James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in today's edition of the Washington Post. It concerns legislation I have introduced entitled ``The BWCAW Accessibility and Fairness Act of 1997,'' H.R. 1739. I offer this article, written by Karl Vick, because it is a particularly well- balanced, informative, and insightful account of an issue that has fallen victim to an enormous amount of misinformation. Mr. Vick's article describes the historically important role that the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness [BWCAW] has played in the lives of Northern Minnesotans, as well as the current issue concerning access to this natural treasure that is before this body. I believe it would be beneficial for all Members, as well as the public at large, to learn from Mr. Vick's article. [From the Washington Post, October 22, 1997] Ripples of Discontent (By Karl Vick) Ely, Minn.--Once again the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is awash in the sort of righteous arguments, political torments and generalized stress that people flock to this serene constellation of lakes, islands and sky to leave behind. And once again the fight is over the preferred method of plying its glassy waters. Canoeists say a bill set for a vote today in a House committee will expand the use of motorboats, sundering the almost sepulchral tranquillity that has made these more than 1 million acres where Minnesota meets Canada the most popular federal wilderness. More than 200,000 people visited the Boundary Waters last year, arriving from as far away as Holland, and 92 percent made their way among its 1,100 lakes by paddling. ``It's like going back in time. I felt like a fur trader,'' said Gail Klugman, after a weekend visiting from suburban Minneapolis. ``It's just the most peaceful place I've ever been.'' Of those who prefer skimming along by outboard motor, on the other hand, most live just minutes away. Locals visit the boundary Waters mostly to fish, and complain that the number of favorite walleye holes accessible by outboard has been effectively reduced even below the 22 lakes left open to them by legislation passed over their objections almost two decades ago. ``The people who live up here and make a life of it--be it at the mines, on the lakes, own your own business, whatever-- these people are locked out of their own back door,'' said Steve Koschak, who owns a resort outside Ely. ``And you can say it's a playground for the whole country. But when you live on a lake and you can't go out on it because of some imaginary line going down the middle of it? That ain't right.'' Anglers have sought relief from a Republican Congress that likes to approach issues with the assumption that locals know better than Washington. Local advocates insist that the measure the House Resources Committee will take up this morning--an identical bill awaits floor action in the Senate--would do little more than allow pickup trucks to tow motorboats on three rugged trails between lakes, or portages, that have been closed by federal courts. But the bills would also check a trend that has been running toward canoeists and wilderness advocates for decades. In Minnesota, the lid has come off a controversy that, when last broached 20 years ago, tipped the balance in a U.S. Senate primary, inspired class warfare across the Land of 10,000 Lakes and put local Forest Service employees in the habit of venturing into the woods only in street clothes for fear of drawing gunfire if they wore their uniforms. ``It gets old, to say the least,'' said Frank Leoni, standing with one foot in Newton Lake and one on the shore. A Forest Service employee dressed in flannel shirt and rubber waders only because he had been casting a jig for walleye, Leoni had just lifted a fishing boat onto a set of ``portage wheels'' he and his buddies were about to haul a quarter of a mile on their way home to Fall Lake. The boat was laden with camping gear, fishing poles and the legal limit of fish caught over four days. That's roughly as much time, Leoni pointed out, as it would have taken them to paddle waters they had covered in a single day with their outboard. ``I think that's the concern of the locals, who work, you know. Who want to come in for a day,'' said Dan Hernesmaa, an Ely native. ``We enjoy the wilderness as much as the paddlers do.'' But not in the same way. Sound carries across water, and on the stony, glacial lakes of the Boundary Waters it seems to carry like nowhere else. Located just beyond the Laurentian Divide, north of which rivers flow toward Hudson Bay, it is a lake land matrix unlike any east of the Mississippi: a wilderness of rock fields scooped out by glaciers, then filled by evergreens, aspen and cold, clear water. The result is terrain of lush color but almost austere stillness. Kevin Proescholdt, who worked as a guide in the area for 10 years before heading the advocacy group Friends of the Boundary Waters, recalled hearing traffic from a road fully six miles from his campsite. In such a setting the putt-putt of a 25 horsepower outboard (the maximum horsepower allowed on most lakes in the wilderness area) is cast as an all-out assault on the hush that canoeists savor. A pair of them glided into the Newton Lake portage while Leoni and Hernesmaa spoke, their craft's approach so quiet neither man was aware of it until it skimmed onto the landing beside them. ``It's really hard to contradict the locals, but I think they ought to leave it the way it is,'' said Brian Nugent, 27, a New Orleans bartender armsore but otherwise refreshed after five days paddling a canoe rented from Koschak's resort. His father, an environmental scientist, had traveled from Atlanta for the trip. ``It's just a special place, that's all you can say,'' Richard