James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I am delighted to hear from the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations that this mechanism is being set up for consultations through the committee process between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. I think that will go a long way to improve understandings and prevent, hopefully, debacles of this kind or near debacles of this kind. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I totally concur in the splendid statement of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). After all, Europe is where they invented the Hanseatic League, cartels, and they know how to control markets. This is a message to Europe: ``You're not going to do it in aviation.'' Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the European Community has proposed regulations that would discriminate against U.S. aircraft and airlines by banning certain aircraft for allegedly creating excessive noise, while not banning European aircraft that are noisier. This proposal is particularly aggravating when we recall that we have allowed British Airways and Air France to fly the Concorde into the United States, even though the Concorde does not meet our environmental noise limits. To counter the unfairness in Europe toward U.S. aviation, I am introducing legislation today with my colleagues Mr. Shuster, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Duncan to ban supersonic aircraft, specifically, the Concorde, from operating in the United States if the European Union (``EU'') adopts the proposed regulation that will blatantly discriminate against U.S. aviation products. The EU proposed regulation, which may be considered by the European Parliament this week, would restrict the use, in Europe, of certain aircraft that have had either a new engine, known as a ``re-engined'' aircraft, or a hushkit installed to meet the highest current noise standards, called Stage 3 or Chapter 3. The European restriction would only apply to U.S. aircraft and engines even though, in some cases, they are quieter than their European counterparts that would continue to be operated. If finalized, the proposed regulation could potentially cost American businesses over $1 billion in spare parts and engine sales; reduce the resale value of over 1600 U.S. aircraft; and cause severe financial losses for hushkit manufacturers, all of which are U.S. companies. The EU portrays its action as one to promote higher environmental standards. However, this claim has no basis in scientific or technical fact. ``Hushkits'' have been used for close to 15 years as an appropriate measure to quiet existing aircraft, first to meet the Chapter 2 standards and, since 1989, to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization's (``ICAO'') Chapter 3 standards. In addition, the EU regulation would not be applied consistently to re-engined aircraft. The regulation would ban only those engines with a by-pass ratio of less than 3. Engines with a higher by-pass ratio would be allowed, even though an engine's by-pass ratio has no direct correlation to the noise it produces. As a practical matter, this cut-off would tend to ban the use of U.S. manufactured engines and allow the use of European manufactured engines. A comparison of the cumulative noise between a Boeing 727-200 (re-engined with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217C/15) and an Airbus A300B4- 200 (equipped with a CF6-50C2 engine) underscores this point. The re- engined B727, with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than 3, has a better cumulative noise performance standard of 288.8 decibels, as compared to the Airbus' 293.3 decibels. Yet the Boeing would be banned and the Airbus would continue to fly. A further, important consideration: the proposal's adoption would deal a severe, long-term blow to the environment because it would undermine the ability of the international community to agree to, and enforce, new and improved noise standards in the future. Banning Concorde flights to and from the United States will have positive environmental benefits. According to a preliminary analysis from the FAA, such a prohibition will reduce the noise footprint around New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport by at least 20 percent. The Concorde aircraft has enjoyed a waiver from noise standards for over 20 years even though it does not meet Stage 2 noise standards. We in the U.S. have been very tolerant of and cooperative with the Concorde. I am willing to continue cooperating and allow continuation of this waiver, but only if the EU drops this outrageous proposal. The Administration has seen through this thinly-veiled attempt to give a competitive advantage to EU aircraft and engine manufacturers. Transportation Secretary Slater, Undersecretary for International Trade Aaron, and U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky have already tried to persuade to the EU Commission to defer action on this issue, and instead refer it to the proper forum--ICAO. These requests have been rejected. We must now make it clear to the EU that their initiative cannot proceed without severe consequences. Banning the Concorde is only the first step. I am committed to additional actions, including discussing the issue directly with the EU Parliament or Commission, if necessary. The EU proposal is bad environmental policy and bad for American businesses. If we are to deal seriously with noise and air quality standards in the future, we must ensure that the process is fair and based on scientific and technical evidence. The EU proposal fails on both accounts. By taking a strong stand against the EU action, we will help stop this current policy as well as lay the foundation for future, constructive action on aviation environmental issues. