James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is important legislation. It is also very good, far-reaching, substantive safety legislation. I want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for a splendid job of bipartisan crafting of this legislation for the inclusiveness that he has extended in crafting this bill and for his commitment to safety. I want to express my appreciation also to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), the chair of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, for consistent, concerted efforts to develop a strong motor carrier safety bill that we can all support. This legislation will give the Federal Government the direction, the incentives, and the resources it needs to improve safety in the trucking sector of our Nation's highways. Every year crashs involving large trucks kill more than 5,300 people and injure in the range of 130,000 others. On any day, there are 14 deaths and 350 injuries. That is unacceptable. Unless the Federal safety program is significantly improved, there will be more deaths and more injuries as the number of miles traveled by large trucks increases. The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, the General Accounting Office, and indeed our former colleague Norm Mineta, a former chairman of the committee who was assigned the task to review this issue by the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, and our own Subcommittee on Ground Transportation and the full committee all have concluded that the Federal Government program to ensure motor carrier safety has major deficiencies. The studies found that DOT has not been conducting enough inspections of commercial vehicles and of commercial drivers and that the penalties imposed for violations are too low to deter future violations. The studies also found that DOT rarely completes needed safety regulation on time. More than 20 motor carrier safety rulemakings have been in process for between 3 and 9 years. That is just simply unacceptable. These rulemakings involve very important decisions, such as our service limits, permits for carrying hazardous materials, training standards for entry level drivers. They should not be languishing for years. Databases at DOT are incomplete, unreliable. The Department lacks adequate personnel and adequate facilities at our borders to stop the influx of unsafe trucks. Perceived conflicts of interest have undermined the credibility of DOT's research program. Since those troubling reports and analyses have been issued, the Secretary, to his great credit, has taken important steps to improve the effectiveness of the motor carrier safety program. Secretary Slater did not stand idly by wringing his hands denying the problems but, in fact, acknowledged that there were deficiencies and set about correcting them. But the Secretary does not have sufficient authority to go as far as is needed. This legislation gives him that authority, gives him the resources. There are four principles, I believe, that underlie any motor carrier safety program. Safety should be the primary mission. Second, sound and credible research must be the foundation for good policy. Third, vigorous oversight and enforcement must be an essential part of the program. And fourth, there have to be adequate financial and personnel resources. This bill addresses each one of those four principles. It creates a new administration, the National Motor Carrier Administration, within DOT. The new administration will have the direction, the incentives, the financial and the personnel resources needed to improve motor carrier safety. There will also be a regulatory ombudsman in this new administration with the authority to speed up rulemaking by assigning the additional necessary staff and the authority to resolve disagreements within the agency. What pleases me most is that the bill follows the model in the spirit of the legislation, the model of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which established the FAA for the purpose of improving aviation safety. This bill directs the National Motor Carrier Administration to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest priority. The clear intent, the clear encouragement, the obvious dedication of the Congress in this legislation is to the furtherance of the highest degree of safety in motor carrier transportation. With that statement, we put the whole body and thrust of this new entity on the path of safety. The four top officials of the administration, the administrator, deputy administrator, chief safety officer, regulatory ombudsman, are each required under this bill to sign a performance agreement with specific measurable goals to carry out this safety strategy, including increasing the number of inspections and compliance reviews, eliminate the backlog in rulemaking, eliminate the backlog in enforcement cases, improve quality and effectiveness of databases, and improve inspection at our borders. If those goals are met, these officials will be eligible for performance dividends of up to $15,000 each. In addition, agency employees as a group will be eligible for a bonus if the new entity makes sufficient progress toward accomplishing these goals. The administration will have the resources it needs to do a better job because the bill will provide a substantial increase in guaranteed and authorized funding for motor carrier safety programs. The resources of the new administration will be 70 percent higher than current staffing standards at the Office of Motor Carriers in its current structure. That means $38 million a year more. Additional funding will help this new Motor Carrier Administration hire more inspectors and more attorneys to complete the rulemakings that are necessary. Motor carrier safety grants to States, which are an important element and in fact the backbone of enforcement, motor carrier safety grants will be increased 68 percent. That is $65 million more in each of the fiscal years authorized under the bill. And there will be an additional $75 million a year for motor carrier safety grants above that guaranteed levels. There are a number of program changes to improve safety by keeping dangerous drivers off the roads and enhancing oversight. We, in this legislation, improve the consistency of commercial driver's licenses by closing loopholes and recordkeeping and putting in place tougher penalties for crashes that cause fatalities, and we authorize DOT to decertify the Commercial Driver's License program of States that do not comply with these national requirements. Finally, trucks entering the United States will face much more intensive oversight when DOT implements the new staffing standards for inspectors at our borders. There will be penalties high enough to make it clear to violators that they have got to be in compliance. Maximum fines will be assessed for repeat offenders as well as for patterns of violations of our safety laws and regulations. All in all, taken together in a comprehensive basis, this is a new era for motor carrier safety on America's highways. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3036, as amended, to restore the enforcement authority and civil penalty authority to the proper office within the Department of Transportation. I want to thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and our ranking Democratic member the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for responding so promptly and so effectively to the obvious urgency presented in the offending language in the fiscal year 2000 DOD appropriations conference report. I want to take a moment to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations. He has at heart a genuine concern for safety and has moved the debate in the right direction. I appreciate his initiative. Unfortunately, the initiative crafted, perhaps in haste, without full appreciation, misses the mark. It is not the gentleman's intention to derogate safety, but it was the result of this section 338 in the conference report. When the appropriations bill was signed into law last Saturday, the provision required an immediate reorganization of the motor carrier safety function within the Federal Highway Administration and within the Department of Transportation. To Secretary Slater's great credit, he did not wait a moment. The very day that the President signed the bill into law, Secretary Slater directed the reorganization to be done, immediately, over the weekend. But he went only as far as the appropriations bill allowed him to go. And because our committee has greater legislative history and experience with this law, we understood that there was a shortcoming. In fact, we held a hearing on the matter just to be precise about our concerns, that without further changes the reorganization would effectively handcuff and leg-shackle the motor carrier enforcement efforts of the Department of Transportation. Almost immediately upon passage of the conference report, the Department of Transportation and others expressed serious concerns, our members and professional staff expressed serious concerns, and on the 7th of October, the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation of our committee held a hearing to explore those concerns publicly. I asked the Department of Transportation's general counsel, Nancy McFadden, at that hearing whether the Department would be able to assess fines or seek injunctive relief against a motor carrier that DOT had found in violation of motor carrier laws. She said no. She said further that DOT employees would not be allowed to work with a U.S. attorney in pursuing civil or criminal enforcement in court, that the Department would not be able to force a carrier to comply with Federal law or regulation. But she also said that those shortcomings, very serious ones, could easily be corrected, and that is why we are here today. Now, the reason we are here is that section 338 of the transportation appropriations bill prohibits the Federal Highway Administration from spending money to carry out motor carrier safety programs. Once that provision took effect, no one in the new entity would have authority to initiate new civil penalty cases or continue existing civil penalty cases. Why? Very simply, the reason for the anomaly is that the law vests civil penalty authority only in the Federal Highway Administration and in the administrator. The administrator may delegate that civil penalty authority to an office within the Federal Highway Administration but not to an office outside the Federal Highway Administration. That is the key element that we have to correct and which we do correct here with this legislation, that the administrator cannot delegate the authority for civil penalties enforcement or cooperation with the Department of Justice and, therefore, without this language, we would have had standing in law the Motor Carrier Evasion Relief Act of 1999 in which motor carriers simply violate the law, cannot be pursued, cannot be penalized and safety cannot be enforced. With the language we bring to the House floor today, we correct that problem. And, happily, we will also be able to bring to the House floor our much more far reaching bill that elevates motor carrier safety to a new level in the National Motor Carrier Administration, in which we direct this new administration to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as its highest priority. We do it right. We provide the authority, we provide the civil penalty powers, we provide cooperation with the Justice Department, we provide funding for training and for enforcement authorities, we have a far reaching, comprehensive bill that does the right thing in the right way. I understand from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that we will be able to bring this bill to the House floor on Thursday. I urge everyone to support that bill as well as to support the pending legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that action we take today is marred by process. But I do want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for recognizing the impasse that occurred when the other body refused to take up a House version of this legislation and made it clear that the only way to do it is to act on the Senate bill. That is just realism, and I appreciate his desire to, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) expressed himself so eloquently, his depth of appreciation for Jake Pickle for the service in this body, and it shows what a distinguished leader our committee chairman is and his willingness to act as we have always done on our committee, in a bipartisan manner. The gentleman from Texas whom we honor with this building naming is a very unusual person, a great Member of this body, and a very unorthodox Member. He did not go along to get along. But he pursued his own beliefs and pursued them vigorously and advocated on this floor and in the Democratic Caucus what he believed in. He was a very rare article in the House of Representatives. He always, as our colleagues from Texas have noted, always considered himself President Lyndon B. Johnson's congressman, and frequently would tell us stories about calls he had received, well I can recall this as a member of the staff at the time, calls from the President and later, after Lyndon Johnson's presidency, calls that he would receive from the former President, giving him advice on one or another action. And Jake was also always very responsive to that advice. He was a very close friend of my predecessor in Congress, John Blatnick, for whom I was administrative assistant, and I got to know Jake quite well. He served on the Committee on Public Works prior to going to the Committee on Ways and Means and we got to know each other very well. So well that after I was elected to Congress Jake Pickle always referred to me as John. I considered it a compliment. I never corrected him because I thought being associated with John Blatnick was just fine by me. Naming this Federal building in Austin, I think, will be just as enduring a compliment to this great public servant, and I am really delighted we are taking the action today, finally, to give Jake Pickle the recognition he so richly deserves.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate the subcommittee on moving this legislation, and express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for moving the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their support in recognizing the American Public Transit Association on its silver anniversary year. Mr. Speaker, it may seem unusual to be recognizing an organization of this nature on the House floor. Yet, there is nothing more important for the growth, strength, and quality of life in urban America than public transit. I can remember very vividly as a junior staff member at the time in July, 1964, when President Johnson, on July 9, to be exact, signed into law the Urban Mass Transportation Act of that year. It was seen as an historic piece of legislation. It was the first time that the Federal Government had actually recognized the role of public transportation, transit, as it was called, or beginning to be called at that time, and this small step forward was seen as an important landmark for urban America. Not that transit had just been discovered by the Federal Government in 1964. In fact, the first transit system was actually a ferry, the Boston ferry, in the 1600s. I think the exact time was 1630 when it began its operations. The longest continually operating transit system in America is the St. Charles Line in New Orleans. In fact, the St. Charles Line began in 1835, and runs in front of my wife's family home in New Orleans, which is also the site of the annual Mardi Gras festival. The St. Charles Line continues to operate today with upgrades and with improvements and