James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Would the gentleman from Illinois, with his very carefully researched and closely reasoned presentation acknowledge that the namings that he cited of airports, or renamings, were not done by the United States Congress except for Dulles?

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is the distinction. My colleague draws false distinctions when talking about naming an airport in Houston for former President Bush. That was done by local authority. That is the whole point. We gave authority to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority full power over the airport. We should not take over their authority and rename an airport. Our Chairman referenced the legislation to name the Commerce Department building. Former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown died in a tragedy in Bosnia in early April, 1996. Our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), introduced on April 15 a bill to name the Commerce Department for Ron Brown. My name was listed as a cosponsor. Later, I asked our staff to review this issue before it should come up in our committee. We found that the Commerce Department already had a name. I was not aware of it. I did not know that it was named for former President Herbert Hoover. I ruled against bringing up that bill, against moving that bill in our committee. Instead, our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), introduced on May 30, 1996, a bill to name a courthouse in New York for Ron Brown, which I felt was more appropriate. I did not want to initiate a procedure in our committee where we would rename a building. That is what this issue is all about, about renaming. And the matter of Dulles renaming was done before we transferred authority to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. It was still fully within the power of the Congress to rename that airport, which was done in order to avoid confusion of names for airports. And I do not need to go into it any further, but that was done before we created the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. So, again, it was not a matter of intrusion into local affairs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, what is the time split remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it has been referenced by several Members on the other side that opposition on our side is partisan-based, partisan-motivated, we are upset because this airport is to be named for Ronald Reagan. It is not the Democrats who initiated the partisanship. In the ``This Week'' show on ABC television, conservative columnist and commentator George Will was the one who said if the renaming proposal is adopted, Washington passengers ``would fly out of two airports; one named for John Foster Dulles and the other after Ronald Reagan, and that is an ideologically perfect choice.'' On the same program, his fellow conservative, Bill Kristol, remarked that naming the airport after Ronald Reagan is ``especially worth it, because it will so annoy people like George Stephanopoulos.'' Those are partisan remarks. We did not initiate them. Opposition on our side is not to naming something for Ronald Reagan, but it is to taking a name off an already-named structure and renaming it. As I said earlier, my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) was out of the room, I vigorously directed our staff not to ask for movement on the Ron Brown Commerce Department naming when I learned that the building had already been named for Herbert Hoover. I did not know that at the time my name was added to the bill that was introduced in rush after Ronald Brown's death, and instead we sought another building to be named for Ron Brown. The chairman very graciously and with great skill moved that legislation through our committee and through the House, and we greatly appreciate that. But I want to emphasize, once we learned that the Commerce Department building had a name, said we should not be in the business of renaming. That applies today to this bill, and to this airport. Mr. Chairman, again, no other airport in the country would we dare to name or rename since other airports are already under the authority of local governments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, speaker after speaker on the other side has come to the floor and said this airport was not named after George Washington. Goodness gracious me, that is splitting hairs with the finest theological, philosophical razor that you can find. For whom is the City of Washington named? Joe Washington, who played football for the Washington Redskins? Or for Harold Washington, the former mayor of Chicago? It was named the City of Washington, was named for our first President. When the name ``Washington'' was added to this airport, it was obviously done with the name of our great first President, Father of the Country in mind. Good heavens, stop denying your patrimony. That is just silliness. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to come back to the point about the name that the airport of our Nation's Capital bears. I said earlier, it is splitting hairs to try to say it is not named after our first President. It bears the name of the city that bears his name. It is clear that George Washington was in the mind of those who built and named this airport. I have a copy of the brochure that was printed at the occasion of the opening of National Airport in 1941. It is replete with references to our first President. Let me just quote: From the highest point within the airport, George Washington might well have chosen the site for the Capitol to be amidst the meadows and low hills at his feet across the river. Again and again, throughout this brochure, there are references to our first President. Another stratum of American history is about to be laid along the banks of the Potomac. The powerful figures in history will land here on land that knew the tread of Washington's horse as he campaigned for freedom, governed his country and managed his farms. It is splitting hairs. Look, this debate is not about the greatness of Ronald Reagan or his place in history. That will be secured by future historians. That