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort, by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). We will do this as we proceed with the broader authorization bill to make every effort to address that issue and to help the FAA complete its task of modernization of the air traffic control system. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important subject.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is making a very important statement, and I hope that Members are paying careful attention to the observations of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) about the complexities of contracting in the FAA for the requirements of our air traffic control system. It is an issue that our former colleague, Mr. Clinger, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for many years, and with the gentleman's help, bringing his able scientific physics background to bear on this issue of keeping ahead of the technology, and impeded as we were, as the FAA is, by ancient contracting rules that were devised during the Civil War era for buying mules for the U.S. Army, still in place for acquiring air traffic control computer equipment. As the gentleman has observed, we need to simplify that process. Let us bend every effort as we proceed.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging swift passage of H.R. 99, and I want to compliment him for making this the top issue of the committee's agenda in this Congress. He rightly saw at the conclusion of the 105th Congress that, as we dealt so masterfully under his gifted and vigorous leadership with the surface transportation needs of this country, that our next focus had to be the Nation's airways and airports. This simple 6-month extension is, in a sense, a down payment on the committee's commitment at the end of the last session and the beginning of this to address vigorously and in a broad, visionary concept the Nation's aviation requirements. I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the leadership and vigor they have put forth in bringing this bill to the floor and on the preparation that has gone into the subsequent legislation that we will consider. While the number 99 is rather fortuitous, just quite by accident the bill carries the number H.R. 99, it is symbolic, and it is, I think, a wonderful gesture that the very first aviation bill we bring to the floor carries the name of the oldest organization of women aviators, the 99s, formed in the late 1920s. In bringing this bill to the floor, we in this, I think, very special way pay a tribute to women who have contributed so much to the growth of aviation and development of aviation in this country and perhaps suggest to the commercial airlines of the United States that they make as much room in the flight deck for women as general aviation has made room for women in that sector. Perhaps with this bill we can use the encouragement of the committee to advance the cause of careers for women in aviation. At the close of the last session, it was a disappointment to our committee that we were not able to reach an agreement with the other body on a long-term reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program and all other aspects of aviation. We had hoped to reach an agreement, but numerous obstacles, including the one cited by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) just moments ago during consideration of the rule proved to be problems. So we bring to the House floor a very simple 6- month extension. But, as I said, it is a downpayment. It ensures, and I urge the other body to act quickly on this legislation, it ensures that after March 31 with signature of this bill into law, the funding for the FAA airport improvement grant program will be able to continue, that the investment plans of the Nation's airports will carry forward. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Illinois and I share this concern representing northern tier States. If we do not provide for the continued funding of the AIP program, surely contracts will be slowed down, airport projects in northern tier States will be slowed down. We cannot afford that. We have a very limited construction season. We need these projects to move ahead as quickly as possible. That is why this legislation is so vitally important. Furthermore, I think we have to look at the broader picture of aviation and the significant impact of aviation on our national economy. It represents a $600 billion sector of our $7 trillion domestic economy. That is about 8 percent of our domestic economy that is driven directly by aviation. We can get multiples if we took secondary impacts. There are 1.5 million jobs just in the United States alone with a $100 billion payroll. But worldwide, the impact of air transport is in the range of $1.5 trillion. That is growing at a rate of 6 and 7 percent a year in international trade and passengers and cargo. Those economic gains, though, will be slowed down and the potential of aviation economic contribution to the domestic and international economy will be slowed down if we do not have the vision to pass this legislation and the broader bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the committee will bring to the floor in the next few months. Congestion and weather are the two biggest enemies of efficient air travel. Weather is a factor in over half of the congestion cases that we experience in the course of a year. But inadequate infrastructure is the other contributing factor. Often these two issues converge. If we take an airport like Newark that has only a 950-foot separation between its two main runways, in worst weather conditions they can operate only one runway. If they had