James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two pioneers in general aviation in the State of Minnesota: Francis Einarson of International Falls and Rudy Billberg of Roseau. These two gentleman will be inducted into the Minnesota Aviation Hall of Fame on Saturday, April 17, 1999. Francis Einarson serves as an operator of the International Falls Airport, and he has long been a leader in aviation in Northern Minnesota. His induction to the Aviation Hall of Fame is an honor that it richly deserved--if not overdue. Francis' brother Jim taught him to fly in 1948, and the two men began operating the airport in International Falls the same year. Over the years, Francis Einarson took tourists for scenic rides, taught students how to fly, provided air ambulance service and conducted search and rescue missions. Francis also oversaw several expansions of the International Falls Airport, which today acts as a gateway to Northern Minnesota communities and attractions like Voyageurs National Park. Rudy Billberg is also part of aviation history in Minnesota. In the early days of aviation, Rudy made his start by barnstorming to festivals in Duluth and the Iron Range and putting on acrobatic shows. He provided valuable service to the United States by training flyers in Duluth and flying troops and supplies during World War II. He also trained junior college students in flying through the Civilian Pilot Training program and was appointed one of Minnesota's first flight examiners. These men were adventures when aviation was a new mode of transportation, and they made a valuable contribution to the development of the aviation field. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Francis Einarson and Rudy Billberg on their induction into the Minnesota Aviation Hall of Fame.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Scott Anderson, a Duluth resident and pioneer in general aviation. On March 23rd, Scott died at the age of 33 following a tragic crash that occurred while he was testing a new aircraft in Northern Minnesota. Scott was fatally injured when the first SR20 airplane to come off Cirrus Design's production line, which he was piloting, crashed just short of the Duluth International Airport. The plane crash is not only a serious disappointment for Cirrus Design, but is also a tragedy for general aviation aircraft development, testing and evaluation--the most critical phase of bringing a new type and model of aircraft into the mainstream of aviation. A major in the Air National Guard, Scott was an experienced test pilot who flew F-16s for the military, in addition to his job as Director of Flight Operations and Chief Test Pilot for Cirrus Design. Test pilots are heroes of aviation who pioneer the testing of new, pre- production aircraft to ensure that all systems comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Scott made history last year when he piloted the SR20 during the first test of an innovative parachute recovery system; ironically, that safety device was not on board the aircraft he was flying at the time of the crash. While we must await the evaluation and findings of the National Transportation Safety Board regarding the causes of the crash, we know that Scott did everything humanly possible to bring the plane down safely so that innocent lives on the ground would not be lost. I offer my heartfelt sympathy to Scott's wife, Laurie, his parents, Paul and Carol, and siblings, Catherine and Todd Anderson, as well as to the Cirrus Design team, for their loss. I hope, in their grief, they know that Scott made a profound difference to the State of Minnesota and to the national aviation community. As a tribute to the memory and contribution Scott made to general aviation, which will benefit future generations, I submit an article written by Sam Cook that appeared in the Duluth News Tribune on March 24, 1999. Mr. Cook is a talented writer who knew Scott Anderson for many years and with whom he shared a love of Minnesota's great outdoors. [From the Duluth News Tribune, Mar. 24, 1999] Anderson Blessed Others With Life (By Sam Cook) I can't recall exactly how Scott Anderson came into my life. He just appeared, and once Scott Anderson appears in your life it's never quite the same. He and his friend Steve Baker were planning a canoe trip from Duluth to Hudson Bay. This was 1987. They were college kids home for the summer, and they didn't know exactly what they were getting into, but of course that didn't matter. They were going to go no matter what. As I recall, they borrowed a canoe that had been cracked up and patched back together. I thought they might drown the day they left Duluth, Lake Superior was kicking up, but they were behind schedule so they made a break for it. They ended up portaging their canoe along Minnesota Highway 61 to jump-start that trip, and you could see that nothing else was going to hold them back. The trip was a throwback to the old Eric Sevareid and Walter Port trip that Sevareid turned into his classic book, ``Canoeing with the Cree.'' Scott and Steve made Hudson Bay, all right, and it came as only a mild surprise when Scott returned and said he was going to write a book about the experience. He had already built a submarine at college and paddled a broken boat to Hudson Bay. Why couldn't he write a book? He did, of course. And he learned to fly an F-16. And next thing you knew he was test flying airplanes for Cirrus Design. Scott was one of the most engaging people you could ever hope to meet. He was big and blond and nearly bald, or else his hair was just so light you couldn't see it. I never was sure. But he had a countenance that told you he could handle anything that came his way, probably without blinking. And that smile, When he unfurled that grin, a whole bunch of happiness spilled into the room and you felt better just for being in the man's presence. He had some devilment in there, too, but only the harmless kind. There couldn't have been an ounce of meanness in that guy. Once, out of the blue, he called and asked me if I wanted to be part of a race. He's been scheming again. There would be four of us, in two canoes, he said. The two-person