with each of the cars filled with travelers, without which people would not be able to get to work, people would not be able to hold jobs, people would not be able to have affordable transportation in this city that is so clogged with traffic because of the nature of the city streets and the nature of the layout of the community. Over the years our committee, then the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has continued to support and widen the role and widen the public support for transit. Last year Americans made 8.7 billion trips on transit. About a fourth of those took place in New York City. The New York City transit system carries 2.2 billion passengers a year. Without transit in New York and Northern New Jersey, the area would need 10,400 miles of four-lane highway, which of course is impossible in New York City, it could not be done. And even then, if we could build all that highway, we would still be able to carry only one-third of the passengers that are carried by transit in New York City. So let us recognize here not just the 25th anniversary of APTA, formed 10 years after President Johnson signed UMTA, the Urban Mass Transportation Act, into law, but let us recognize in so doing the extraordinarily critical role that urban transit systems play in the lifeblood of America's great metropolitan areas: affordable, high- quality alternative transportation choices for commuters, for people visiting cities, reducing congestion and improving travel time for motorists, reducing air pollution, enhancing the quality of life in neighborhoods. Here in our Nation's Capitol, the Metro system has meant vast improvement in air quality and in access for welfare-to-work, for people who live in poor neighborhoods to get to the jobs that are necessary for their livelihood. We could do better. We could do as the metro system does in Paris, which moves far greater numbers of people, and of course, that is a 9 million population metropolitan area. But the Paris metro system, for less than half the cost of monthly transit in Washington, D.C., moves three or four times as many people on a daily basis. We can do better, and in TEA-21 our committee, with the support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), made the investments necessary to carry America into the 21st century, to balance transportation. There is an 80-20 split. Eighty percent of the bill goes to highways, 20 percent to transit, and we continue the growth of investment in transit systems as well as in commuter rail, in light rail systems. In celebrating the 25th anniversary of the American Public Transit Association, we are also celebrating the progress that we have made in improving transit systems, making them more affordable, making them higher quality, making them available to more people, and in the welfare-to-work provisions of TEA-21, we passed another historic milestone. It is not enough to say we have ended welfare. It is more important to say we have also provided access to jobs for people. My daughter, Annie, works at Jubilee Jobs in the Adams Morgan area of Washington, where she places people who have fallen through the welfare net, who are living in homeless shelters, who come into Jubilee Jobs in their location in Adams Morgan needing work. The biggest problem is not finding the job, but marrying the person and the job with a means to get to work. The job is meaningless if you do not have money in your pocket, if you do not have a way to get to work. We provided that linkage in the welfare-to-work provisions of TEA-21. We have made a great start on the 21st century. APTA has helped us get there. This legislation, TEA-21, has moved us forward, and with this resolution today we recognize not only the 25th anniversary of APTA, but we recognize the enormous contributions that public transit is making in the quality of life of all Americans, particularly those neediest among us who have to rely on public transportation systems to get to their work.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the National Transportation Safety Board is the Nation's premier safety agency. Our highways are safer, our airways are safer, our railroads are safer, our maritime commerce is safer because of the work of the National Transportation Safety Board year in and year out, going back as far as 1926 when the Air Commerce Act vested in the Department of Commerce the authority to investigate aircraft accidents, an initiative, I might add, spearheaded by a leader in government who later was known or best known for other things that happened in the country. Herbert Hoover, as an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, championed aviation but also realized that if we did not act as a government to set national standards to make aviation safe and reliable, that there could not be commercial growth in this new mode of transportation. And he was the champion for aviation safety. The Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for that leadership. Since those years and on to the creation of the Department of Transportation in 1966, the role of overseeing safety was lodged largely within the various modes of transportation. In 1966, Congress acted to create a Department of Transportation, and I was a member of the staff of the chairman, the Honorable John Blatnik, who was chairman of the Executive Branch Reorganization subcommittee that created the Department of Transportation and crafted an independent safety board but left it within the Department. We realized 6 months after the Department had been created, that this was not going to work, that it would create the appearance of the Department and its several modal administrations investigating themselves. So we separated out from the Department of Transportation the Safety Board, created a National Transportation Safety Board, and in 1974 further strengthened that board, giving it greater independence. The true significance of this board is that its investigations are independent. They are conducted by a staff of highly-trained, skilled, gifted, talented, hard-working professionals. The findings and the conclusions of the board stand above reapproach. Their recommendations to the modal administrations are normative, not burdened by cost- benefit analysis. Their obligation is simply to recommend as improvements in safety what the board in its judgment, in the judgment of its professional staff and its board members, believe to be in the highest best interests of safety. It is then up to the rulemaking process of the modal administration to sort out the costs and the benefits, and that is why the board stands in such high regard throughout all modes of transportation within the United States, with the traveling public and with other countries. Since its establishment in 1966, the board has investigated over 100,000 aviation accidents and 10,000 surface transportation accidents and hundreds more railroad and maritime issues. The work of this board deserves the support that we give it in this legislation with additional funding, with increased staffing, with authority to pay overtime, with support in the legislation to strengthen the agreement between NTSB and the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation. Yes, even the NTSB needs oversight of its financial management and business operations and long ago concluded an agreement with the I.G. to undertake such activity. The authority we provide in this legislation will ensure that the money we invest in the board is well spent and that potential for fraud and abuse is reduced or eliminated. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other items that I would like to address, and in order to save time I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. I would like to concentrate on just one issue and that is Coast Guard safety functions. On May 1, an amphibious vessel sank in Arkansas killing 13 people. The Coast Guard had just inspected the vessel, had ordered the owner to install bilge alarms, but it failed to ensure that the vessel owner had indeed complied with the Coast Guard order. Despite this apparent conflict of interest, the Coast Guard led the investigation of that accident. Under no circumstances should the Coast Guard or any Federal Government agency unilaterally decide when it has a conflict of interest and when it should investigate its own decision and its own actions. We do not allow this in aviation; we do not allow it in any other mode of transportation; and we should not allow it here. I am concerned about the process of the Coast Guard in conducting accident investigations. The NTSB has told us that when the Coast Guard convenes a formal board of investigation, it is very difficult for the board to obtain information that the board can verify as accurate. The open nature of the formal Coast Guard board can also affect witness testimony or recollection of events because such proceedings allow witnesses to hear each others' testimony. After discussing these concerns with Admiral Loy, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, we reached an understanding these issues could be addressed administratively without specific legislative change. Language included in the committee report to accompany H.R. 2910 is intended to provide guidance for both the Coast Guard and the NTSB to address these concerns. In short, we mean for them to get together and resolve the issue of primacy in an investigation and timing. If that issue is not resolved between the two, I assure both parties this committee will come back and address it legislatively. All in all this is an excellent piece of legislation, it moves the cause of safety significantly ahead; it strengthens the role of the NTSB. I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for the extensive work that he has contributed to the formulation of this bill and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the diligent effort that he has invested in the formulation of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2910, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 1999. H.R. 2910 reauthorizes the NTSB for three years so it can continue to play a critical role in ensuring the safety of the United States transportation system. This agency's roots stem as far back as 1926 when the Air Commerce Act vested the Department of Commerce with the authority to investigative aircraft accidents. During the 1966 consolidation of various transportation agencies into the Department of Transportation (DOT), the NTSB was created as an independent agency within DOT to investigate accidents in all transportation modes. In 1974, in further resolve to ensure that NTSB retain its independence, Congress reestablished the Board as a totally separate entity distinct from DOT. Since that time, the NTSB has investigated more than 100,000 aviation accidents, and more than 10,000 surface transportation accidents. The American travelling public is much safer today due to the hard work of the NTSB staff in conducting investigations and pursuing safety recommendations. In the last three years alone, the Board has investigated more than 7,000 accidents and issued 57 major reports covering all transportation modes (aviation, highway, transit, maritime, railroad, and pipeline/ hazardous materials). The Board has also issued more than 1,100 safety recommendations--many of which have been adopted by Congress, federal, state and local governments, and the affected industries. The NTSB's tireless efforts in investigating accidents and issuing recommendations have led to innovative safety enhancements, such as manual cutoff switches for airbags, to measures to prevent runway incursions, to countermeasures against operator fatigue in all modes of transportation. In addition, the NTSB has promoted the installation of more sophisticated voice recorders to enhance its ability to investigate aircraft accidents. Despite a small workforce of approximately 370 full-time employees, the NTSB has provided its investigative expertise in thousands of complex aviation accidents--including its painstaking review of the TWA 800 crash. The NTSB is also frequently called upon to assist in aviation accident investigations in foreign countries. The demand upon this small agency, with its highly trained, professional staff, will only grow with the aviation market's ever-increasing globalization. In addition, according to a preliminary analysis by the RAND Corporation, new technological advances in all modes of transportation--from glass cockpits in aviation to sophisticated electronic alerting devices in the railroad industry--will require more extensive training for NTSB investigators. To maintain its position as the world's preeminent investigative agency, it is imperative that the NTSB has the resources necessary to handle the increasingly complex accident investigations. H.R. 2910 ensures that by increasing NTSB's funding steadily and sensibly over the next three years: $57 million in FY 2000; $65 million in FY 2001; and $72 million in FY 2002. This funding will be used to permit NTSB to hire more technical experts as well as to provide better training for its current workforce. Dramatic changes in technology demand such an investment. However, with this increase in funding also comes the requirement to strengthen the oversight of financial matters at the agency. H.R. 2910 vests the DOT's Inspector General with the authority to review the financial management and business operations of the NTSB. This will help ensure that money is well spent and the potential for fraud and abuse is reduced. The DOT Inspector General's authority is specifically limited to financial matters, however, so as not to undermine the NTSB's independence. Equally important, H.R. 2910 provides the NTSB with the authority to grant appropriate overtime pay to all of its accident investigators while on-scene. These competent individuals are oftentimes called upon to work upwards of 60, 70 or 80 hours per week in extreme conditions-- whether in the swamps of the Florida everglades or the chilly waters off the Atlantic ocean--side-by-side with other federal agency investigators--many of whom are paid for extra hours worked. Moving to this type of parity is the least that we can do to show our appreciation for the efforts of these dedicated professionals. As we have learned from the tragic TWA 800 crash, accident scenes can often be chaotic with many local, state, and federal investigative agencies on scene. This is especially true where accidents are not only being investigated for probable cause--but also when criminal activity is suspected. Proper coordination between these various investigative agencies performing very important, albeit very different, functions is of paramount importance. H.R. 2910 reaffirms NTSB's priority over an accident scene unless the Attorney General, in consultation with the NTSB chairman, determines that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. In that case, the NTSB would relinquish its priority over the scene--but such relinquishment will not, in any way, interfere with the Board's authority to continue its probable cause investigation. One issue of concern to me is the NTSB's ability to investigate major marine casualties. Currently, both the NTSB and the Coast Guard have joint authority to conduct investigations of major marine casualties. I have two concerns about the current process. First, under the existing regulations and the Memorandum of Understanding, the Coast Guard must agree to allow the NTSB to have the lead in casualties that involve significant safety issues relating to Coast Guard safety functions. On May 1, an amphibious vessel sank in Arkansas killing 13 people. Although the Coast Guard had just inspected the vessel and ordered the owner to install bilge alarms, it failed to ensure that the