, the Surface Transportation Board Reform Act of 1999. The Surface Transportation Board has been a troubled agency since its creation at the end of 1995. First, the Board approved a huge merger between the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads. Shippers were promised dramatically improved service. Instead, a year later, they got the biggest rail service meltdown in history. Two years later, the service crisis is over, but there are precious few signs that shippers are getting better service. Clearly, however, they are getting fewer choices and less competition. Last year, the Board approved another huge restructuring of the industry when it allowed Conrail to be divided between Norfolk Southern and CSX. After spending a year planning the transaction so as to minimize adverse consequences, the transaction became effective on June 1st, and service almost instantly collapsed. While service in some areas has recovered, many shippers still cannot move their goods and are losing business to their competitors because they had the bad luck to be served by Norfolk Southern and CSX. Clearly, the Board has failed to analyze rail transactions adequately to avoid these service disasters. Because of the reduced competition that has resulted from these mergers, the Board needs to provide more aggressive support to shippers who come to the Board for relief from high rates and poor service. This bill directs the Board to move in that direction. Shippers also need more competitive options without having to go to the Board. The bill's provisions on bottlenecks, terminal access, and reciprocal switching would allow shippers to avoid the adverse effects of mergers by getting more competitive service without seeking rate relief from the Board. Second, the Board has continued the established policy of its predecessor in allowing railroads to abrogate their collective bargaining agreements as a ``reward'' for undergoing a merger. For 63 years, from 1920 to 1983, the Interstate Commerce Commission held to the sensible view that the rather vague language in its statute did not entitle railroads to walk away from their signed contracts. In 1983, the Reagan-era ICC voted to ignore its precedents and adopt a new interpretation that was totally at variance with Congressional intent and sound policy. The Board appointed by the current Administration, rather than return to the sensible precedents of the past, has followed the misguided policy adopted by its immediate predecessors. Instead of using the discretion that the statute gives them, the Board has written to the Congress and invited us to change the statute to save us from themselves, and prevent them from continuing to pursue this regressive policy. This bill is a first step in that direction. Title I of this bill proposes a series of measures to enhance rail competition. It clarifies the Rail Transportation Policy to make clear that competition is the ``primary objective'' to be pursued by the Board. It corrects the Board's ``bottleneck'' decision, which says that, even if a railroad monopolizes only part of the route along which a shipper wishes to transport a shipment, it can effectively monopolize the whole route, because the railroad can refuse to offer to ship along only part of the route. The bill also makes it easier to secure competing rail service in terminal areas, and by reciprocal switching. It codifies the one recent decision by the Board that has benefited shippers, namely the December 1998 decision on ``product'' and ``geographic'' competition. It ends the ludicrous annual charade in which the Board examines the books of railroads that are raising billions of dollars in the capital markets and concludes that they are earning inadequate revenues. It provides relief for small captive grain shippers by reducing the fees they must pay to protest rate and simplifying the process of determining a rate to be unreasonable. It also provides them with some assurance that they will be able to get enough cars to move out their grain each year. The bill also requires submission of monthly service quality performance reports by the railroads, so the Board can do a better job of monitoring the industry's performance. The bill's labor provisions in Title II end any authority of the Board to abrogate collective bargaining agreements, or to authorize a railroad or anyone else to do so. The bill strictly limits the preemption of other laws that is allowed in connection with railroads mergers, restricting this preemption to State and local laws that regulate mergers, and restricting this preemption in time to one year after the railroad takes possession of the acquired property. The bill also clarifies the status of labor protection for railroad employers. The current statute confusingly defines labor protection in terms of the labor protection once received by Amtrak employees, whose statutory labor protection was taken away by the 1997 Amtrak reauthorization bill. Today's bill makes clear that railroad employees receive six years of labor protection if they are laid off as the result of a merger. While employees in other industries are not given labor protection like this, employees in other industries are entitled to strike if they cannot reach agreement with their employer on a contract. Since World War II, railroad employees have been denied the right to strike by repeated congressional interventions every time a strike is threatened. It is only fair, if employees are not entitled to strike, that they at least be compensated if they lose their jobs as the result of a merger. Title III of the bill has several other significant provisions. The bill corrects an historical oversight by giving commuter railroads the same access to freight railroad rights-of-way that Amtrak has. When Amtrak was created in 1971, the Nation's private railroads were relieved of their common carrier obligation to provide passenger service--both intercity and commuter service. In return for being relieved of this common carrier obligation, the railroads were required to provide Amtrak with guaranteed access to their