James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us represents a compromise on Amtrak which I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support, and which I say they can comfortably support. It is a compromise in which both sides have satisfied their most important objectives. While we have held divergent views on various aspects of this issue, we have had a common goal, that is, to ensure the survival of Amtrak. If we do not pass reform legislation before the end of the session, Amtrak's future will be in doubt. Passage of this reform legislation is necessary for Amtrak to gain access to $2.3 billion for capital improvements made available by the tax reform bill. Equally important, in December Amtrak must go to its bankers for renewal of a line of credit which it needs to meet its daily operating expenses. If the bankers should learn that the $2.3 billion capital funding is still in doubt, they may be unwilling to renew the line of credit. Our common goal of ensuring the survival of Amtrak could have been achieved earlier. We had differences. We have worked out those differences. Our Republican colleagues on the committee wanted changes in the constitution of the board of Amtrak directors. We have accommodated those changes. We have worked them out. We reached agreement on a process for reforming the board of directors. Under this process, the directors will be appointed in a manner which is fair to the men and women of the Amtrak work force and which is fair to the American public which owns Amtrak through the Department of Transportation. The manner of selecting the board preserves the constitutional authority of the President and of the Congress. In addition, we have developed a selection process that ensures that there will be an orderly transition; specifically, that the old board will not be terminated until the new board is ready to assume its responsibilities. The compromise also assures that the Secretary of Transportation who represents the public as owner of Amtrak may, I emphasize may, continue to serve on the board, and that the president of Amtrak will continue to participate in the board process, but not as a voting member. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that accepting this compromise does not mean that on my part I am dissatisfied in any way with the existing board. In my opinion, they have done an outstanding job of guiding Amtrak to make the best possible business decisions with limited resources available. I especially commend the board for their negotiations with the BMWE which produced an agreement which is fair to workers and protects Amtracks financial interests. The bill does not prohibit the President from reappointing any member of the existing board to the new board. That possibility remains open. In fact, I believe that reappointment of some members would have the desirable effect of ensuring continuity. Under the bill before us, Amtrak would have a board of 7 Members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In making the selections, the President would consult with the majority and minority leadership of the House and the Senate. However, neither the majority nor the minority would have the right to exclusive consultation for any specific seat or number of seats. The board Members will be individuals with technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated expertise in transportation or corporate or financial management, and the president, as I said a moment ago, would be a nonvoting member of the board. Mr. Speaker, adopting this bill will end the uncertainty that has clouded Amtrak's future for the past 3 years. Amtrak will get the capital it needs to modernize. It will be able to continue playing its vital role in our national transportation system. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and difficult journey, but we have reached a point where we can see the end of the journey. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of our committee, for sticking with it and for working with us to achieve an acceptable outcome. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of the chairman of the Committee on Rules and thank him for his support in helping us move this legislation forward and in crafting rules that indeed were fair and moved the process along. I would like to just add a footnote to the comment of my colleague, the gentleman from New York. While I respect his view, the objective of this legislation and what has moved us in this direction is a fervent hope that we will, through this legislation, move Amtrak to self- sufficiency, not dependence on public subsidy. That is, I think, an underlying element that has made possible these compromises. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for his perseverance, for the good fellowship and cooperation, and the frankness and fairness of our discussions, and for the result that we can all celebrate this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and I are of one mind and of one accord on this legislation, as are the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and the ranking Democrat on our side, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], whom I commend for their unflagging commitment to ensuring that our Nation's surface transportation programs continue with the least possible disruption. In a spirit of compromise, I think we have shown remarkable creativity and flexibility in working with our colleagues across the way in the other body in crafting an interim measure that will ensure that the States' critical surface transportation projects, highway, motor carrier safety, transit capital needs, transportation research programs, can continue unabated until we deal with the permanent law next spring. We have had a very good discussion with Senators Chafee, Baucus, Warner, and Bond, and I commend them for their cooperation in working with us in a constructive fashion to come up with a product that has been the result of extensive and even difficult negotiations. The key is that we produced a compromise that recognizes that adjourning for the year without a stopgap measure would be an abdication of our responsibility to the Nation. I just want to emphasize for all of our colleagues