teams would leave Duluth bound for different ends of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. We'd drive north, put in, paddle across the wilderness, exchange car keys somewhere in the middle, paddle out and drive back. First one back to Duluth wins. I told him I couldn't make it, but it wouldn't surprise me if he pulled that off, too. If you had a son, and he turned out to be Scott Anderson, you would have to consider yourself one lucky mom or dad. If Scott showed up at your door to date your daughter, you'd send them off happily, close the door, look at your spouse and smile. Not to worry. There was a guy you could count on. When I heard Tuesday afternoon that a Cirrus plane had gone down, I got worried. When I learned later that night that Scott hadn't made it, I sat in my living room and bawled my guts out while my son played with his Legos. It would not surprise me if hundreds of others did exactly the same thing I did. I'll bet Scott touched more lives in a meaningful way in his 33 years than most of us will get to in twice that. He was a brilliant, creative, remarkable guy. I keep seeing him in my mind, and all I see is that big head and that wonderful grin and all that confidence behind it. They say that as parents there are two things you want to give your kids--roots and wings, Scott Anderson had both, but he was partial to the wings. I hope he's still flying somewhere.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) briefly to explain the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the other body did not act as responsibly and as promptly as this committee and this body did, but I do support this 2-month extension. Further reserving the right to object, I want to observe with sadness the death of a good friend to airports, to this committee, and to the Congress, Ellis Ohnstad, the long-time employee of the FAA Airports Office, a constant source of good humor and solid information and support for our committee. We will miss him dearly. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage of S. 643. S. 643 provides for a 2-month extension of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and authorization for other Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs through the end of the fiscal year 1999. In February, the House passed H.R. 99 which extended the AIP until the end of fiscal year 1999. The other body was unwilling to agree to a 6-month extension and sent to the House a 2-month extension. The House approach is still the preferable one, but with AIP due to lapse on March 31, a 2-month extension is better than letting the program expire. It is disturbing to me that the other body continues to play political games with AIP. AIP funds critical safety, security, and capacity projects at airports throughout this country. The stop-go-stop approach taken by the other body to this issue has caused administrative inefficiencies at the FAA and, more importantly, doubt for airports in moving forward on projects. I am particularly concerned about northern states where the lack of commitment to a full-year program threatens the construction season. It is my hope that another extension will not be needed since the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 18th passed H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as AIR-21. With leadership support and assistance, we should be able to move this bill forward for floor consideration shortly. H.R. 1000 meets four pressing challenges facing the aviation system: Capacity 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. We have tremendous needs especially in the airport system: renovating existing runways and taxiways; helping communities cope with noise problems; increasing capacity through projects like San Francisco's $1 billion runway project; and meeting airport requirements so the smaller airports can take advantage of technological breakthroughs like GPS/ WAAS. AIR-21 meets these airport and other challenges and I look forward to working with Members of the House on its passage. In the short-term, this extension is needed and I ask all Members to support S. 643. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the relay event is a traditional part of the opening ceremonies for the Special Olympics, which take place at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia. This year, approximately 2,500 special Olympians will compete in 17 events, and more than one million children and adults with special needs participate in Special Olympics worldwide programs. The goal of the games is to help bring mentally disabled individuals into the larger society under conditions whereby they are accepted and respected. Confidence and self esteem are the building blocks for these Olympic games. Better health, coordination, and lasting friendships are the results of participation. D.C. Special Olympics is the sole provider in the District of Columbia of these special services. No other organization provides athletic programs for citizens with developmental disabilities. I support H. Con. Res. 50 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Soap Box Derby represents the best in ``voluntarism'', as volunteers from across the Greater Washington area, many of them parents of participating children, donate hours of time to provide an opportunity to learn, compete, and share in this family event. Since 1992, this local event has tripled in size. Approximately 50 youngsters will join in the 58th running of the Soap Box Derby, here in Washington D.C., making this event one of the biggest in the country. The 1997 super-stock DC winner came in second place at the national race. Our thanks to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for his attention to this event, and for his annual sponsorship of this resolution. I support this resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The Kennedy Center at the Millennium Stage is truly one of the most remarkable innovations of the center and is the brainchild of the chairman of the center's board of trustees, Jim Johnson, and carried out brilliantly by president Larry Wilker. The Millennium Stage operates 365 days a year, free