Nugent said. ``If people want to partake of it they ought to paddle like everyone else.'' Residents reply that the Boundary Waters is unusual in another way. Among federal wilderness areas established by Congress in 1964, it is one of only a small handful that historically has made accommodation for motorboats. Even the 1978 bill that banned mining and logging allowed small outboards to continue on the 22 larger lakes that, together, account for 23 percent of the wilderness area's water surface. The problem has become reaching those lakes. Access to the Boundary Waters is restricted. In order to increase the odds of a ``wilderness experience'' that federal regulation defines as encountering other humans no more than seven times in a day, the U.S. Forest Service issues permits even for single day use. The agency also allows entry only at specific sites, some a fair hike from the best fishing. For years, commercial outfitters cut down the inconvenience by making trucks available to haul motorboats on three portages, one four miles long. But under the terms of the hard-fought 1978 legislation, those trucks would be allowed only if it wasn't ``feasible'' to drag the boats overland by hand. The crucial term was agreed upon in negotiations between Charles Dayton, the attorney representing environmentalists, and Ron Walls, a local lawyer charged with representing Northern Minnesota interests. Dayton later confided that ``feasible'' was a linguistic booby trap--a legal term of art that courts would almost surely interpret in a way that would guarantee the motorized portages would be shut down, as, indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 ruled they must be. ``Candidly, I doubt whether Ron as a general practitioner in a small town knew that,'' Dayton is quoted as saying in ``Troubled Waters,'' a book recounting the Boundary Waters battle from the environmentalists' point of view. ``And I didn't tell him about it.'' Motor advocates waived the passage like a flag at a House subcommittee hearing last month. ``We're not rubes,'' said Rep. James L. Oberstar, whose district includes the Boundary Waters. ``We're not jack pine savages. We're honest, decent people and we took them at their word. ``And that word was `feasible.' '' Oberstar, ranking Democrat on the Transportation Committee, sponsored the portage bill in the House while Rod Grams (R- Minn.) pushed passage in the Senate. The Clinton administration opposes both, as it did a measure last year that would have increased outboard use while bringing the wilderness area under a ``local management council.'' Todd Indehar, president of the grass-roots Conservationists With Common Sense, said such a council remains his ultimate goal. But lawmakers insist their ambitions extend only to the three portages (and keeping motors on a section of one large lake where they are scheduled to be banned under the 1978 agreement). ``I'm not saying you have to open this up and kowtow to the people of Northern Minnesota and give them everything they want,'' Grams said. ``But what are they asking for? Only what they had.'' In Ely, the appetite for a win is keen. With main roads lined by canoe outfitters and a clutch of outdoorsy boutiques (including one named for polar adventurer Will Steger, the most famous local resident), the town of 4,000 appears prosperous. But Ely has lost population in the decade since the open pit mines cut back at the nearby Mesabi Iron Range. And the tourism that, during the short summer, has taken up some of the slack is built on a more effete appreciation of the outdoors than most locals knew growing up. ``The impression is we get a lot of rich yuppies who don't even know what to do with their money and they tell us what to do, where to do it and when to do it. And the portages is a symbol of that,'' said Vince O'Conner, 41, of nearby Babbitt. The enmity goes back to at least 1978 and the ``compromise'' that Indehar said destroyed a vibrant local heritage of fishing shacks and family outings in the name of an urban elite view of ``wilderness.'' The politically active region mobilized against the U.S. Senate bid of Donald Fraser, who had championed the measure in the House. And the memory of his upset loss is still savored at the Hook, Line & Sinker bait and tackle shop on Sheridan Street. ``You're looking at one of the baldheaded [expletives] who helped send him down the tubes,'' said owner Leonard Katauskas, the Salem in the corner of his mouth going jaunty for a moment. It does not matter that the economic benefit of opening the portages likely would be, as Katauskas put it, ``minuscule.'' Nor is there traction for the argument that motors are welcome in the 98 percent of Minnesota lakes that the lie outside the wilderness area. The lakes many area residents grew up fishing lay inside the Boundary Waters, and locals say they want to reach them again even if the Forest Service imposes a $10 daily user- fee, as it recently announced it would. ``This,'' Oberstar said, ``is a contest over lifestyles.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I see the distinguished minority whip on the floor, or I saw him, and would like to inquire about the schedule for tomorrow on behalf of our committee to know what the program is for the further consideration of Amtrak legislation which was put off last night. Is there a program for the further consideration of Amtrak?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, so we would be able to proceed on that legislation and I appreciate it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I was just concerned that the Stones might be rolling tonight, but the trains might not be next week.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, would that be preceded by 1-minute speeches?