vessel owner complied with its order. Despite this apparent conflict of interest, the Coast Guard led the investigation. Under no circumstances should the Coast Guard be able to unilaterally decide when it has a conflict of interest. We do not allow this in aviation or any other transportation safety investigation and should not allow it here. Second, I am concerned about the Coast Guard's process in conducting accident investigations. According to the NTSB, once the Coast Guard convenes a formal board of investigation, it is very difficult to obtain information that you can be sure is accurate. The open nature of the formal board can affect witness testimony or recollection of events because such proceedings allow for witnesses to hear each other's testimony. After discussing these concerns with Admiral Loy, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, it was agreed that both of these issues could be addressed administratively without a specific legislative change. Language included in the Committee Report to H.R. 2910 is intended to provide guidance to both Coast Guard and the NTSB to address these concerns. Having a well funded, well-trained NTSB workforce to meet the challenges of the 21st Century is of the utmost importance for the American travelling public. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation, and I compliment Chairman Shuster, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Lipinski for their efforts.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, in 1996 Congress agreed the U.S. dairy pricing system was seriously flawed and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should develop a more evenhanded pricing system. After three years of research and an exhaustive public comment period, USDA proposed a modest reform plan, and now the proponents of H.R. 1402 seek to violate the agreement made in the 1996 Farm bill by leaving in place a blatantly unfair Depression-era pricing structure that penalizes dairy producers based on their distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Few government programs are more complex and misunderstood than the USDA's milk marketing system. President Franklin Roosevelt established federal orders in the 1930s during the Great Depression to ensure an adequate supply of fresh milk nationwide. The primary goal of the system was to facilitate the flow of milk from surplus production regions to deficit regions. During the Depression, the Upper Midwest was the nation's center of dairy production. So to encourage the flow of milk from the region, the federal government required dairy processors to pay higher prices for fluid milk based on their distance from the Upper Midwest. This allowed our dairy farmers to recover the extra costs of transporting their product to consumer regions. Clearly, federal orders made sense sixty years ago. The situation has changed. Dairy farms have sprung up in every corner of the country, especially in those regions farthest from the Upper Midwest where the government requires higher minimum prices. Federal orders no longer encourage the flow of milk from one place to another. Today, federal orders artificially encourage the production of milk by high-cost producers in certain regions at the expense of more efficient producers in the Upper Midwest. Geographically, the system favors milk production in high-cost regions such as the Southeast, Texas, and the Northeast at the expense of traditional dairy states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin. The impact of this pricing system on the Upper Midwestern dairy farmer has been disastrous. Since 1955, Minnesota has lost nearly 60,000 dairy farms. Over one-quarter of Minnesota dairy farmers disappeared in the six-year period following 1993. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this misguided legislation that would continue an outdated dairy policy, and I believe that the USDA's reform plan should be implemented.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of passage of S. 1637. This bill provides for extension of the Airport Improvement Program through the end of fiscal year 1999 and allows the Federal Aviation Administration to release the remaining AIP funds for this fiscal year to fund critical airport development projects. Each state will get additional aviation resources by the action the House will take today. The best solution for the Nation's airports and air traffic control system is a long-term reauthorization bill that will unlock the trust funds, as we have done in legislation that has already passed the House. We are acting today in a responsible manner to assure that airports do not lose available funding. This past June 15 the House passed H.R. 1000, the Aviation and Investment Reform Act, AIR 21, by an overwhelming vote of 316 to 110. This critically important legislation is needed to move the aviation system into the 21st Century by providing adequate long-term funding for the FAA and for the Airport Improvement Program. Unfortunately, the other body has not been able to pass a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill. The House approach is preferable, but with the AIP program lapsed as of August 6, a short- term extension is better than losing scarce and precious airport development dollars. But this extension should not be misread by anyone. We will continue to insist on a long-term reauthorization bill for fiscal years 2000 to 2004. The Nation's aviation system increasingly is in gridlock. Passenger frustration is growing and airport capital needs are underfunded by at least $3 billion a year. We have to ensure long-term funding and a management reform plan for the FAA to address these problems, as we have already done in legislation crafted by the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). It is appalling that we have reached a situation of gridlock when there are aviation revenues unused in the Aviation Trust Fund, specifically, as the chairman already cited, $290 million for AIP. I understand the concerns that have been expressed that the FAA may be unable to issue grants by the end of the fiscal year. The reason for that is language in the manager's statement in the conference report for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill passed in the spring of 1998. In that report, the managers directed the Department of Transportation to notify the Committee on Appropriations not less than 3 business days before any AIP grant is announced by the department. If that requirement is imposed on the pending bill, it may not be possible to make all grants authorized by this legislation before the end of the fiscal year, after which, of course, the funds will no longer be available. As a matter of law, we do not believe that the discussion in the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 supplemental emergency supplemental appropriations bill imposes any requirement with respect to funds authorized for fiscal year 2000 by the pending bill. The Committee on Appropriations does not have jurisdiction to impose permanent conditions applying to funds made available in the future. Had the Committee on Appropriations attempted to impose a permanent requirement of prior notice through legislative language, that language would have been subject to a point of order under rule XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the House. To resolve any questions about this matter, I state affirmatively that it is the intention of the pending bill that grants be made as promptly as possible and that the announcement of grants not be delayed for the purpose of giving prior notice to any Congressional committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the other body to get agreement on a long term reauthorization bill. I also want to express my strong concern over aviation provisions in the DOT appropriations bill passed by the other body. If these provisions are included in