will be secured by the value of his deeds, his actions as President, the legislation that he championed. This airport has a good name. Let us find something else. Let us build a monument to Ronald Reagan in our Nation's capital, build it on ground at the National Airport, but let us not take a name, let us not be like the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan so despised and so opposed and take names off and put other names on, depending on who is in favor or who is out of favor. That is not the American way. That is not the way of this Congress. That is not appropriate. Go out into greater America, as I have been just recently in my district and hear what average folks say. They say, this is silly. This is trivial. There are better things to do in the Congress than to go about changing names and renaming. I am sorry we are here to do this. It does not serve Ronald Reagan's name well, his place in history well, to take a name off and replace it with his. I wish the majority were pursuing a different course. As in the case of the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building, I was glad to support it, and if there is some other structure they want to name or build in his honor, I would support it. But not this, not this action, not at this time in history, not this airport. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know, as I said at the outset, how the vote is going to come out on this. This is Republican dogma. And the Republican side is going to vote because some order has been passed from on high to vote for this name change. But I do want to make the reasoned argument; at least reason will be on our side, if not the votes. When the compact was entered into pursuant to act of Congress in 1986 to create the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, there was very clear and specific language in the lease. It is broad. It is comprehensive in its scope. ``The Airports Authority is authorized to occupy, operate, control and use for the term of this lease all land, improvements, buildings, fixtures, easements, rights of interest, egress and appurtenances thereto belonging, owned by, used or controlled by or assigned to the United States of America.'' Subject to the provisions of this lease, the airport's authority shall have, consistent with the 50-year minimum term of this lease, full power and dominion over and shall have the same proprietary powers and be subject to the same restrictions with respect to Federal law as any other airport, except as provided herein. The lease also contains what lawyers call a quiet enjoyment clause; that the airport's authority shall fully, peaceably and quietly occupy in joyful possession of the leased premises without hindrance or interference by the Secretary or any other person or entity. That is us, the United States Congress. The United States, in the grant of authority to MWAA, did not reserve the right to change the airport's name, and any such action, in my judgment, is patently inconsistent with the broad scope of the lease rights that conferred control and full power and dominion over the airport. In fact, the Congress did attempt to establish authority to interfere with or override actions of MWAA that it considered not in the broad public interest by creating a control board or an oversight board. On two occasions that oversight board was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. In my service then as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I vigorously opposed reestablishing the authority of this oversight board. I felt we ought to get rid of it and, indeed, the Supreme Court twice ruled that this was an unconstitutional interference in executive branch authority. So now the question comes up, well, supposing we do pass this legislation, it does become law, and the authority chooses not to change the name as directed by Congress. In the course of our committee markup I asked counsel, well, what authority do we then have? What action could we take if the airport authority would not put up new signs to reflect the change or other actions to reflect the change? It was rather calmly and coolly suggested that Congress could compel the authority to change signs by taking away their Federal grants and their ability to levy local passenger facility charges to make safety and efficiency improvements. Pretty heavy-handed. An astonishing ruling. An astonishing arrogance to ourselves of power. If carried out to its logical conclusion, that gives this Congress, gives our committee, authority to interfere in any airport anywhere in America under control of any local government by simply shaking our finger at them and saying, change your name, make some other change that we want done by an act of Congress or we will take away your airport improvement grant money; we will cancel your passenger facility charge authority. That is an enormous arrogance of power and it opens a dangerous door through which none of us would want to tread. This is a dangerous precedent. The amendment should be adopted; if not, the bill defeated.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I do want to say that I think it would have been appropriate for the gentleman's unanimous consent request to be concurred in so that he could speak, and I think there was simply a misunderstanding over here on our side. So far, the costs that this bill will impose on the local airports authority are not known. It is conceivable that they will not be inconsequential or unsubstantial. The local authority should not be required to bear these costs when they have been given no voice in change of name. Under the amendment pending, the costs do not have to be met by the Federal Government since a good deal of the motivation for the name change has come from private sources who want to name airports all over the country. In fact, it was suggested there ought to be a Ronald Reagan Airport named in every State, which raises the possibility we could take off from one State and land in another and not know where we are, we would always be landing in a Ronald Reagan Airport. But it is reasonable to expect that those who are advocating this name change should pay for it. The