to the public, and has entertained over half a million people, visitors to our Nation's Capital who can come to the Kennedy Center, to the Nation's center for the performing arts, and enjoy a free performance of the greatest array of talent that this Nation has to offer. It is an enjoyable, wonderful, uplifting experience for hundreds of thousands of visitors to our Nation's Capital as well as to residents of our Nation's Capital. The resolution we bring to the House floor today will bring to the Capitol grounds this edition of the Millennium Stage and make it available here in the heart of the Nation's Capital. It is a great privilege for me to serve, in my capacity as ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, along with the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. Bud Shuster), on the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center. Together, we enthusiastically welcome to the Capitol grounds the Millennium Stage of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we gather here in this Chamber and with this bill before us to pay tribute and to honor a giant of the law and of the Constitution. In honoring Thurgood Marshall, we honor and pay tribute to all that is good and great in the history of democracy in America, for he personified what our American war revolution was all about, what the framers of the Constitution intended in writing this great and durable document, that all people are created equal and are entitled to equal justice under the law and in this Constitution. Thurgood Marshall believed in that theme, believed in that promise, and made his life a crusade to make the promise of the Constitution alive, living, practiced in this democracy. What we say here cannot add to the glory that is his and to the respect that generations owe him. We can only supplement what was a great, courageous, and inspiring life. By naming a building, we hope that we in stone, in structure, and in all that goes on inside this great courthouse, perpetuate the ideals that made up the career and the life and the purpose of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day, and this year the memorial service will be held on the Capitol Grounds on Saturday, May 15th. There are approximately 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving the American public today. During 1997, 160 peace officers were killed in the line of duty. In addition, approximately 65,000 officers are assaulted each year, with 23,000 sustaining serious injury. In July 1998, we experienced our officers' sacrifices first-hand when Capitol Police officers Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson gave their lives in defense of the U.S. Capitol. It is most fitting and proper to honor the lives, sacrifices, and public service of our brave peace officers. I urge support and passage of H. Con. Res. 44.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, support for the Steel Recovery Act is not protectionism; it is a vote for fair trade in steel, fair trade in the U.S. and international marketplace. 1999, for the steel industry in America is what Yogi Berra once called deja vu all over again. We are seeing 1980 being repeated in 1999. In 1980, we had produced 120 million tons of steel, the highest steel production in the history of this country. Imports devastated the steel industry down to 80 million tons; 350,000 steelworkers lost their jobs. 10,000 people in my district, 10,000 workers in the iron ore mines of Minnesota, lost their jobs permanently. We went from a $450 million payroll down to less than $100 million in 18 months. We are not going to stand for that again. Look at what is happening just this year in the iron ore mining company: Eveleth Tachonite Company forced to have layoffs because foreign steel is taking away the market in the domestic United States, subsidized foreign steel. We have spent $50 billion in the steel industry in this country modernizing America's steel mills. We have the highest productivity, the highest quality steel, the lowest cost per man unit of steel produced in America in the whole world, and yet Russia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, other countries, are dumping steel in this country at $250 a ton less than we produce it right here at home. They are subsidizing and exporting their unemployment, dumping it on our shores. When it hits at home and when it hits your friends and your neighbors, then you have got to stand up for fairness in steel. We have invested over $2 billion in modernizing the iron ore mining and processing plants on the Mesabi iron range of northern Minnesota, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said about his State. We should not stand for having that investment, that modernization of our industry wiped out by having foreign countries dump their unemployment on our shores, wiping out our American jobs. Steel is the most important building material in an industrial society. We cannot engage a war, we cannot build our highways, we cannot construct our airports without steel. We are not going to have American bridges, American ports, American airports built with foreign steel subsidized to take away jobs from American workers when we have made the investments to modernize with private venture capital this greatest steel industry in the whole world and this finest iron ore mining industry in this whole world. Vote for the Steel Recovery Act.