full separation of the required minimum mile between the two runways, even in the worst weather conditions they could operate both runways to the maximum possible permitted by their combination of air traffic control equipment and the ability to keep runway surfaces clear in snow and other conditions, icy conditions. But with runways that close together, they have to shut down one of them in worst weather conditions. There are many other airports across this country that face the same problem. As we extend runways and widen the separation between runways, build more hard air side capacity, we increase the ability of our airports to serve the needs of airlines and air travelers. In 1987, a year in which I chaired the oversight committee and held hearings on aviation capacity, the FAA estimated to our committee that there were 21 airports with delays of 20,000 hours a year and more. By 10 years later, within a decade, there were 27 such airports with 20 to 50,000 hours of delay a year. What does that mean to the airlines and to air travelers? Well, Delta Airlines cited traffic inefficiencies costing that carrier $360 million a year. It adds up to several billions of dollars of cost to the airlines and to air travelers when they cannot reach their destinations in time or they get there and the gates are crowded, the aircraft cannot park at the gate. We have to respond to that situation. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission found that, quote, although 19 out of 20 of the busiest airports in the world are in the United States, this Nation can no longer claim that it has the world's most modern air traffic control system. The second aspect of aviation is the technology to increase capacity and make carrier movements more efficient. This legislation continues funding of the air traffic control technology side of aviation to improve capacity at the Nation's airports. The hard fact is, though, that we are not meeting the on-the-ground requirements of runway extension, runway addition, taxiways and gate capacity at our Nation's airports. According to GAO, even with the AIP funds included in this bill we are falling short of the airport capacity capital requirements of this country by as much as $3 billion a year. That is why we need to pass this bill now, give ourselves a little time to craft larger, broader legislation that will deal over the next decade with the capacity requirements of our Nation's airports and air travelers. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from New York and our colleague from Illinois who addressed this matter previously during consideration of the rule. We confronted this issue of slots in the 105th Congress, and we have had extensive discussion about this subject matter, and it is far more complex than appears on its face. The gentleman is right to express his concern that this issue should not be addressed in the context of this short-term extension. I would be vigorously opposed to any attempt to address the matter in the context of this bill, and I hope the gentleman will support the legislation with that understanding. Certainly the issue of slots at the slot-controlled airports deserves far more extensive consideration than could possibly be given in the context of a short-term extension bill, and I know that the chairman shares that concern. We are not about to let this legislation be sidetracked by an issue of this magnitude, and I urge the gentleman to support our legislation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I also rise in strong support of H.R. 98 to extend the War Risk Insurance Program. The years when I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation, and prior to that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we held extensive hearings on the subject of war risk insurance and the significance that it played in our national defense effort. It was clear that those who initiated this unique form of insurance in the early 1950s had a clear vision of what this country needed and how our Nation's air carriers, though small in number comparatively in 1951, could play a significant role in our national defense effort. Today with a domestic fleet of well over 4,500 commercial aircraft, and probably 1,000 of those or so capable of international service, war risk insurance adds to our national military airlift capability, particularly those aircraft that are outfitted, that are especially adapted for the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program with internal strengthening that allows those aircraft to carry heavier and more significant payloads of equipment as well as personnel. What the War Risk Insurance Program has meant for our military operations in far-flown parts of the globe is perhaps best highlighted by Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq, when our domestic carriers flew some 5,000 missions into hostile territory. Without war risk insurance, those carriers would not have undertaken those flights. They would not have provided the service of bringing personnel and equipment faster than we could have done with only the Military Airlift Command of the U.S. military services. There is another element, though, of this War Risk Insurance Program that is so important. We loaded up U.S. carriers with equipment and especially personnel to fly them into either Saudi Arabia or into Kuwait during the months of Operation Desert Storm. But those aircraft then had to come back empty because they could not fly commercial passengers out of a hostile zone. Meanwhile, their competitors, other airlines of the Middle East region and European carriers, were flying loads into Europe or into the Middle East and flying passengers back to the United States that our carriers were not able to