and all of those who may be listening that this body acted responsibly. This committee, under the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] moved legislation in proper time to deal with the Nation's transportation needs. We moved the 6-month extension bill well ahead of the other body. We were willing to work with them to draft what we thought was an answer, in a neutral fashion, for the need to move ahead with the Nation's transportation funding, but on an interim basis until we come back next spring to deal with the 6-year bill. Clearly, this is a compromise. It includes the important elements that we need to ensure that critical construction, capital acquisition and safety programs continue. The bill allows States unlimited flexibility to use their unobligated balances according to their most pressing needs. I want to emphasize that this flexibility is only temporary, that any transferred funds, any funds moved out of one category into another, will be repaid in full to their original categories. I also want to emphasize that this bill is only half of what we provided in the House bill. I want to make it abundantly clear that this is only an interim measure. In no way should anyone consider that this prejudges the ultimate multiyear reauthorization of surface transportation programs which we will take up in due course next year. The distribution of funding and the obligational authority in this bill cannot be construed in any way to constitute a statement by Congress about the funding formulas that we will consider next year, or that in any way it would constitute a precedent for next year's reauthorization. The bill fully preserves our ability to adjust the distribution of remaining fiscal year 1998 funds, ensuring that States will receive their full and their equitable shares. It should not be construed in any way to indicate which existing programs will or will not continue, nor at what funding levels they will continue. This is simply a short- term measure to tide these programs and projects over while we continue to develop the fully funded multiyear bill. I just want to remind our colleagues, this is not the time to launch into a full-scale reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. We have crafted a bill on which we are in agreement and which we will bring forward at the appropriate time next year. We do good work in our committee. This is an interim step toward completing that good work. I want to extend my congratulations to our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his leadership in moving this legislation along, and had this body been of good mind and good spirit 48 hours ago, this would have been done. However, we do all good things in due course. Again, I congratulate our chairman and thank him for his splendid cooperation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join with Mr. Poshard, sponsor of H.R. 1502, in honoring Judge James L. Foreman. H.R. 1502 would designate the United States Courthouse located at 301 West Main St., Benton, Illinois as the James L. Foreman United States Courthouse. Judge Foreman has enjoyed an outstanding career on the Federal bench. During the early years of his career he served as the Massac County State's attorney from 1960 to 1964. In 1972, he was appointed to the Federal bench after serving as the assistant attorney general for the State of Illinois. From 1978 to 1992 he served as the chief judge and in 1992 he took senior status. Judge Foreman was instrumental in instituting formal case management long before it became mandatory in the Federal system. His service to the legal community is marked with diligence, honor and distinction. It is fitting and proper to honor Judge Foreman with this designation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I do not want to get caught in the crossfire of who had or did not have hearings, but there is some urgency to this matter, and it is very uncomplicated. Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for this immigration bill to begin with because I thought it was going to have many of the problems that have come up because it is so complicated, and the border between the United States and Canada is one of the most complex. It is also the longest open, free, unguarded border in the entire world. Every day a billion dollars in goods and services cross the border from Canada to the United States and back and forth. In an era of just-in-time delivery of goods, it is extremely important that we have a smooth flow across the U.S.-Canada border for that billion dollars daily of economic activity to survive. But with this legislation the more than 76 million people who enter the United States by land from Canada are going to line up, be checked in, have long waiting lines. And let me just tell, my colleagues, what happens from the International Falls Daily Journal newspaper, the northern border of my district, a place that most of my colleagues will recognize as the cold spot of America. Right across the water is Fort Francis, Canada. Mark Elliot crosses the International Bridge of the United States nearly every day to visit his girlfriend in International Falls. Crossing between these countries normally takes very little time because he is such a familiar face, he and many other residents. But a law scheduled to take effect in 1998 will make his visits more difficult. That is what it is all about. It comes down to one human being. This is a border control, this is an entry/departure control measure, it is not an inspection requirement. It is going to build up complexity between our two countries. It is going to build up complexity between the United States and Mexico. The amendment that we are considering tonight applies to both borders, will resolve these complexities. I do not address the United States-Mexico situation because I do not live there, and I do not understand that problem, but I do understand United States-Canada, and for every individual to have to have an entry or departure control document is going to, for those 76 million crossings, is going to be extraordinarily complex. I can imagine it would be even worse on the United States-Mexican border. It is not difficult to understand the problem. This is a very simple fix of 1 year delay. Give us time to adjust, to think out, what this language means. We should not have passed that bill in the first place, but having passed it, this mistake ought to be corrected.