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are certainly aware of the Garden Grove problem. The discharge of waste oil product is particularly deleterious to the Bolsa Chica wetlands, a very sensitive environmental area. I had experience with this type of thing in my own Congressional District near Duluth, the Arrowhead Refinery site. It has taken us years to fix up and to fix responsibility on the third parties for that cleanup. We are particularly sensitive to the gentlewoman's appeal and to her concern. We adhere on this side vigorously to the principle of the responsible party pays: ``You make the mess; you clean it up.'' We will work with the gentlewoman and the Coast Guard to reach a reasonable conclusion that suits the gentlewoman's constituents, and will continue to work closely with her and the Coast Guard to monitor this situation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 820, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1999. What is of special interest and concern to me, and a great pleasure, is that at long last, for 25 years of my service in the Congress, we are approaching the date when we can see on the Great Lakes a replacement for the Coast Guard icebreaker Mackinaw, now older than most Members of this body. The Mackinaw was built during the 1940s. It is now 55 years of age. It has done valiant service keeping the shipping lanes on the Great Lakes open during the late fall and early spring season to move goods to market. But the Mackinaw, battered by five and a half decades of breaking ice, is badly in need of replacement. This legislation provides a $3 million authorization for design competition for a replacement vessel. Not just a study, as we have done in the past and nothing has come of it, but design competition for a replacement vessel for the icebreaker Mackinaw; and $128 million authorization for the construction of that replacement vessel. For those who are not familiar with the Great Lakes, this is home to 20 percent of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. It is the locus of one out of every five industrial jobs in America. The Great Lakes states generate 45 percent of the Nation's agriculture and produce over a third of the Nation's exports. And to move those commodities, to move the 58 million tons of iron ore that moved from northern Minnesota, northern Michigan to the lower lake steel mills, the 23 million tons of stone that are used in the Nation's highway construction project, and 20 million tons of coal each year that move from upper lake to lower lake to fuel with low sulphur western coal, the demands of power plants in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio with clean coal and the energy they need to keep their industry going, we have to keep those shipping lanes open in the late fall and the early spring to ensure the lowest cost delivery of these goods. Water borne transportation is the lowest energy consuming means of transportation in our country and anywhere in the world and the Great Lakes waterways are critical to the needs of upper and lower lakes. And it is not just the ports on the Great Lakes that benefit from this, nor the industries, but the farmers of western Minnesota, of North and South Dakota, of Montana, of Iowa, where the grain comes into the Port of Duluth. Grain farmers from Canada, it comes down from Thunder Bay into Lake Michigan and onto lower lake port and ultimately exported to the seven seas of the world. This Great Lakes waterway system is the great energy source for the national economy and for agriculture that reaches way west of the Mississippi and stretches far east of the Mississippi. The Mackinaw replacement project, a multipurpose vessel, will benefit the entire national economy. And I am delighted and I really appreciate the work of our chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who has been very understanding of our need on the Great Lakes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, who has been supportive of this initiative, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been very helpful on this initiative. And for all my Great Lakes colleagues who for years have joined together and supported, at last we can say the end is in sight, replacement for the Mackinaw is coming. But this bill goes further. It provides the support for what I consider to be America's greatest return on investment entity, the U.S. Coast Guard. We get more for our dollar investment in the Coast Guard than out of any of the services, perhaps any other entity except maybe the Corps of Engineers. The return on investment in the Coast Guard is extraordinary. Whether in safety in the inland waterways of the coastal regions or in protection against drug runners, the interdiction role that the Coast Guard plays is extraordinary. The men and women who wear that special color blue deserve our total support, and this bill provides it. The $44 million authorization in this bill to continue the design and development process for the Deepwater project is critical. This is an initiative to replace all of the Coast Guard's vessels and aircraft that operate more than 50 miles out from the U.S. coastline along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. This Deepwater initiative is really critical to keep the Coast Guard competitive, to keep it in line with all the additional responsibilities we in the Congress have saddled upon the Coast Guard, and to keep the United States vigilant in maintaining the integrity of our coastline. I will not go into all the many other initiatives, the fisheries enforcement, migrant interdiction, drug interdiction along our coast that the Coast Guard carries out. We really salute the men and women with the special blue of the U.S. Coast Guard and do so in a very practical and realistic way in this legislation. I thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this legislation to the House floor.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Lighthouses are a matter of particular interest and importance to this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The very first public works authorized by the very first Congress was done by the predecessor of our today Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure when that Rivers and Harbors Committee authorized the Fort Henry Lighthouse in 1790. Lighthouses have been a critical part of our navigation system in America not only for waterborne navigation but also from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930s, the Lighthouse Service provided the first navigational guide, aids to aviation navigation on land for airborne transportation. It was the first nighttime guidance system provided by the lighthouse service to aviation. For those and for so many other reasons lighthouses have such a fascination for the American public, a point of nostalgia. They are national treasures. They are linked to our maritime heritage. They are landmarks for travel and tourism, and where abandoned and replaced by our modern aids to navigation, lighthouses serve a multitude of purposes including benefits to local economy.