James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, Mr. Chairman, the money in the bank of Good Ship Regula, then. But I was not only an author, original coauthor of payment in lieu of taxes. When I was administrative assistant, my predecessor, John Botnick, actually wrote the language that became in 1976 the payment in lieu of taxes legislation based on a very simple, elemental principle. These lands: national forests, national wilderness areas, national parks, scenic waterways, are held in trust for all Americans to use and enjoy. But what about the neighbors to those wonderful national treasures, the neighbors, the communities, the people that live next to them who have to support the services provided for all those national treasures? Take a look in my own district. Cook County is 82 percent in public ownership. Lake County is 92 percent in public ownership. St. Louis County, which is about the size of the State of Massachusetts, is 62 percent public ownership. That remaining small amount of land held in private hands has to provide the property taxes to support the services for all those 6-million-plus people who come from all over America to see these great national treasures. We have debated on this floor many times the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest, land with water so pure that you can paddle along and drink the water right fresh from the rivers and the lakes, and they want it preserved for all Americans. That is terrific. But in order to do that, there are expensive landfills, there are expensive sanitation programs that St. Louis County and Lake County and Cook County all have to support that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. St. Louis County's budget has gone up $77 million since we enacted the Payment in Lieu of Taxes. That is a 30-percent increase, even with being very frugal. But Payment in Lieu of Taxes has not gone up at all for them. And yet, when the fisherman with the fish hook caught in the eye from Iowa or Illinois who has gone up there to go fishing needs rescue, it is the St. Louis County, the Lake County and the Cook County sheriff's department and rescue department that are going to have to send the people out to haul those people out of the woods and save their lives. They have to be paid. Those services have to be paid for, and we are not keeping up with the cost. St. Louis County has 3,000 miles of county road to support the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and the Voyageurs National Park. They are not getting any increase in funds for those counties to provide the support services that are necessary. That is what this amendment is all about. It is not us against them. It is not Minnesota or Vermont against Pennsylvania. It is all of us together. It is unfortunate we have had to deal with this account for coal research. But there has been, as has been said previously, billions of dollars in coal research, plenty of money for that and still plenty of money available for it. What we are saying is, keep faith and trust with the people who live in these national treasures to whom we said, ``We are going to help you keep pace.'' The value of lands in St. Louis County in those areas that are held in national trust is 27 cents an acre, authorized funding under Payment in Lieu of Taxes. If those same lands were in timber production, as they well should be and could be, they would be valued at $2.59 an acre. Counties certainly take care of all the road and rescue and fire and safety and other needs of the county to provide for all the services that would be necessary to support that activity. We are not saying return those lands to private commercial development. We are saying keep them in national trust, but also keep our trust with the people who are neighbors to those national lands and let them keep pace. Why should they have to continue to dig ever deeper in the property tax that stretches them too far? This amendment restores a measure of fairness and equity to all those neighbors of these great national treasures.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The splendid argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania misses the mark. We are not talking about fossil fuel research, we are talking about adequate funding and fair funding of payment in lieu of taxes, and our amendment on this matter in no way is a reflection adversely on the splendid work of the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee. The gentleman from Ohio has done a splendid job balancing all these interests. We understand the extremely difficult job he has had to do, and we appreciate the consideration for payment in lieu. We are just trying to rearrange the chairs on the deck of Good Ship Regula here.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller-Brown amendment, and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. While I fully support efforts to restore the Salton Sea, I cannot support a bill which includes exemptions from the Clean Water Act, and could actually reduce the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect this resource. The proponents of the bill claim that it will benefit the environment. If that is so, why is every major environmental organization opposed to it? The reasons are simple-- It creates an exemption to the Clean Water Act. It excuses local water companies from their rightful liabilities. It could divert scarce resources from EPA's environmental programs. These concerns make the bill unacceptable. I am particularly concerned about the exemption in this bill to the Clean Water Act. How can you say that you are doing good for the environment if you need an exemption from environmental protection laws? The Clean Water Act has been under assault by the majority since they won control of the House. In the last Congress, we had to fight the waivers, loopholes