carry. So our carriers suffered a competitive, in effect, penalty for providing a great national service. If we did not have war risk insurance, those carriers would not have operated. They would have lost both ways. So I really feel very strongly about continuing this service. I think there are adjustments that need to be made for the benefit of domestic carriers when they are operating in hostile territory. This is not the bill. This is not the time to do it. But it is something where we need to look longer out into the future and to better serve the interests of U.S. carriers as they serve our national flag in time of national emergency. Meanwhile, continuation of this program is vital. If we extend it only till March 31 of this year, with continuing hostility in the Persian Gulf, clearly the service of domestic carriers will be needed again. We cannot allow this program to expire. I think the House should act today. The Senate should act promptly. The President ought to sign the bill into law and allow this program to continue serving the national interest as it has done so well for over 40 years.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in the late summer of 1908, just five years after he and his brother, Wilbur, completed the first successful powered flight at Kitty Hawk, Orville Wright was demonstrating their flying machine for the U.S. Army Signal Corps at Ft. Myer, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from where we now assemble. After a successful first flight, Orville took off again, this time with a young Signal Corps officer, Lt. Thomas Selfridge, aboard. As they completed their first circuit of the field, Orville heard two strange thumps. He cut the engine and attempted to glide the plane to a safe landing, but the Wright Flyer lost lift and plummeted nose-first to the ground. Lt. Selfridge died as a result of the crash and became the first person ever to be killed in an airplane accident. Orville Wright survived, but took four months to recover from his injuries. Now, 90 years after that fatal day at Ft. Myer, air travel has become commonplace. Last year, American air carriers transported 615 million passengers, most of us in this House among them, through the skies. However, for the first time in the 31 years such records have been kept, and possibly the first time in history, U.S. airlines completed their flights without a single fatal accident. Let me repeat that: 615 million passengers carried by U.S. scheduled air carriers, not one single fatality. For many years now, statistics have shown that travel on America's airlines has been among the safest of all transportation modes. In contrast, 42,000 people died on America's roads, streets and highways in 1997, the latest year for which a total is available. The airlines are to be congratulated for this remarkable safety record. Congratulations, too, are to be extended to the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the aircraft manufacturers, all of whom can share credit for this remarkable accomplishment. Mr. Speaker, we indeed have cause to celebrate, but we must also temper our celebration with a dose of realism. Travel, whether by air, rail, highway or sea, is never without some element of risk. We cannot rest on this single year's result. Worldwide, flights are expected to increase from 16.3 million this year to over 25 million by 2010. The number of passengers on U.S. domestic and international flights is expected to increase to over 900 million by 2006, a 50 percent increase over 10 years. We must be ready to manage this growth. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, in partnership with the aviation community, have initiated a targeted safety agenda, focusing on issues such as terrain avoidance systems, to help us meet the challenge. We in Congress must ensure that airports continue to have the resources to make critical capacity and safety investments. The FAA and NTSB must have the safety inspectors, air traffic controllers, airway system specialists and the air traffic control equipment to meet the increased aviation demand. As a matter of fact, from all indications, we can expect to debate a measure on the House floor sometime this year to provide these resources. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee since I was first elected to the House 24 years ago. When I had the privilege to chair the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, and later the Aviation Subcommittee, I held many, many hours of hearings which called the airlines, the manufacturers and the FAA to account for practices that threatened to diminish the margins of safety for the traveling public. I feel it is only right that, when the country's air transportation system has achieved such a remarkable safety record, I should also stand to give those responsible the credit they most certainly deserve. I call upon my colleagues to join me in this commendation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague, Bud Shuster, in introducing legislation to take the aviation, harbor maintenance, and inland waterways trust funds off- budget. This legislation will ensure that all revenues contributed by users of our transportation system to develop and maintain those systems are spent for their intended purposes. For aviation, this legislation has a very simple, but critical, goal; ensuring that the American public continues to travel safely, securely, and efficiently in our nation's aviation system. The airline and aerospace industries are important contributors to the U.S. economy, providing highly skilled, high paying jobs. They directly employ approximately 1.5 million people, and generate more than $100 billion in wages. The total, worldwide economic impact of air transport was $1.14 