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, for far too long we have fought the war on drugs as if it were a short-term conflict. It is not. It is a long- haul conflict. We must make a 20-year commitment to drug interdiction operations. This amendment will help us do that. We support the amendment on this side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, in my own congressional district the City of Two Harbors lighthouse along the north shore of Lake Superior in the Coast Guard Authorization Act last year was conveyed to the local Two Harbors and Lake County Historical Society which will be responsible for the upkeep of the facility while the Coast Guard maintains the light itself, and soon we are going to have a major bicycling event along the north shore from Duluth to another historic landmark, the Split Rock Lighthouse when we, hopefully this summer, convene the Split Rock century, arrived from Duluth to Split Rock and back. Lighthouses serve many, many purposes. The gentleman's amendment will give the Coast Guard the authority it needs to further the conveyance of lighthouses to non-profit organizations that will have the resources, and the will and the desire to preserve these national treasures, and I compliment the gentleman from Michigan on this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio who has throughout his service in the Congress made a point of reminding us on every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor wherever there is procurement that this procurement should be cloaked in the Buy America label. American dollars are being used, taxpayer dollars are being used on Federal projects, on Federal programs, and he is right to remind this body time and again that those dollars must be used to purchase American products in the service of this country. Other countries do that. Other countries realize that charity begins at home, that a strong economy begins at home, and we must do the same. The gentleman is right, I was successful in 1982 in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in getting a very strong Buy America provision on steel used in our Federal highway program. In the next 6 years under TEA 21, that will mean that 18 million tons of American steel will go into our Federal aid highway and bridge program. We have Buy America provisions that apply to the Corps of Engineers, that apply to the Federal transit system. Years ago when I chaired the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this legislation now, we held extensive hearings, Mr. Gingrich and I, the ranking member on the Republican side at the time, we found widespread abuses in the Federal transit program on the Buy America program. We worked vigorously to assure that the law would be carried out. Here in the disaster assistance program, there is a wide array of products used to help victims of disaster become whole again, communities as well as individuals, grand facilities, dams, levees, roads, bridges as well as individual homes and small businesses. Mr. Chairman, there is a wide array of product used to make those communities, make those structures, whole again. They ought to be American goods. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right to offer this amendment, but now that we have reestablished our Subcommittee on Oversight in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I appeal to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) to maintain vigilance. Once this legislation is enacted, let us take a careful look at how it is applied in future disasters where the Federal Government comes in to help out local communities. Look over their shoulder. Make sure they are carrying out this law. It is all too easy to avoid. But, Mr. Chairman, avoidance will be difficult if this committee maintains vigilance, as I am sure it will, under the gentlewoman's leadership.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999. I greatly appreciate the initiative that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has demonstrated in moving this bill so quickly through subcommittee, full committee, and to the floor. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on that subcommittee. This bill was heard in their subcommittee in the last Congress. The bill has been reshaped and heard in a new subcommittee in this Congress, and I again commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Chairman Fowler) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), ranking member, for their strong commitment to moving the legislation forward and doing so very quickly. Mr. Chairman, there are two main elements that we are dealing with in this legislation: a predisaster mitigation program and streamlining of existing disaster assistance programs under the Stafford Act. I think this legislation has great potential to improve Federal, local and State government response to disasters, reduce the cost of those responses and do a better job for the victims of disasters. The cost of the Federal, State, and local response to disaster has been going up incrementally and, in the last few years, almost explosively with the number of disasters and the greater intensity of disasters that we are seeing. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) said at one time, FEMA's response to these tragedies was in itself a disaster. As chair of the oversight committee in the mid 1980s, I held hearings on the terrible response of FEMA and of a plan, then, that would have shifted unacceptable cost levels on local government as a result of disasters. Together with our colleagues on the Republican side, we stopped that plan and reshaped the whole Federal Disaster Assistance Program, which has continued to be managed in an increasingly better fashion. But in 1989, outlays, principally as a result of Hurricane Hugo were $1.2 billion for disaster relief. That was a milestone. That was the first time the Federal Government had paid out for a single tragedy over $1 billion. Well, not this year, but in succeeding years, we have been in excess of a $1 billion every year outlay for disasters. In 1994, it hit $5.4 billion for one year. Last year, it dropped a little bit to $2 billion. But still, those are extremely high numbers. When we take a careful look at the circumstances, the geography, the local conditions, we find recurring patterns. A very significant portion of what we are paying for disaster relief is for people, properties that have sustained prior losses that have not taken action to protect themselves against these acts of nature. What this bill does is it moves us in the direction of not continuing to pay over and over again for the same losses to the same people in the same geographic areas for which we have previously paid for losses. We should not continue to shower Federal dollars and local and State dollars on people who insist on remaining in harm's way without taking preventative measures. An old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, applies to this kind of Federal program as well. Experience under section 404 of the Stafford Act provides for postdisaster mitigation, and it clearly shows that mitigation is an effective way to limit future damages; that is, postdisaster, after tragedy has struck, take some actions to protect yourself against the next one. It is a good initiative. We are strengthening that response in this legislation. But it is not enough. We need to go further, as we learned from the history of these various kinds of tragedies and disasters that strike various parts of our country. The predisaster mitigation program focuses on local government initiatives, private sector participation, and leveraging of private sector participation. After all, we continue to reimburse people and businesses who are in harm's way, and private sector should be a part of the advance protection. The expectation is, and I say expectation because I do not want to overstate the potential, the expectation is that these initiatives, predisaster actions, involving private sector, leveraging private sector resources will enhance State mitigation plans that should be developed in coordination and consultation with local governments and with FEMA. We are hopeful that this new program is going to make a very useful and significant contribution to control disaster losses before disaster strikes, so that when one is and this region is struck, it will be better prepared to withstand and will have lower losses. Now there is a pilot project that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) said, was developed under the leadership of Director Witt at FEMA, called Project Impact. It has been widely praised by local communities. Community focus, bottoms up planning, local involvement, all of which are good initiatives. Let us hope this becomes a pattern, a model, a good starting point for this new predisaster initiative we are authorizing in this legislation. But I emphasize from my previous experience in holding extensive hearings on disaster mitigation, it will require extensive intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. It is going to have to start from the local level. The Federal Government is not going to come in and do it for them. They have got to do it. They have got to then coordinate with State and with FEMA well in advance of disasters and make some very tough decisions such as local zoning to keep people out of harm's way. If they do not do it, they should not expect to be compensated for their failure to keep themselves out of harm's way. We will have to undertake extensive oversight of this Project Impact and of these future plans to see that they really are focused on what we intend them to do. At stake are people's lives, people's well-being, the integrity of communities, but also at stake are billions of dollars of Federal funds that are going to be called upon to reimburse local government and make them whole after disaster has struck. We are off to a good start. I think this is a very good move forward. I also think, at the same time, it is going to require intense vigilance on the part of our committee and on the part of FEMA to make sure that it does work. It is in the right direction. I commend the chairman for moving this legislation. We are all going to have to make an extra effort to make it work.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and unable to vote on rollcall vote No. 32, the ``Death on the High Seas Act.'' Had I been here, I obviously would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for yield me this time. I compliment him on the splendid job of leadership he has done in working to craft this legislation and to bring it to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the full committee, for moving so quickly and decisively last year and again this year to correct the clear gap in the law that amounts to an abuse of the rights of the families of victims. I thank, of course, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), our splendid chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the ever judicious and thoughtful advocate for aviation. This legislation arises out of a tragedy that occurred in Long Island Sound, but it arises also out of the genuine, deep, profound humanitarian concern of our former colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade. I have known Joe McDade all the years I served in this body, at first as a staff member and then as a colleague. There is one quality that shines through this thoughtful and sparkly, ever-with-a-twinkle-in-his- eye gentleman who chaired the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and that was his concern for his fellow human beings, his splendid representation of the people of his District, the remarkable locomotive museum that I visited when I took my daughter up to look at a college in his District, the everlasting memorial that he has created in one after another community project to serve the needs of his people. But none of those accomplishments will be a greater memorial than the enactment of this legislation, which has been introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), his successor in the Congress and our committee. It is really unfortunate the other body did not act on this legislation in the last Congress. We hope that moving the bill early this year will give them motivation to proceed with dispatch and to take action on the mark of delayed justice overdue. Those of us who have served on the PanAm 103 Commission, my good friend, John Paul Hammerschmidt, former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Works and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I served on the PanAm 103 Commissions. We learned that families of the victims realize nothing that we could do will bring back their loved ones. What they ask is that the injustice in that case, that the tragedy not be repeated through terrorist actions against aviation, and in this case that justice be done for families in the future that may have, God forbid that it should happen again, but who may have such a tragedy occur. PanAm 103 did not raise this issue because it crashed on land. Had PanAm 103 not been delayed a half hour on the ground in London and taken off on time, it would have been blown up over the North Atlantic. It would have raised the same issues that TWA 800 raises for us in this legislation of Death on the High Seas, that ancient piece of legislation that prohibits recovery for those who are lost beyond the territorial limits of the United States. I will not repeat all of the points that have been made about the details of the legislation. I do not think it is necessary to do so. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) have already made that case. What we do hear, though, is a lasting memorial to the families of the victims, to the victims themselves, that justice in the future will be done should ever a tragedy of this magnitude occur on the high seas. It is a great tribute to our committee that, as we build memorials of concrete, steel, and we create great transportation systems, move America, that we also have the compassion to act in matters of this kind that do justice for those of our fellow citizens and those whom we represent in this great body.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman of our full committee for that very strong, forceful, well-phrased statement but, more importantly, for his prompt action on this legislation, moving it through subcommittee and full committee to the floor quickly, because the situation demanded quick action. The gentleman is a strong advocate for American interests, whether in steel or in other modes of transportation, but especially here in this case in aviation. I did my graduate studies at the College of Europe in Brugge, Belgium, at the time of the formation of the European Common Market. I have continued to follow events in Europe very closely, from the coal and steel community, through the European Common Market, to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers developments, all of which have united Europe, have brought a higher standard of living to Europe in the post-World War II era, all of which developments have been strongly supported by a succession of U.S. presidents and Congresses. We want a strong, economically strong, united Europe. It is in our best economic interest. It is in our national security interest. But it is to be a Europe that will trade fairly with the United States, that their markets must be open to ours on the same terms and conditions that ours are open to theirs. And we have the world's largest open, free market for any commodity, and especially in aviation. We have negotiated one after another liberal aviation trade agreement with European countries, beginning with the Netherlands. Free open- skies agreements. We have with Germany. We have with Italy. We are negotiating one now with France. Why, then, in the face of this openness to trade, why in the face of U.S. cooperation with Europe in aviation matters, joint ventures with Airbus industry, the joint venture between GE and Snekma, the French engine manufacturer, why in the face of some 60 percent of the materials and parts produced for Airbus aircraft coming from the United States, why is the European Community taking anti-competitive action as they have done with their proposal to eliminate some 1,600 U.S. aircraft from the European air system? The European Commission made a recommendation to the European Parliament, which debated this issue, and then adopted a proposed regulation, submitted to the European Council of Ministers, that would restrict the use in Europe of some, but not all, aircraft that have either a new engine or a hushkit installed on existing engines to meet their highest current noise standards, Chapter 3 of ICAO, or stage 3 as we call it in the United States. On the face of it, it looks fair, but in practice it applies only to U.S. aircraft and U.S. engines. Conveniently, it excludes the engines produced by the GE alliance with the French manufacturer Snekma, the CFM series engines. U.S. aircraft engines are quieter than their European Chapter 3 counterparts, and if this regulation is finalized, the effect would be to cost American businesses over a billion dollars in spare parts and engine sales and reduce the resale value of some 1,600 U.S. aircraft as well as reduce the market for U.S. hushkitted manufacturers. Now, I have been to the Nordham facilities in the United States where they manufacture hushkits, and I have seen the splendid job they do. And their hushkits have been installed, starting with Federal Express and then with other U.S. airline operators, to meet our Stage 3 standards. They do a superb job. They quiet those engines down. We are down now from the 1990 noise law in the United States, from 2,340 aircraft in 1990 that were Stage 2, we are down to just under 900 aircraft. By the end of this year we will be down to under 600, and by the end of next year we will be down to zero. We have done a far superior job of noise control in the United States than the European Community has done. Our aircraft are seen worldwide as the standard. Our technology is seen worldwide as the standard. So why has Europe chosen to take this policy