the bill reported from conference, I will have difficulty supporting that bill. My greatest concern is that the bill passed by the other body includes legislative earmarks for airport development projects. This is a dangerous precedent. We have never done so in House authorization bills in aviation. We have objected to any such language in appropriations bills. Until now our airport development funds have been allocated by safety professionals in the Department of Transportation. These officials are in the best position to make objective decisions as to where limited Federal funds should be invested for the maximum benefit, for the safety and efficiency of our airport and air traffic control system. Our aviation system is a complex national interrelated system. Its development must be managed by officials who have the big picture in mind and who understand these interrelationships. Although the bill passed by the other body has only a few legislative earmarks, some might argue, I would state that it is a dangerous precedent which should be ended now. Our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and I have both expressed these concerns in a letter to the appropriations conferees, and I take this opportunity to reaffirm that letter and to stand firm against this very bad and very dangerous precedent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for moving again so quickly on this issue of EU hushkit discriminatory regulation and express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his strong support, as one ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and to our colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). Earlier last year, Madam Speaker, the European Parliament passed a regulation restricting the use of aircraft that would operate within the EU territory that used either hushkitted or reengined engines on their aircraft even though such aircraft comply with the U.S. Stage 3 noise reduction requirements. As you look at it, on the face of it, the EU says this is legislation necessary to reduce aircraft noise in our congested metropolitan areas that are close to airports. But looking deeper beneath the surface, this is simply economic discrimination masquerading as noise regulation. I would just take my colleagues back a few years to 1990 when in this Chamber on this floor we debated extensively, and there are members of the staff who can recall it very clearly. I see the majority Counsel of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr. Schaffer, smiling who was here at the time; Mr. Heymsfeld on our side, who was chief of staff at the time. We hassled our way through; we chiseled it out of stone word by word, issue by issue, a far-ranging noise regulation that was 2 years ahead of anything Europe was even contemplating, or ICAO in the international arena. We worked it out, to reduce from 2,360 Stage 2 aircraft in 1990 to zero by the end of this year, reducing from 7.5 million the number of people impacted by unacceptable noise to roughly 500,000 or 600,000 by the end of this year, a 90-plus percent reduction in noise, 2 years ahead of Europe. Along comes the European community and complains that the United States forced the technology, forced a particular kind of engine and hushkitting so as to gain economic advantage over Europe. There is one word for that argument: Baloney. They knew what we were doing; they knew they could not meet our standards; and they did not want to get up to speed with the United States. They still have not achieved a Stage 3 standard all throughout the European community, and now they want to discriminate against American aircraft that our airlines have equipped to meet our Stage 3 requirements and wish to sell to non-EU countries who wish to operate those aircraft within the European community. It is that simple. So when the word became very clear about what the European community was up to, the Clinton Administration acted very quickly, moved decisively to complain about the blatantly discriminatory attack on U.S. air carriers and equipment and aviation trade, but Europe did not budge. So, again it was our committee that moved quickly and decisively earlier this year, again with the support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), to act quickly on legislation that I introduced with their and Mr. Lipinski's support to ban the operation of the Concorde in U.S. airspace. If you want something that violates noise rules, the Concorde is it. If you take the Concorde out of the New York air space, you reduce 20 percent of the noise inflicted upon people living in the New York air space. Well, that quick action by our committee and by the House got the attention of the European community and they moved to negotiate with the United States to allow U.S. aircraft to be sold and operated into the European Union through May of next year, but without protective language that guarantees the purchaser of such aircraft the right to operate the aircraft within the EU. So they created a hollow shell, and they have refused to move any further. Now, I understand there have been elections within the European parliament electing a whole new body. They have not reconstituted their Transport Committee. The European Parliament has to take certain steps to reformulate that committee and then the new committee should have a proper period of time to reconsider the healthiest rule. But there is a ministerial group within the EU that could have acted a long time ago decisively to move to show good faith, and they have not shown good faith. That is why we have to have this legislation, to press upon the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of State to protest the EU regulation by filing an Article 84 petition under ICAO. I urge the administration, without waiting for the Senate to act on this legislation, to move decisively. File the Section 84 petition. File that notice of total discontent and disapproval of European inaction and discriminatory posture toward the United States, and the Europeans will see the light. What is at stake is nothing less than the $100 billion U.S. airlines have invested to convert our Stage 2 fleet to Stage 3, and the hundreds of millions of dollars more that U.S. air carriers and the FAA and others have invested in research and development of quieter engines and air frames to move to stage 3 and the next stage, which will be called Stage 4. But unless the EU acts, we are going to see U.S. carriers deprived of something in the neighborhood of $1.6 billion in sales of aircraft, engines, and spare parts to countries who wish to operate these aircraft into the EU air space, aircraft that are quieter than aircraft operated by European carriers. Now, I will be happy to engage in a debate with the European Union members of parliament at any time. I will be happy to take on any number of them who wish to debate the issue of compliance with Stage 3, the move toward Stage 4 and who has the better technology, because I guarantee you, U.S. air carriers, U.S. manufacturers, are ahead of the field, ahead of anything in Europe, ahead of any other country in the world. So, Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for standing up for what is right, for what is fair, for American leadership in aviation, to restore this country and maintain its leadership in aviation throughout the world. We ought to pass this resolution; the administration ought to act decisively; and we ought to wait no longer for word from a European community that is determined to support a cartel in the sector of aviation airframe and engine technology.