rights-of-way, but, in an oversight, the Nation's commuter railroads--which provide equally essential passenger service--were not given the same guaranteed access. This bill corrects that oversight by giving commuter railroads the same guaranteed access that Amtrak has. The bill also gives special consideration to local communities and to passenger railroads in the Board's merger decisions. The Board has often given short shrift to the legitimate concerns of these parties in approving mergers, and has not imposed conditions that are necessary to protect their legitimate interests. The bill also corrects an anomaly that was inserted in the statute by the 1995 ICC Termination Act. That bill preempted the authority of states to regulate the construction or abandonment of ``spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks,'' but it did not give corresponding authority to the Surface Transportation Board. The result was a regulatory black hole, where such facilities could be built or abandoned without regulation either by local zoning regulations or by Federal environmental regulations. If these facilities were only minor railroad spurs, this would perhaps be acceptable, but the term ``switching tracks'' has been interpreted by the Board to include railroad yards occupying hundreds of acres. Not only can the railroads built these yards without any regulatory interference, they can also use their eminent domain authority to force landowners to sell them the land. This provision should never have been in the statute, and this bill repeals it, giving regulatory jurisdiction to the STB. The bill also eliminates tariff filing for water carriers in the domestic offshore trades serving Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. These carriers are directed to make their tariffs available electronically, just as water carriers in the U.S. foreign trades were in the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. Finally, the bill reauthorizes the STB for three years, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2002, with authorized appropriations rising from $17 million in FY 2000 to $25 million in FY 2002. In view of its inability to respond promptly to shipper rate protests (documented in a GAO report earlier this year) and its inability to oversee the results of its merger decisions, the Board clearly needs additional resources. We can only hope that this bill will be enacted and that the Board will use these resources effectively.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of objection, I thank the gentleman and am certainly glad he cited the staff, because they certainly have worked hard and cooperatively all the way through this legislation. The gentleman's statement underscores the success of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In a Congress that has been getting a bad rap for gridlock, this committee has worked together and achieved an extraordinary record of accomplishment. Just before the August break, it was 26 percent of all the bills that have passed the House enacted into law were bills from this committee. Our percentage has dropped only because other committees have awakened and have risen to the challenge and the examples set by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But again, it is due to the partnership and the cooperation we have achieved, I think, at the level of the chairman and ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. We originally passed this bill on October 14, but the Other Body has not completed work on its version of the bill. In order to make it possible to send a bill to the President before we adjourn, we have worked with the Senate Commerce Committee on a bipartisan basis to develop a bill that combines the best features of our bill and the companion motor carrier safety bill introduced in the Other Body. Our aim is to pass this compromise legislation in both Houses prior to adjournment and to send it to the President for his signature. I am very pleased with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This is a good bill. It preserves all the strong safety provisions in the House bill, and adds provisions from the Senate bill that will further enhance safety. A strong House bill has been made even stronger. I want to commend our Committee Chairman, Mr. Shuster, Chairman Petri of the Ground Transportation Subcommittee, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rahall for their diligent efforts in developing this bill. This important legislation will give federal government the direction, the incentives, and the resources needed to improve the safety of large trucks on our highways. Every year, crashes involving large trucks kill more than 5,300 people and injure about 130,000 people. On average, there are 14 deaths and 350 injuries every day of the year. Unless the federal safety program is significantly improved, there will be more deaths and injuries as the number of miles traveled by large trucks increases. This is not acceptable. The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, the General Accounting Office, and Norm Mineta, a former Chairman of our Surface Transportation Subcommittee and Full Committee, have concluded that the federal government's program to ensure the safety of motor carriers has major deficiencies. Their studies found that DOT has not been conduction enough commercial vehicle and driver inspections; and that the penalties imposed for violations are too low to deter future violations. The studies also found that DOT rarely completes needed safety regulations on time. More than 20 motor carrier safety rulemakings have been in process for between three and nine years. These rulemakings involve important safety issues such as hours-of-service limits, motor carrier permits for carrying hazardous materials, and training standards for entry-level drivers. DOT's databases are incomplete and unreliable; DOT lacks adequate personnel and facilities at our borders; and perceived conflicts of interest have undermined the credibility of DOT's research program. Since these troubling reports by the IG and others were