and rollbacks of H.R. 961--the Dirty Water Bill. Later, we had to fight anti-environmental riders to the Appropriations bill. Now today, we are faced with yet another attempt to create more exemptions to environmental protection. These assaults on the Clean Water Act must stop. The Clean Water Act is our Nation's most successful environmental law. Yet, one of its most glaring weaknesses is that irrigation return flows are not subject to regulation. How ironic that, at the Salton Sea, are these very irrigation return flows are the major source of pollution, and that this bill specifically allows untreated irrigation return flows to continue to be dumped into the Salton Sea. Instead of treating the sources of pollution to the Salton Sea, this bill would preserve the existing exemption for irrigators, and create a new exemption from the Clean Water Act. If the proponents of this bill are serious about addressing the water quality issues at the Salton Sea, their bill should address the sources of the pollution. That objective would best be served by preserving the Clean Water Act, and addressing the pollution from irrigation return flows. This bill does neither. If we want to improve the quality of the environment and protect the Salton Sea, we should reject the pending bill and support the Miller- Brown substitute.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I take this time because I have just spent a good part of the past weekend in dairy country in east central Minnesota in my district talking with dairy farmers who were beginning to have some hope that their lot might be improved, that the Department of Agriculture is moving along in its study, as directed by the Congress, to complete the analysis of the milk marketing orders. USDA might come up with some proposal that would establish fairness and fair treatment for these true family dairy farmers who average 50 cows, like the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, a few that have 100 milking cows. In the course of that discussion, I recalled a study completed about a year ago by the University of Minnesota Ag Extension Service which documented that there were more dairy cows and more dairy farmers 2 years before Minnesota became a State than there are today in that region of Minnesota, thanks to the whole herd buyout program and thanks in part to the Freedom to Fail at Farming Act of 1996. They are fed up with it. There are some tragedies out there in rural America. I listened painfully to Harold Eklund, whom I consider one of the best dairy farmers I have ever known, runs the farm himself, has a few hired hands, tell the tragedy of a neighbor who had some health problems--a dairy farmer--the milk check is not big enough to pay the bills. He came home from the hospital, went out to the shed, put some blasting caps on his body, set them off, and blew the top half of his body off. He is a victim, too, of this policy that favors one region of the country over another, a failed policy that looked good and was good at the time that it was implemented in the 1930s, but today has gone way out of control. That milk marketing order policy says that the farther away you farm from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the more you get for your milk. If you really believe in freedom to farm, then let us abolish the milk marketing orders, let us remove the domestic barriers to trade as we did with foreign trade in NAFTA, as we did in trade with Canada. Let us remove the barriers among the States and let the Minnesota--Wisconsin milkshed farmers sell their milk wherever they can, as far away as they can. Let us see how well they compete with those 5,000 cow farms in the southeastern United States, in the southwestern United States, in the desert area where God never intended farming to happen or He would have made it rain there. Let us not artificially impede the Department of Agriculture from proceeding with the rulemaking that is on track, on milk marketing orders, and which, hopefully, may provide some opportunity, some encouragement for not only the older, established farmers but also for the younger ones who are working their way into farming, who want a future in farming, who are the heart and soul and fiber and fabric of rural America and small town America. Let us vote for the Obey amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development for those kind remarks. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her strong advocacy for the Kennedy Center and the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) for leading the way on this reauthorization and bringing it to the floor so expeditiously. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and I both serve on the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center and have participated very actively and vigorously in the deliberation of the Board on the improvements that have been made and will continue to be made under the 5-year reauthorization. Literally, the activities authorized under this bill will transform the Kennedy Center into the vision of a national, vital Center for the performing arts, far beyond its already outstanding accomplishments. It will make the Center more accessible and available to the general public, will bring a wide variety of new activities and life to the Center's public spaces. Work already has been completed on replacement of the roof at the various levels, replacing of the roof terrace and repairs to the planters. Next to come are security improvements. Sad to say, we have to think about security at the Kennedy Center as one of the most visible and public centers in our Nation's capital but one that also is an inviting target for terrorists, and a very extensive security analysis has been completed. The authorization will allow for a centrally controlled security system, door access controls