trillion in 1994 and this is expected to increase to $1.7 trillion by the year 2010. However, these economic gains will only be achieved if we have the air traffic safety, security, and airport infrastructure to take advantage of them. Problems in the current system are already appearing and are projected to be even greater in the future. In 1987, the FAA estimated that there were 21 airports at which air carrier flights were delayed by a total of more than 20,000 hours; by 1997, there were 27 airports, and that number is expected to grow to 31 by 2007. In addition, according to Delta Airlines, air traffic inefficiencies cost it approximately $360 million a year. Furthermore, FAA's lack of progress on air traffic control (ATC) modernization has led to suggestions in international forums that current U.S. management of oceanic ATC be taken away. And as the National Civil Aviation Review Commission found ``although 19 out of 20 of the busiest airports in the world are in the U.S., the nation can no longer claim that it has the world's most modern air traffic control system.'' We tried to begin addressing these challenges in 1990, by passing legislation that would have increased investment in airports and air traffic modernization. Under that law, a plan was established to allow new revenues coming into the aviation trust fund to be fully spent and the trust fund surplus, that existed at the time, to be gradually drawn down. In a spirit of cooperation, the reported bill also eliminated the penalty clause that the then-House Committee on Public Works and Transportation used to limit funding of operations from the trust fund if capital development was insufficient. As the report accompanying the bill said at that time: ``We believe that we can best meet our common goals by working cooperatively, rather than relying on penalty clauses and other legal forcing mechanisms.'' Unfortunately, that agreement was violated by the Office of Management and Budget and the Appropriations Committee. In 1990, we set out modest amounts of funding for facilities and equipment (F&E) and the airport improvement program (AIP), but they soon went by the wayside. By 1994, rather than spending $2.1 billion for AIP and $2.5 billion for F&E, instead $1.69 billion was spent for AIP and $2.12 billion for F&E. In fiscal year 1991, capital investment was 50 percent of the FAA budget, by FY1998, it was 42 percent. And rather than drawing down the trust fund balance, the uncommitted balance in the trust fund is now estimated to be $22 billion by 2004 and $53 billion by 2008. Additionally, the General Accounting Office has confirmed that airport capital needs are $10 billion a year. The present system of aviation financing provides about $6-7 billion a year, with the AIP program contributing less than $2 billion a year to those needs. Furthermore, funding for F&E is woefully inadequate. In fact, F&E is appropriated at $2 billion for FY1999, a level $400 million below an F&E level of $2.4 billion in FY1991. These inadequate levels of F&E and AIP funding contribute to delays for passengers and increased costs for airlines, and increased maintenance costs for FAA due to delayed replacement of obsolete equipment. these results are shameful, especially when money dedicated for investment in airports and air traffic equipment sits idle because of budget constraints unrelated to the needs of the aviation system. In effect, trust fund revenues are withheld to balance the rest of the budget. To remedy this, we need to build on last year's historic TEA 21 legislation which established that revenues collected from users of the highway system for the Highway Trust Fund should be spent only for the purposes for which they are collected, the development of our highways and transit systems. The same principle should now be applied to the aviation system. The bill we are introducing today is the first step to reversing the unfortunate recent trends in aviation funding and ensuring that we invest sufficiently to protect an irreplaceable economic jewel: our nation's aviation system. With Members' support, we will again be able to make the kind of investments we need in airport development and air traffic control modernization. If we are to ensure an efficient safe aviation system, we must begin to use aviation revenues for their collected purposes: to maintain and enhance our nation's aviation system. In addition, historically, a general fund payment averaging about 30 percent has been made to support our aviation system. This payment has been made in recognition of both the direct and indirect benefits of our aviation system to our nation's security and economic health. These benefits should be funded by the nation as a whole not exclusively by users of the aviation system. Any off-budget plan passed by this Congress must guarantee this general fund payment continues. We must also ensure that the money provided to the FAA is well-spent. Full implementation and validation of a cost accounting system, and effective use by FAA management, will be an important step forward. In addition, appointment of the Management Advisory Council--which has been delayed for two years--is absolutely essential. Other reforms will get my full consideration but we must ensure that the critical safety function of the FAA is not compromised or weakened. The other critical component of this legislation will allow the nation's waterborne transportation system to remain among the best in the world. The nation's coastal ports provide access to foreign and U.S. markets for virtually all international trade, while the inland system provides safe and efficient transportation for both domestic and foreign products. The contribution of the U.S. navigation system to the economy is impressive. The