CBO statement, which appears in our committee report on the bill, suggests its costs are likely to be minimal. It says that if the State of Virginia chose to change signs, costs would not exceed $500,000. Well, that is $500,000. If they have got a tight budget, that $500,000 makes it all the more tight. I certainly think that someone other than the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority should bear the responsibility and the cost for any changes or any costs that may be incurred. One that occurs to me is that, as one approaches the old terminal now as it is known, across the front of the terminal is the name Washington National Airport. It is engraved in stone, has been there since 1941. I have heard no discussion of whether it is the intent of this legislation to change that name, if we are going to have stonemasons come and replace those blocks of stone with others on which Ronald Reagan's name is carved, or whether there is the intention to lay another block of stone atop what is already there, put the name Ronald Reagan on it, and somehow the idea is to have a political billboard greeting people as they arrive at our Nation's capital. So I am just wondering if there are stonemasons perhaps in the State of Pennsylvania. My good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), might have some stonemasons there that might want to engage in this trade. Or whether the Majority has given any thought to the fact that this structure, the terminal building, is on the National Register of Historic Places and that to rename it, to change its facade, would require great exceptions under the National Historic Preservation Act. I do not think any thought has been given to that possibility. So, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) proposes, there are costs. We have not thought a great deal about them in this rush to name the airport before President Reagan's birthday. We certainly, at least, ought to pause to give thought to the costs and let those who are proposing this name change bear those costs. It is quite a responsibility on small businesses that depend upon the airport to have to go and change all of their materials to accommodate this name change that we have been hoisting upon the public here for very narrow partisan purposes. The amendment is a good one. It raises the issue of costs which have not been carefully thought through, and it is one that ought to be adopted, and I urge support.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, within the 2 hours allotted for consideration of the bill, how much time remains?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I intended to ask for a recorded vote on the Norton amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would find objection to the gentleman's amendment, along the same lines that had been offered by the majority to other amendments on this side, that that would be a killer amendment. I would also question whether it would be germane in light of the erudite ruling just elicited from the Chair.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to improve the competitiveness of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and restore its vitality. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system is a vital transportation corridor for the United States. The Seaway connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean and makes it possible to ship manufactured products from our industrial Midwest directly to overseas markets. Benefits of efficient operations of this transportation route are not limited to the Great Lakes region but extend throughout the United States. Congress recognized the broader impacts and, accordingly, designated the Great Lakes as America's fourth sea coast in 1970. The Great Lakes region, and international markets, recognized the system's potential, as evidenced by the sharp rise in vessel and cargo traffic through the Seaway immediately after its opening in 1959. Unfortunately, that potential was never fulfilled. The upward trend in cargo traffic peaked around 1977-79. It has since declined in part as a result of a nationwide economic recession that hit the manufacturing sector particularly hard, and in part due to capacity constraints imposed by the Seaway. Locks on the Seaway and the Great Lakes were built as long ago as 1895. New locks constructed for the Seaway between the mid-and late- 1950s as authorized by Congress in 1954 were built to the same size as those completed in 1932. Locks and connecting channels were limited to 27 feet of draft. Because vessel size has grown over time, Seaway facilities were too small on its opening day to service the commercial fleet then in existence. Today, they are capable of accommodating only about 30% of the world's commercial fleet. An undersized Seaway that denies large, specialized, and efficient vessels access to the system will prevent U.S. products, especially those from the Great Lakes region, from competing effectively in the global economy. In addition to declining traffic, inadequate investment in Seaway infrastructure caused the mix of cargoes shipped through the system to be transformed from one that was diverse to one composed largely of low volume commodities. Although the trend of cargo tonnage through the system turned up once again in 1993, current cargo mix consists of essentially steel coming to the Great Lakes region from abroad, grains going overseas, and iron ore moving from one port to another within the region. Since the late 1980s, industrial manufacturing in the United States has recovered through investment in technology and corporate restructuring. Industrial production is flourishing once more in the Great Lakes region; Midwest economies are booming. Yet, only a small volume of high value finished goods move through the system. The Great Lakes region, therefore, is unable to fully participate in this resurgence of economic strength due to limitations in the Seaway's capacity. For the past year I have been working closely with interested parties in the Great Lakes maritime transportation community and the infrastructure investment finance sector throughout the United States and Canada to develop a proposal