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation for bringing this bill to the floor. The gentleman has aptly and appropriately described the technical changes that made necessary this legislation. Madam Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to highlight the significance of the legislation to create a commission that will coordinate appropriately and give proper significance to the 100th anniversary of flight. The distinguished counsel of the Subcommittee on Aviation on the majority side, David Schaffer and I were at the 90th anniversary of powered flight at Kill Devil Hill, otherwise known as Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on a day that was very reminiscent of the first day of powered flight: dreary, overcast, windy, damp, a biting cold day, that followed, in 1903, an equally bitter, cold, rainy night that left sleet and ice over the rather flimsy barn in which the Wright Brothers slept so that they could be ready early in the next morning to attempt an historic flight. It literally brings chills, not just physically, but spiritually, to think of the momentous occasion on which they began that journey that brought us today to an industry that represents 6 percent of our gross domestic product; that, together with aerospace, employs nearly 1.5 million people and has a $100 billion payroll; and has put America at the forefront of technological advance; an industry that has made America the envy of the rest of the world, and has set a standard that the rest of the world measures itself by. There will be many stories and many events that we will want to commemorate as this commission moves toward the 100th anniversary, but there is one that I think is appropriate in this body. It was told by my predecessor, John Blatnik, for whom I was administrative assistant. During the years Sam Rayburn served as Speaker, he and Mr. Rayburn were very close friends. Early in 1961, the last year of speaker Rayburn's life on this floor, the House had just passed a very significant appropriations bill. Mr. Rayburn put his arm around John Blatnik's shoulder and said, ``This is a very nostalgic moment for me. Fifty years ago in this body, I voted for an appropriation of $50,000 to help two young kids perfect a flying machine for the U.S. Army; their name: the Wright brothers. Today I voted for the first appropriation,'' said Speaker Rayburn, ``to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely to Earth.'' As John Blatnik described it, Mr. Rayburn had tears in his eyes. For one person to have lived long enough to see the beginning of powered flight and the beginning of space travel is truly exceptional, and it is an account of visionary leadership that should be described and expressed as we move to the commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of flight, to understand fully how far we have come, what an extraordinary journey this all has been. I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution forward, and I urge the commission to begin forthwith, as soon as the necessary legislation is in place, its exceptional work of commemorating this historic milestone in powered flight.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for yielding. I rise in support of the chairman's profound concern and I would say controlled outrage at the treatment that the senior Member of the House has been accorded in this matter. It is a matter of simple courtesy when concern has been expressed by the committee chairman, a senior Member of the House and a committee chairman, that comity directs that these concerns be addressed. The chairman was not fairly treated. Our committee has not been fairly treated. I join with the chairman in expressing that concern. I make no observation about the substance, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) expressed, of this bill. We have not seen it. We do not know what has been in it, what has been included or excluded. But we do have a basic principle of fairness. When a senior Member expresses reservations, they ought to be at least given the opportunity to express those concerns at the appropriate time in the parliamentary proceeding. I will join my chairman in expressing that at the appropriate time when we come to a vote on this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The existing policy is doing exactly what the preceding speaker said, driving the family farm out of existence. We have lost half of the dairy farms of East Central Minnesota in the last 10 years because of policies that are in place, and that would be changed by the Secretary's order. It is time to end the milk cartels, the regional dairy compacts. It is time to free up the most productive dairy farmers in America, those in the Minnesota-Wisconsin milksheds. It is time to reduce the milk marketing orders from 31 to 11, as USDA proposes. It is time to vote for fair trade at home in the dairy sector and preserve the family dairy farm.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my reservation. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are bringing to the House a conference report on the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, a culmination of 3 years work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for any comment that he may make. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the committee has completed it arduous task and compliment the chairman on his steadfast leadership.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just as deadly serious for the steel and iron ore mining industry as were loan guarantees Congress approved for New York City in 1977 and Chrysler in 1980. The steel import crisis is not over. American steel makers are still cutting production and jobs because of unfairly traded steel dumped in our markets at subsidized prices. Iron ore producers in Minnesota and Michigan, whose only market is the domestic integrated steel industry, are especially devastated by imports of semi-finished steel slab subsidized in Russia and other countries and dumped on our shores displacing our high quality taconite. Layoffs totaling 2,500 jobs were announced just this week by mines in Minnesota and Michigan, on top of hundreds of previous layoffs. I would rather the unfair trade laws worked. I would rather we had duties and countervailing duties and quotas. But they are not being imposed, they are not working, and the loan guarantee initiative will help taconite plants upgrade operations, reduce costs, improve efficiency, and the loans will be repaid with interest.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise to support the resolution and to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for moving so expeditiously on this matter which is very timely for the carpenters union for the replacement and construction of this facility so near to the Capitol. I appreciate the support of the chairman of the subcommittee also for acting so quickly. I want to compliment the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on her steadfast persistence and leadership on this matter. She is a true advocate and champion for the District and a great voice. This facility has one of the prime locations in all of Washington. It shall be very interesting to see the facility removed and reconstructed. I understand that there is a splendid plan to replace that facility. It is very important to all who are concerned, not only those building the structure but those who are going to rent, the various associations that would be a part of this. I just wanted to rise and express my great appreciation to the majority for moving so quickly on a matter of such timely importance to those involved and again to compliment the gentlewoman for her leadership and express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his cooperation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing up this resolution this afternoon, and I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. The Tour de France, Mr. Speaker, is the oldest, most important and most challenging bicycling race in the world. The 2,300 miles covered by the cyclists in only 3 weeks, from the time trials in the flatlands to the sprints on rolling terrain, the exhausting climbs in