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to the concern of the gentleman and others who have spoken about shifting of drug trafficking from one border to another. I tell my colleagues we have got a wilderness border between the United States and Canada in my district, and the timberwolves will get them before anybody else gets across that border, believe me. There is no trafficking across that border.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the fundamental issue here, what is driving this issue; what are the costs that are driving the Amtrak problem. Last year, Amtrak had a $322 million deficit, in 1996. How much of that was caused by labor protection? About $1 million. We cannot lay all of Amtrak's problems at the feet of the working people who run the trains. Amtrak over 2 years laid off 2,000 people. It cost $2 million in labor protective costs. That does not break the back of Amtrak. Does labor protection provisions, a requirement to pay severance costs to the laid-off workers, prevent Amtrak from shutting off rail service? No, it does not. Ask the people in Idaho, Utah, Alabama, Massachusetts, Florida. Amtrak canceled routes in all those States last year because they knew that the labor protection cost was so small, there were so few employees involved, that the effect would be negligible on savings, so they shut the routes down. We cannot lay the problems of Amtrak at the feet of working men and women. Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment that Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Traficant are offering do? It sets up a process by which the Railway Labor Act can function to resolve these problems. Amtrak and its labor workers can negotiate changes in labor protection and contracting out. If they fail to agree, they can go to a Presidential emergency board to ask it to make recommendations. If they still fail to agree, they can resort to usual self-help remedies. Amtrak management can lock out or impose contract terms. Labor can strike. That is all this does. We ought to support the LaTourette-Traficant amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is it the objective of the gentleman that the Committee rise at this point after his 1-minute?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], cosponsor with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] of the underlying amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for his principled stand and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his stand on this issue of fundamental importance to rail labor. I have heard some very disturbing comments in the course of the debate yesterday or the day before in reference to labor bosses. Today reference to special interests. Since when are working men and women special interests? It is just a way of blurring their name, smudging their name. I resent it. Who do you call captains of industry? Management. Fancy term. Why cannot labor be referred to in the same terms of respect? Make no mistake about it, we support what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] is attempting to do. His concepts are incorporated into the LaTourette amendment, but we never get to the LaTourette amendment, the LaTourette-Traficant amendment, if we support Quinn. To get to the real reforms in Amtrak we need to defeat the pending amendment of the gentleman from New York in order to vote on what working men and women have said in their elections that they support as the right way to deal with labor conditions in America's passenger rail. Let us make no mistake about it. The committee bill does this year, as it did in the last Congress, set up a process for wiping out contractual agreements freely entered into between labor and management. I would say, and in the last Congress I did support this bill because it was something I inherited, I kept the word of my predecessor. I would not have negotiated this bill. But my father told me, what is sacred is what labor negotiates with management. You can never wipe it out. The Congress will wipe out the sacred trust between labor and management in the contract freely negotiated. Defeat the Quinn amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I respect the statement the Chairman of our Committee has just made, but I just want to point out that the legislation providing for the $2.3 billion simply calls for a reform, no adjectives to it. The underlying LaTourette amendment is reform. We could proceed to vote on it. It would do the job and it would release the $2.3 billion. I want to make that very clear.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, would not the regular order of business be, without this intervening 1- minute, to proceed immediately to the vote on the underlying amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, to first debunk a few myths, one is the myth of the vote of the last Congress. We had an election since then. Seventy-six new Members of Congress. We do not expect them to be retained to whatever was done by their predecessor in Congress. Second, in the aftermath of that legislation to which senior members of rail labor signed on, there has been an election as well and those two labor leaders were defeated and replaced by new leadership who has charted a new direction for their members and said that it is not a good deal. Third, the Quinn amendment is opposed by the AFL-CIO, the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, the United Transportation Union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Transportation Communications Union, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and the Transport Workers Union, and all other rail unions. That was set forth in a statement from the Transportation Trades Department this morning. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Carson]. (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, then the gentleman can assure us that the Amtrak legislation will come up tomorrow?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Stones concert will proceed tonight?