value of foreign trade exceeds $600 billion annually, creates 16 million jobs, and generates more than $150 billion in annual revenues for the Treasury. Yet, for all these benefits we continue to under invest in maintaining and improving this transportation system. The inland waterway system is in particular need of investment. By the year 2000, 40 percent of the locks on the inland waterway will be more than 50 years old; 26 locks will be over 100 years old; and, the Nation's two oldest locks opened in 1839. Unfortunately, because of budget constraints, only about 75 percent of the funds available for investment are actually used, and the surplus continues to grow. The Truth in Budgeting Act will change that. For coastal ports, the failure to spend receipts is even greater. As vessel drafts increase, there is a continuing need for maintaining and deepening channels. Unfortunately, budget constraints have forced expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to little more than one-half of available revenues. The benefits of fully spending the trust fund extend beyond navigation. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 expanded the uses of the fund to address critical needs related to disposal of dredged material. Environmental concerns dictate that increasing amounts of dredged material not be disposed of in open waters because of contamination of the sediment. Making the trust fund fully available not only benefits navigation, but the environment as well. In closing, I urge all Members to sign on as co-sponsors of this legislation. Your support will be critical to ensuring the safety, security, and efficiency of our nation's aviation system and waterways.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional scholars testifying before the Committee on the Judiciary made it clear that there is a high threshold for impeachment. Not all crimes are impeachable offenses. The impeachment power is limited to treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The word ``other'' means impeachment is limited to crimes similar to bribery and treason, threatening the basic integrity of government. The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard. When you cut through the rhetoric about rule of law, abuse of power, civil rights cases, at bottom the allegations are that the President tried to conceal an embarrassing private relationship. These efforts at concealment came in the Paula Jones lawsuit, a civil lawsuit. The relationship being concealed was that between the President and Ms. Lewinsky, and it was only tangentially relevant to the lawsuit, which was subsequently dismissed. In any event, in his grand jury testimony, the President admitted an improper intimate relationship. For that, he deserves censure. As the majority in the House marches in lock-step to thwart the will of a majority of the electorate, it is worth recalling that the House Republicans came to power claiming that the Congress was out of touch with the real America. How hollow this claim rings today, when two- thirds of the electorate opposes removal of the President through impeachment. If the Republican majority were truly concerned about the views of the real America, they would support the remedy which a majority of the people support, a censure resolution permitting the President to stay in office. But the Republican leadership, which in the past complained vociferously about limitations on the amendment process, is so determined to win, that it is unwilling to allow even a vote on censure. Apparently they fear that they would lose this vote and that the will of a majority of the electorate would prevail. What could be more contrary to the rhetoric of the Reagan and Bush Administrations than this vote, in which Republican ``Washington insiders'' will decide that they know better than the public outside the beltway. Indeed, the Republicans' zeal to remove the President is so intense that they are willing to ignore not only the wishes of the people, but the morale of our troops in combat, and even the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Under the separation of powers which is fundamental to our Constitution, the President and the Congress are separate and independent. Ours is not a parliamentary system in which the legislative and executive functions are merged. In a parliamentary system the legislature removes the executive when it disagrees with him, and the legislative majority is expected to enact the executive's program without question. Under our system, the two branches are separate, and only in extraordinary circumstances can the legislature breach the independence of the executive and remove the President by impeachment. The Constitutional scholars testifying before the Judiciary Committee made it clear that there is a high threshold for impeachment. Not all crimes are impeachable offenses; the impeachment power is limited to ``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The term ``other'' indicates that impeachment is limited to crimes which are similar to bribery and treason in threatening the basic integrity of government. The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard. When we cut through all the high flown rhetoric about the rule of law, abuse of power and civil right cases (incidentally, when was the last time the Republicans called a sexual harassment case a civil rights case) we have, at bottom, allegations that the President tried to conceal an embarrassing private relationship. The first efforts at concealment came in the civil lawsuit by Paula Jones. The relationship which was being concealed, that of the President and Ms. Lewinsky, was only tangentially relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit. In any event, Ms. Jones' lawsuit