for the building, the garage and for sight monitoring and better access that will move traffic in a continuous flow through the Center, access for people buying tickets so that there will be no stoppage of traffic and invitation for opportunity for terrorist activities. Site work will include new signs, modification to the plaza circulation pattern and improved landscaping to preserve the good- neighbor spirit of the Kennedy Center with its nearby neighbors. The comprehensive building plan has been established around a series of remedial actions to improve the many building deficiencies and make the interior space more attractive and more user friendly. In the future, visitors to the Center who come to the two principal halls will be excited about the new level of activities, the new opportunities, I should say, and the many activities that will be offered at different levels of the Center halls. It will be much more friendly to users of the Kennedy Center, to the visitors, more opportunity for food and for relaxation of the guests. It just is going to make this whole Kennedy Center come alive. And I really compliment President Larry Wilker for the splendid job he has done in developing the improvements that we have been discussing in this reauthorization bill as well as his important work as the artistic director at the Kennedy Center and bringing so many high-level performances to the Center and for his initiative with the Millennium Stage that has opened the great hall of the Kennedy Center to the public every day at 6 o'clock for free performances. This makes the Kennedy Center truly a people's center for cultural activities and for the performing arts in all of their exciting and stimulating manner. I only wish that all of us in this Chamber could have more time to partake of those cultural activities rather than being locked up here in session late night after late night so that we, too, could be enlivened and enriched by the many offerings of the Kennedy Center. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his persistent leadership over many, many years on issues involving the Kennedy Center. His fingerprints, too, are on all the building improvements and innovations that have come about at the Center, and I thank him for his vigilance, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) for his splendid participation and partnership in this great endeavor.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as explained in the report accompanying H.R. 2400, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ``emphasizes the importance of fulfilling the Federal commitment to projects under full funding grant agreements at page 201 of report 105-467.''

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the budget. This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's transportation needs. For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and bringing back to this body an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation. We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and will take America into the 21st Century.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Stabenow).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that the bill that we bring back from conference is a very strong bill on the blood alcohol level .08 issue. There are very strong real dollar incentives for States to adjust their laws to the .08 level. This reflects a longstanding position in this body of providing incentives rather than penalties. I can only speak from experience myself with the National Driver Register, that where I started out with legislation that was mandatory 15 years ago to require States to participate in the National Driver Register, I adjusted that to make it a voluntary participation. Today every State in the Nation is a participant in the National Driver Register, and over 300,000 bad drivers with multiple records are being caught and kept off the roads. We can, through incentives, produce good results, even better results than through punishment or penalties. This bill is strong on incentives. It is a good bill, it is good on safety. We ought to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, it is, indeed, and the statement of managers confirms that intention in that language.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, not only would I support the application and urge the Secretary to approve this proposal to fund these two worthwhile projects, I have already discussed this matter with the Secretary. We have his attention, and we will work very closely and vigorously with the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), a member of the committee and one of our conferees.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. It is all well and good to complain about policy and about mistakes or projects that one disagrees with, but we ought to do so on the basis of fact. It is just simply fact that in order to get to one part of Alaska from another part of Alaska you have to go through Canada. It is just that simple. I have been there. I know it. Furthermore, this is not without precedent. In order to relieve flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota, many years ago the Congress approved flood control works in Canada in order to relieve pressure in the United States on North Dakota and Minnesota and the Red River Valley. So there are many other things that my good friend from Wisconsin could justify he may be opposed to, but I do think we ought to express the facts.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is for the benefit of Alaskans and other travelers from the lower 48 States who come to Alaska for tourism. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that this does correct inadvertent omissions that were made and errors in the tabulation of the bill and support the unanimous consent.