issued, the Secretary of Transportation, to his credit, has taken important steps to enhance the effectiveness of the motor carrier safety program. We support the Secretary's efforts. The legislation we have written will enhance these efforts and give DOT the resources needed to carry out the job. There are four principles, I believe, that any good motor carrier safety bill should include--safety as the primary mission; sound credible research as the foundation for policy; vigorous oversight and enforcement; and adequate resources. This bill addresses each of these principles. The bill creates a new Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, without DOT. The bill gives the new Administration the direction, the incentives, and the resources it will need to improve motor carrier safety. The new Administration will also include a regulatory ombudsman, with authority to expedite rulemaking by assigning the necessary staff and resolving disagreements within the new agency. The bill follows the model of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which established the Federal Aviation Administration to improve aviation safety. The bill directs the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest priority, recognizing the clear intent, encouragement, and dedication of Congress to the furtherance of the highest degree of safety in motor carrier transportation. The bill requires the Secretary to develop a long-term strategy for improving motor carrier safety. Specific, measurable goals must be established to carry out the strategy, and estimates of funds and staff resources needed to accomplish the goals must be submitted to Congress annually. The three top officials of the new Administration (the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Chief Safety Officer) and the Administration's regulatory ombudsman are each required to sign a performance agreement with specific measurable goals to carry out this strategy, including increasing the number of inspections and compliance reviews, eliminating the backlog in rulemaking and enforcement cases, improving the quality and effectiveness of databases, and increasing inspection resources at the border. An official's progress toward meeting the goals is to be given substantial weight when bonuses and other achievement awards are dispersed within the Department. The bill will give the Administration the resources it will need to do a better job. The bill provides a significant increase in guaranteed and authorized funding for motor carrier safety programs. Funding for personnel and resources of the new Administration will be 70 percent higher (an average of $38 million per year) than current staffing for the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. The additional funding will enable the Motor Carrier Administration to hire more federal inspectors, and more attorneys to complete rulemakings. The bill also provides an additional $55 million per year of guaranteed funding for motor carrier safety grants. In addition, the bill authorizes $75 million per year, subject to appropriation, for motor carrier safety grants above the guaranteed level. The bill makes numerous programmatic changes to improve safety by keeping dangerous drivers off the roads and enhancing oversight. The bill improves the consistency of Commercial Driver's Licenses by closing loopholes in record keeping, establishing tougher penalties for crashes that cause fatalities, and authorizing DOT to decertify the CDL programs of States that do not comply with national requirements. Trucks entering the United States will face more comprehensive oversight when DOT implements new staffing standards for inspectors at our international borders. Violators of safety laws and regulations will face penalties high enough to promote future compliance. Maximum fines will be assessed for repeat offenders as well as a pattern of violations of our safety laws and regulations. A comprehensive study of crash causation along with an enhanced data collection effort will help DOT and the States target their education, oversight, and enforcement activities to address the most serious contributors to crashes. I want to again commend Chairmen Shuster and Petri, and Ranking Democratic Member Rahall, for their efforts to develop this strong motor carrier safety bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statement from Secretary Slater supporting the committee's action and supporting this bill: Statement of U.S. Transportation Secretary Slater Supporting the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Bill I am gratified that the Congress is moving swiftly to pass the ``Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999'' (H.R. 3419). This bill would give the U.S. Department of Transportation and states additional tools to significantly improve commercial motor carrier safety across the country and at our borders. President Clinton has made clear that safety is the highest priority for the Department of Transportation. The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 3419. The leadership of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain and Ranking Member Ernest Hollings was critical to this agreement. This legislation is truly a broad-based, bipartisan effort and, if enacted, will reduce motor carrier crashes and save lives. It incorporates initiatives from Senate and House proposals; the Administration's proposal; a safety audit by the Department's Inspector General, Kenneth M. Mead; a review conducted for the Department by former House Public Works and Transportation Committee Chairman Norman Y. Mineta; and recommendations from labor, safety groups, industry, and state and local governments. The bill would create a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration focused on safety as its highest priority. I support that safety emphasis wholeheartedly and applaud other provisions to increase resources and regulatory and enforcement tools. Among the significant provisions are: Commercial Driver's License Program. Comprehensive improvements would be made to