initiative? Hushkits have been used for over 15 years to quiet aircraft. The regulation says that engines with a higher bypass ratio would be allowed in the European airspace, but those high bypass engines are mostly European manufactured. An engine's bypass ratio is only one of several factors in determining the actual noise produced by that equipment. Compare a 727- 200 re-engined with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217C/15 engine and a Airbus A300B4-200 equipped with a CF6-50C2 engine. The 727, and I want to be very precise about this, because the Europeans have made a big stink about this issue, the 727 I have described is quieter than the Airbus 300. The 727 re-engined has a performance standard of 288.8 decibels; the Airbus A300, 293.3 decibels. Yet, under the European Union proposed regulation, the Boeing aircraft would be banned, the Airbus aircraft will fly. Well, I got news for the Europeans, that does not fly here in the United States. Furthermore, I think this would be destructive in the long run for the Europeans to enact this and permanently put into place this regulation because it will create havoc in the international community in negotiations on future noise regulation and air emissions standards from aircraft. Probably there is no one today who can remember what the skies over Washington looked like 25 years ago. Huge clouds of smoke, 12,000 tons of pollutants deposited on the Nation's capital from aircraft taking off from National Airport. We have cleaned that all up. We do not see those black smoke trails any longer. Well, Europe caught on, too. They followed our path, but now they want to be discriminatory. If the proposed recommendation is adopted, then our bill banning the Concorde is an appropriate response to Europe's anti-competitive practice. The Concorde is European aviation's flagship aircraft. The Concorde is Europe's signature technological mark on world aviation. It is a mark of pride for Europe. We have been allowing their market pride to fly in our airspace, even though it does not meet our noise standards. We have been tolerant of and cooperated with airlines flying the Concorde. British Airways and Air France operate four daily flights, eight operations, that is, eight arrivals and departures each day into U.S. airspace. Yesterday, March 2, was the 30th anniversary of the first Concorde flight to the United States. It is rather appropriate we bring this legislation to the floor today. I am willing, and I know the chairman of our committee is willing, to cooperate and to support continuation of the waiver that has been in place for these three decades. But we are not going to do it unless the Europeans play fair and unless they drop their regulation that would prohibit certain U.S. aircraft from operating in European airspace. Fair is fair. There will be positive environmental benefits from prohibiting the Concorde in our airspace. Preliminary analysis from the FAA says that eliminating the Concorde and its noise from New York airspace will reduce the noise footprint around John F. Kennedy International Airport by at least 20 percent. I think that is a very strong argument. The Europeans I hope will see the wisdom of changing their ways. The Clinton administration, I am very pleased, has responded vigorously to this thinly veiled attempt to give a competitive advantage to European aircraft and engine manufacturers. Transportation Secretary Slater, Commerce Secretary Daley and U.S. Trade Representive Ambassador Barshefsky have already appealed to the European Commission to defer action and to let this go to the proper forum, the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization. Last week, Commerce Under Secretary for International Trade Aaron testified before the Finance Committee of the other body: The acceleration of consideration at the Council level appears aimed at precluding consultations between the United States and the European Union before implementation on April 1, 1999. Because of its potential impact on our bilateral commerce, Secretaries Daley and Slater, and Ambassador Barshefsky have written not only the European Commission but also to Ministers of the Member States asking that the Council not proceed with adoption of the regulation until consultations could be held. We are deeply concerned that this regulation remains on track for approval without meaningful consultations having taken place. I have informed the EU that the United States is prepared to respond appropriately to the harm our industry will suffer. Mr. Chairman, we are responding today. Our action moving this bill through committee and to the floor so quickly has already had a positive effect. Deputy Transportation Secretary Mort Downey informed me yesterday that he was advised at an ICAO meeting on Friday that the President of the EU has postponed action for at least 3 weeks on the pending proposal, which means that the Council of Ministers will not be able to consider the banning of U.S. engines and hushkitted engines at least until the end of this month. The reason: They took very careful note of this bill moving through committee and to the House floor. The Secretary of Transportation and the State Department have asked for consultation with the EU. We understand that those consultations are likely to take place within the next week or so, certainly before the end of this month. I share the administration's hope that the Europeans will come to their senses and realize that they have a lot at stake in working with us rather than against us. We have already been through the banana wars. We have had steel trade issues between the United States and the European community. Countervailing duties have been imposed on unfair trade practices by the European community and by Russia. I think Europe should get the message that in aviation, cooperation, competition on a fair and equitable playing field is right, but protective practices are not. We take a strong stand today and I think we have got their attention. We have just got to keep the heat on. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and thank him for his splendid support for this issue.