was subsequently dismissed. In his grand jury testimony, the President admitted that he had an improper, intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. At worst, the President lied about the exact nature of some of his intimate actions. It is hard to see how these alleged lies could constitute ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the constitution'' which should be the basis for an impeachment, according to George Mason, one of our founding fathers. When I say that not all crimes warrant impeachment, I am not saying that I approve of a President committing crimes. What I am saying is that the purpose of the impeachment process is not to punish crimes, but to remove a President who has misused the powers of his office. If President Clinton committed the crimes alleged here, these crimes should be dealt with in a criminal proceeding or a judicial contempt proceeding after he leaves office. I emphasize that it is not clear that crimes were in fact committed. Many of the scholars and prosecutors who testified before the Judiciary Committee concluded that the evidence presented against President Clinton would not have resulted in the prosecution of an ordinary citizen. There are other means for the Congress to deal with misconduct by the President which falls short of the impeachment standard. Congress has the power to pass a censure resolution, expressing our condemnation. The impeachment process, which requires removal from office, must be reserved for extraordinary cases. If we lower the bar for impeachment, we seriously weaken the Presidency by giving a Congress controlled by the opposition party virtually unlimited power to subject a President to an all-consuming removal process. The majority party has tried since January to convince the people that the President should be removed from office. Two thirds of the public remains unconvinced despite being bombarded daily with the facts of this case. I am astonished and deeply distressed by the procedural travesty to which the minority has been subjected: denial of our right to offer and have a vote on a motion of censure. What does the majority fear of a vote on censure? Are they afraid that it might pass, with some of their own members voting for censure rather than impeachment? Apparently fear of falling short of their objective of removing President Clinton from office is driving the procedural unfairness to which we have been subjected. The majority still has time to be fair so be fair so be fair to us and to the American people by allowing a vote on censure, which I would support.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am for free trade, fairly conducted. Steel? Why steel? Because it is the most versatile building material of an industrial society. It is vital to a nation's progress, both here and abroad. Twenty years ago when steel was under assault, we were told then by the free-traders, the unlimited, no-holds-barred free-traders, you are old, outmoded and inefficient; you ought to modernize. That is why foreign steel is coming into this country. Today, 350,000 jobs fewer, $50 billion more invested in the steel industry and an efficient industry that produces the best steel in the world, we are now told, oh, you are trying to draw a moat around the industry. All we are trying to do is tell the Federal Government, enforce the laws that set forth the conditions for free and fair trade. The previous speaker said, why has the Clinton Administration done nothing? Well, we asked the same question in 1981 of the Reagan Administration; because there are free-traders in both administrations that say no-holds-barred, play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules, while our adversaries are using black-belt karate. It is time to stand up for steel. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for doggedly sticking with these two programs, EDA, and the Appalachian Regional Commission for our encouraging and motivating our subcommittee members to pursue the hearings, to markup the bill, move it through subcommittee, move it through full committee, to work with the Senate in bringing this legislation to the floor in that body, because that has always been the problem for years. We have never been able to move authorization legislation through the Senate because of various objections by one or another Member of that body. Commend him for staying with it. That is one of the chairman's greatest qualities is stick-to-it-iveness. He does not give up and does not give up easily. We have, as a result, as the chairman described, true bipartisan participation in this legislation achieved, a truly historic landmark today. For three decades, I have, as a staff Member of the former Committee on Public Works as administrative assistant to my predecessor, John Blatnik, one of the original authors of the predecessor of EDA, the Area Redevelopment Program, and also co-author of the Appalachian Regional Development Program, I have watched the ebb and flow of this program through presidencies beginning with that of John F. Kennedy all through the current Clinton administration. I have seen communities that were down on their luck, no opportunity for economic development or growth, rise with new jobs, new opportunities, claim a new future for themselves and for their young people because of this little bit of helping hand that has come from EDA. I have seen the enormous success and pride that local communities have taken in projects initiated about funding from the economic development administration for one very simple reason. All of these are projects and programs initiated locally by the development team at the county level, the township level, the community level. None of the EDA programs are top down, directed