the Alps and the Pyrenees encompass the most demanding skills of both individual and team effort. The Tour, in my judgment, is the greatest test of fitness and endurance in all of athletics. This year, for only the second time in its 86-year history, the Tour was won by an American, Lance Armstrong. The only other American winner was three time Yellow Jersey holder, the now legendary Greg Lemond. Lance Armstrong's victory is especially remarkable for several reasons. At 26 miles per hour, it was the highest average speed in tour history. It was the first tour won by a predominantly American team. Greg Lemond won with largely European teams. And it was the first time a cancer survivor won the tour. Two years ago, Lance Armstrong was clinging to a 20 percent hope of survival from a virulent attack of testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain tissue. He conquered surgery, chemotherapy, the blistering heat of central France, the cold and rain of the mountain stages, and attacks from the world's best professional cyclists, to stand atop the winner's podium on the Champs-Elysees in Paris and don the winner's Yellow Jersey, the most coveted prize in all of competitive cycling. In just 3 weeks, Lance Armstrong restored integrity and excitement to European cycling following last year's doping scandals; and he restored new hope and inspiration to cancer victims everywhere. As an avid cyclist myself, who takes a year to pedal the 2,300 miles Lance Armstrong did in 3 weeks, I salute Lance Armstrong as a true American hero, a role model for American youth, and a future cycling legend.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my late father- in-law, Charles I. Denechaud, Jr., whose life ebbed away last Saturday, July 24. He was taken from his loved ones after nearly 3 years of a silent struggle against a stroke that disabled him and in the end robbed his most precious treasure, the ability to speak to his dear wife. His remarkable life in the law and his extraordinary service to his fellow New Orleaneans, his family, and the Catholic Church was summed up in a comprehensive account in the New Orleans Times Picayune of Sunday, July 25, which I submit for the Record. I also include in the Record at this point the eulogy of my wife, Jean K. Oberstar, my own remarks. I want to cite the splendid eulogy offered, though not available in printed version, by Jean's brother-in-law, Tommy Boggs, in warm and touching tribute to a man whose exemplary ife will inspire all of us to so live our lives. Charles I. Denechaud, Jr. Eulogy of Hon. James L. Oberstar, M.C. As we left the restaurant a few years ago, I had a clever idea: ``Us older guys should walk together,'' I said, taking his arm, ``and you can help steady me, I've got a bad hip.'' Charles quickly saw through the ruse: ``It's hell to get old, Jim; the first thing to go are the legs. Take care of your legs. Now, let me take your arm, so I don't stumble on something.'' He closed with that warm twinkle in this eyes, and the gentle, upbeat, pursed smile which is the image I shall forever harbor and always cherish. Like my own father, who lived a river's length and a culture away, Charles Denechaud saw everything, overlooked a great deal, and forgave much. As my father did with in-laws, Charles took me in as one of his own, without reservation, and extended the greatest of all treasures: the inclusiveness of family love. It was not my privilege to know, at its peak, his dazzling legal mind, but I shared, at its best, his unbounded love, especially for the lady he always endearingly called ``my bride.'' The Psalmist wrote: ``I will treat him as my first-born son. I will love him forever, and be kind to him always; my covenant with him will never end.'' Written of David, Psalm 89 appropriately embraces Charles I. Denechaud, Jr.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, of course I rise in support of this legislation to designate the Document Door of the U.S. Capitol as the ``Memorial Door'' in honor of Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. This legislation and this act in which we engage today is a poignant, even riveting reminder of how dramatically our Capitol environment has changed, how it too, this citadel of democracy, has become a victim of violence, caught in the cycle of violent tragedies that has gripped other major cities of our country. But I, as I am sure a few other of our colleagues who have served here longer than I, can remember another time. When I started here on the staff of the House Post Office while a graduate student in Washington, D.C., I can remember taking friends through the Capitol as late as 10 and 11 o'clock at night without a security door, without a metal detector, with a Capitol Police force saying, ``Can we help you?'' You could walk just about anyplace in the Capitol. And how dramatically all of that has changed. That was even after a gunman broke in through that very door in the corner of the visitor gallery, pulled a gun in support of a cause that he and his associate, accomplice, deeply believed in, and fired indiscriminately on the House floor and struck five Members of Congress, including one who later became chairman of the Public Works Committee, George Fallon, fortunately none of them fatally. But we did not lock up the Capitol. We did not put up metal detectors. It was an aberrant act, out of keeping and out of character. And then later there was the bombing in the Senate wing of the Capitol in protest of the Vietnam War, but we did not put up metal detectors and we did not check people as they came into the Capitol grounds. But violence has gripped this place as well, and we have had to respond. And I think in the process we have come, I hope, all Members of Congress, and all of the visiting public, to look on the Capitol Police force not as just pleasant uniformed guides but as a highly skilled, trained security force with a duty to the public who visit this place, to the staff who work here, to the Members of Congress who serve here, that their first line of duty is their and our security, and that these two courageous and trained and skilled officers gave their lives in the line of duty to that ideal and that mission is a constant reminder of the very special force that protects this Capitol facility, this building and all who enter here. J.J. and John were men with very different backgrounds but honor- bound together by a sense of duty on that hot July day. Detective Gibson had transferred through four different assignments before being promoted to detective and assigned to the Dignitary Protection Division. Officer Chestnut, an Air Force veteran, was assigned to the Capitol in 1980 and served throughout his career in this place. John was from Boston as our dear friend ranking member of the Committee on Rules the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has said so poignantly and so powerfully. J.J. was from South Carolina. Both family men, both devoted to their wives and children, both exemplars of what we believe in and preach on this floor, a family and values. They gave their lives for their families, for their values, for us, for all who enter here. Let us all pray that the naming of this door in their honor will keep us all ever constantly mindful of the responsibility and the duty that the Capitol Police force undertakes in the public interest and that we are all eternally in their debt.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his strong support. I would just say in conclusion that the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) has been a strong advocate for African economic development. Many of the African countries want to buy U.S. reengined hushkitted aircraft and operate them into the European Union, and this ruling by the European Commission would simply discriminate against Africa principally. So I greatly appreciate the interest and support of the gentlewoman.