the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. These would allow the Department and its state partners to more effectively identify problem drivers, take appropriate remedial action, and get high-risk drivers off the road. New Entrants. A ``new entrants'' program would permit the Department and states to ensure the safety fitness of newly- formed motor carrier companies. New applicants for authority would demonstrate their knowledge of safety regulations, and the Department would be challenged to review the safety of new carriers within the first 18 months of operation. Foreign Carriers. The Department would gain strong new sanctions to prevent foreign carriers from operating illegally in the United States. The Department would deny entry to carriers that are not properly registered and impose stiff fines on violators. If carriers operate outside the scope of their registration authority, their trucks would be placed out-of-service at the roadside. Data Collection to Target Problems. New data and analysis tools would help the Department determine why truck and bus crashes happen and identify the best prevention measures. H.R. 3419 would fund a major crash causation study and put into place a new system for collecting crash data nationally. The bill would also require motor carriers to update their records with the Department, helping us to focus enforcement resources on carriers that present the greatest safety risk. Increased Resources. With passage of this bill, states would receive a major boost in resources to conduct more inspections of vehicles, drivers, and carriers. They would be able to implement innovative new safety countermeasures, keep more complete records on driver violations, and greatly strengthen enforcement programs. I urge the Congress to act expeditiously to approve the ``Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.'' I believe we have a singular opportunity now to make major strides toward improving motor carrier safety and achieving the Administration's 50 percent fatality reduction goal. We at the Department look forward to working with all our partners in continuing these critical efforts to save lives and make our nation's highways safer. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statement of the chairman of the committee on the remarks and the document that he will include in the Record that serve as a joint statement of managers for this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and concur in that observation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am very pleased with this bill. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 is a good bill. It preserves all the strong provisions of the bill that passed the House and adds provisions from the Senate bill that will further enhance safety. A strong House bill has been made even stronger. I just want to express my great appreciation to my chairman, my partner, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), but especially to our chairman for championing this legislation. This is good legislation. It will only add to the gentleman's distinguished record of achievement in this House, especially one in the safety arena where he has been so strong an advocate.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask the chairman of the committee for an explanation of the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I too rise in support of S. 67 to designate the HUD headquarters as the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building. I have had the privilege, as a member of the staff of my predecessor, to meet Bob Weaver; and I have only the highest respect for his professional accomplishments and for Dr. Weaver as a very decent, warm, caring, energetic, hard working, and visionary human being. Dr. Robert Clifton Weaver has been one of the most instrumental and influential Americans in directing and administering federal housing policies. Dr. Weaver was a native Washingtonian, a graduate of Dunbar High School, and Harvard University in 1929. In 1931 he received his Masters degree, and in 1934 his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He entered government in 1933, as one of the young professionals who were drawn to Washington because of the ``New Deal'' programs of President Roosevelt. He quickly became a leader in promoting opportunities and efforts to increase minority participation in government projects and policy development. During the 1940's and 1950's, Dr. Weaver held a variety of prestigious positions, including Director of the Opportunity Fellowship Program of the John Hay Whitney Foundation, consultant to the Ford Foundation, State of New York Rent Administrator, and in 1960 he became the Vice Chairman of the New York City Housing and Redevelopment Board. In 1961, President Kennedy named Dr. Weaver as the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, then a loose collection of agencies including the mortgage-insuring Federal Housing Administration. Dr. Weaver worked tirelessly to mold the agency into a single organization with a unified goal. In 1966, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was formed by President Johnson, Dr. Weaver was designated its first Secretary, the first African- American to hold a cabinet-level position. After his service at HUD, Dr. Weaver returned to academic life and served as the President of Baruch College in New York City. Dr. Weaver was the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including the NAACP's Springarn Medal, the Albert Einstein Commemorative Award, the New York City Urban League Frederick Douglass Award, and New York University's Robert F. Wagner Public Service Award. Dr. Weaver led a rich, full life marked by professional accomplishments and excellence. His legacy in public service is a model for all of us. It is fitting and proper to honor Dr. Weaver with this designation and I join with the Gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, the sponsor of the House's companion bill, in supporting S. 67. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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