to allow the Seaway to reach its full potential, to guarantee the future viability of the Seaway, and to continue the economic development of the Great Lakes region. The bill I am introducing today, the Binational Great Lakes-Seaway Enhancement Act of 1998, developed in concert with the Honorable Joe Comuzzi, a dear friend of mine and a member of the Canadian Parliament whose district (Riding) is adjacent to mine, would establish the foundation, create the conditions, and provide the resources to permit the system to achieve its full potential. The bill would authorize the creation of a binational authority to operate and maintain the Seaway. It would also provide for the establishment of a non-federal credit facility to offer financial and other assistance to the Seaway and Great Lakes maritime communities for transportation-related capital investments. Specifically, the legislation would establish a binational governmental St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation by combining the existing, separate U.S. and Canadian agencies which operate each country's Seaway facilities. It would require the Corporation's top management to run the Seaway in a business-like manner. It would transfer Seaway employees and the operating authority of Seaway assets to the Corporation. It would provide labor protection for current U.S. Seaway employees, whether or not they transfer to the Corporation. It would offer incentives for employment and pay based on job performance. It would set forth a process for the Corporation to become financially self sufficient. At the same time, it would provide the United States with ample oversight authority over the Corporation. Through merger of the two national Seaway agencies into a single binational authority, we could eliminate duplication and streamline operations. Improved efficiency would reduce government's cost of operating the Seaway. At the same time, a unified Seaway agency would reduce regulatory burden and help cut the sailing time of ships through the system. This latter efficiency improvement would positively affect the bottom line of Seaway users. All of these efficiencies would make the system a more competitive and viable transportation route for international commerce. The Great Lakes and the Seaway should be considered as an integrated system in maritime transportation. Improvements to the Seaway infrastructure alone would not be sufficient to deal with the efficiency and competitiveness problems facing the Great Lakes-Seaway system. On the contrary, improvements to the Seaway for example, could stress the capacity of ports on the Great Lakes. A comprehensive approach is necessary to address the system's investment needs. My legislation, therefore, would provide for the establishment of a Great Lakes Development Bank. It would outline in broad terms the structure of Bank membership. To insure no taxpayer liability, this legislation would prohibit the United States and the St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation from becoming members of the Bank. It would specify eligible projects for financial and other assistance from the Bank. It would define the forms of such assistance. It would require recipients of Bank assistance, states or provinces in which such recipients are located, contractors for projects financed with Bank assistance, and localities in which such contractors are located to become Bank members to broaden the Bank's membership base. It would establish an initial capitalization level for the Bank, and would provide as U.S. contributions $100 million in direct loan and up to $500 million in loan commitments that could be drawn upon to meet the Bank's credit obligations. It would set interest on U.S. loans to the Bank at rates equal to the current average yield on outstanding Treasury debts of similar maturity plus administrative costs to preclude taxpayer subsidy to the Bank. It would allow the United States to call loans to the Bank if the Bank is not complying with the objectives of this legislation and would provide specific limitations on United States' liability to protect our interests. Mr. Speaker, my legislation is intended to make the Great Lakes- Seaway system a more efficient, competitive, and viable transportation route. Such a system will enable our manufacturers to bring their goods to the world market at reduced cost, making their products more competitive in the global economy. This is a sensible bill; it is a good-government bill. We should all support it. I will be sending out a Dear Colleague letter seeking co-sponsors for the bill. I hope members will offer their support and join me in moving this legislation forward. This proposal should be enacted this year.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I began my service in this body as a member of the staff, and I have great respect and particular appreciation for those who serve to support this institution and support the Members and guide them, point them in the right path, and that is what Ed Nichols has been for all of us. He has been a safe haven in a storm, and when things were swirling about and there was confusion on the floor, many is the Member who sought the quiet refuge and the steady hand of Ed Nichols off in the corner, explaining what had happened, predicting what was about to happen, and apologizing when it did not happen that way. He understands the institutions, he understood each of us and our specific needs, and he responded in a very special and unique way. But the treasure, for all of the kind and wonderful things that others have said about Ed Nichols, the treasure I will carry with me is the treasure of his friendship, the warmth and the caring of a very special person. I recall when my wife Jo passed away and Ed was there to help with the arrangements for the Mass of Resurrection. For all those who came to pay their respects, he made it all happen in a very orderly and respectful manner, as he has conducted himself in this office that he holds and which he is about to leave. Adlai Stevenson, addressing a graduating class, said, ``As you leave, remember why you came.'' Ed will never forget why he came. He came to serve. We thank you for that service.