from Washington. They are initiated by the development organizations who see their own problems, see their own needs, describe what they need best to attract jobs or expand existing industries and create a better economic future for themselves and their children. That has been the essential ingredient of success, both for EDA and, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) described, for the Appalachian Regional Commission. That we are here today with this bill is a tribute to two former Members for whom I have only the greatest respect and affection, Don Clausen on the Republican side from California, who was an avid advocate of EDA and Appalachia, the lesser because he did not represent a region of Appalachia, and my dearest friend of many years Bill Clinger, the gentleman from Pennsylvania who served as the ranking Republican on the Economic Development Subcommittee during the years that I had the good fortune to chair that subcommittee and who was former chief counsel of the economic development administration. Together, we worked to reshape EDA, recognizing the objections raised by President Reagan in his State of the Union message when he proposed to eliminate EDA and Appalachia. We said, no, let us reshape it. Let us reform it, but let us keep what is good. The ideas reflected in this legislation are the ideas that together we brought to the committee and to the House. On three different occasions and three separate Congresses by votes of three and four to one, we passed what is essentially the bill we bring to the House today. It never got through the Senate. That is the great achievement of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), that he was unflagging in his determination to bring this legislation to fruition. I really greatly appreciate the work that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, our chairman, has accomplished. I just want to cite one fact that emerged from the hearings Mr. Clinger and I together conducted in the early 1980s on the history of EDA. We found that, with a relatively modest investment over a period of 15 years of $4.7 billion, EDA projects, locally initiated, locally carried out, generated 1.4 million private sector jobs, leveraged $9 billion in private investment capital, and every year returned $6.5 billion in tax revenue to Federal State and local treasuries. That is a record unmatched by any other Federal program. I challenge anyone to exceed those accomplishments. So what we have today is a bill that narrows the focus even further of EDA to only the most urgently needy areas of the country, require them to prepare a comprehensive economic development plan that is their plan, not Washington's plan, to focus their efforts on future economic growth opportunities, and to reduce the scope of this program from its alleged coverage of 80 percent of the population to less than 36 percent of the population in this country, and to focus the resources on those areas that are chronically in economic decline. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), and I want to thank the ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), for their splendid bipartisan cooperation in working to reshape, reform this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Jesse White, cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Governors throughout Appalachia, and the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development at the Department of Commerce, Phil Singerman who has worked very cooperatively with us in reshaping the legislation. I recall during one of our subcommittee hearings in West Virginia going into an area that was both EDA and ARC eligible, a little town where the mayor was a member of the development commission, and brought me to a small store that was operated by one of his city councilmen. On the wall behind the cash register was a sign that said ``God never put nobody in a place too small to grow.'' I said, ``Have you benefited in this community? You tell me what you have done to grow in this community.'' ``Yes,'' he said, ``before the Appalachia Commission, we were so far down, we had to look up to see bottom.'' They do not have to look up to see bottom anymore. There was a time when much of Appalachia, most of the rural south, and most of the midwest was characterized by 80 acres and a mule. There was a time when opportunity for people in Appalachia met a bus ticket north to the industrial cities of the midwest. Today, because of ARC, because of EDA, there is job opportunity, there is economic growth. There is hope for the future. These counties now are achieving parity with the rest of the country in per capita income, and they do not have to look up to see bottom. God never put nobody in a place too small to grow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur in the remarks of the chairman. As the chairman strongly supported the gentleman's initiative for interest buydown, it has proven to be a very effective tool in economic development in various parts of the country, but even though we were not able to keep legislative language directing a pilot program, certainly that authority that we wrote into the bill is authority within the general powers of the Economic Development Administration and could be initiated by EDA, by the Assistant Secretary upon request of an application submitted by an interested party that complies with the EDA requirements. As the chairman said, certainly if Youngstown were the first to submit such a proposal, it would be among the first considered and very likely we would see that ultimately approved by EDA, I am quite confident.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chair the remaining time on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).