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Carson].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds. In the interest of accuracy, the 30-mile issue is not in Amtrak law, it is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. And if we wipe out collective bargaining agreements, then we have wiped out something labor and management together have freely negotiated. Amtrak did try cutting their frequencies to three times a week. They found that it lost money. So they cut those routes altogether. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Brown of Florida.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is extremely important legislation. It puzzles me, therefore, why we have a truncated process today if it is that important and there is so little time remaining in the session that we are to have this restricted rule and this expedited process that we cannot proceed through to conclusion tonight. Amtrak's financial situation is indeed critical. We do need to pass reform legislation. We do need to pass reauthorization legislation to enable Amtrak to operate efficiently and release the funds that have been made available in the tax legislation. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's survival is absolutely vital to the Nation's transportation system. Most passengers now travel by car or plane, but those modes use enormous amounts of energy. They have substantial adverse environmental impact. There are limits to our ability to accommodate more traffic by building new highways and new airports. We need rail service. Mr. Chairman, we need a highly efficient passenger rail system as other countries in the world have. We ought to be able to have 175- mile-an-hour passenger rail service in America as they do in France or 300-mile-an-hour rail service, as they will have in Germany with the construction now underway of the Maglev train system between Hamburg and Berlin or the 180-mile-an-hour passenger rail system in Japan, the Shin-Kansen, that carry 254 million passengers a year. But we do not have that in the United States, and we ought to make that investment. And this legislation would move us in that direction if it was the right kind of legislation. Mr. Chairman, we agree with much of what is in this bill and what passed the House in 1995. But we believe it is bad public policy to go forward with provisions in the bill that adversely affect labor and the consumer interests that are adversely affected by the liability caps. Mr. Chairman, there will be amendments to address those issues and I will support those amendments. But it will be extremely difficult to pass this legislation in its present form because the provisions in the bill dealing with labor and liability are opposed by the administration and, indeed, caused the bill in 1995 to die in the other body. The same provisions are there this time. They will again make it impossible to include Amtrak reform, to see Amtrak reform through to enactment, and they made it impossible to see Amtrak reform through in the reconciliation package that passed the Congress recently. It is puzzling to us why this restrictive labor language is necessary. The obligations in current law to protect the rights of working men and women that are freely negotiated between labor and management, which would be eliminated by this legislation, are not an impediment to the efficiency of Amtrak. In the year and a half, almost 2 years now since the House passed the much ballyhooed bill in 1995, we have had an opportunity to see what the effect has been of labor protective provisions. In this period that has elapsed since passage of that bill, there has been a net loss of 2,000 jobs at Amtrak. The cost has been an average of $1,000 per employee. That nets out to about $2 million. Amtrak adjusted service, laid off 10 percent of its work force. It cost roughly $2 million to do that. I do not see how that is an impediment. I do not see why we need to eliminate protection of labor's rights freely negotiated in order to save Amtrak. How does that $2 million save Amtrak? In fact, in a July 28 letter from the chairman of Amtrak, Tom Downs, he stated: I testified in front of the Senate Finance Committee with Sonny Hall, and I stated in the hearing on the record, that Amtrak does not experience significant costs in C-2 expenses; that is, labor protection expenses, so that the impact of the repeal of C-2 would not save us any significant funds except in the ultimate bankruptcy of Amtrak. I also stated I would prefer to be able to negotiate C-2 provisions with labor than to have Congress mandate changes. That same view was expressed by Mr. Robert Kiley, spokesman for the committee's task force of experts who reviewed the Amtrak financial situation, that the chairman had appointed. At a press conference on the task force report, Mr. Kiley said that the labor protection issue is a red herring. Well, it is a red herring. Why it has to be the centerpiece of this legislation is beyond me, Mr. Chairman. I simply do not understand it. I do not know why they want to take it out on Amtrak labor, on rail lab labor under the guise of somehow saving Amtrak. The labor and liability provisions are bad public policy. On the labor side, it takes away from employees all rights on severance pay and all rights on contracting out. The provisions in the bill abrogate not only labor protection provisions in law, but those provisions that labor and management together have negotiated. Why do you break a contract? My father worked in the iron ore mines all his life. He said the only guarantee against the company is your union contract. It cannot be taken away from you. But here in this legislative body, if we pass this bill, by legislative fiat we will take away what labor has freely negotiated with management. That is wrong. I will not stand for it. No one else should stand for it in this body. The reported bill also establishes new procedures for negotiations on labor protection and on contracting out. And they go far beyond and substantially depart from the balance process established in the Railway Labor Act. The liability provisions in the bill create serious inequities. The bill would cap noneconomic damages, such as damage for pain and suffering, in a manner that favors affluent plaintiffs. The cap is economic damages plus $250,000. That means the higher the economic damage, the higher the added damage for pain and suffering. For example, take a wealthy corporate executive who can show economic losses or damage of a million dollars. That person gets in an additional $1.25 million in noneconomic damage for pain and suffering. A child or an unemployed person with the same pain and suffering is limited to $250,000. That is not right. We should not do that. We should not make those kinds of changes. We should not interfere in the tort liability process. I cannot support a bill that has such onerous provisions and is so destructive of the labor-management relationship. There are reasonable amendments that will be offered. They could be offered tonight. We could pass this, pass those amendments and conclude action on this bill tonight and get Amtrak on its way if Members are so concerned about seeing Amtrak continue to operate safely and efficiently. We could do it tonight. We could pass the LaTourette amendment and get on with our business, but apparently it is going to be held over until tomorrow. In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would say that I did not think there was much above the gentleman's pay grade. Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of the last Congress when this bill was before the committee and there was a vote and then we suspended and then we came back, then the bill was pulled again, and now this is the third time. I am curious as to what really is going on here. I am very curious about what has happened. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to mention that during debate on the rule, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania was making his comments, I noted with great interest his reference to service on the track gang and I wanted to suggest at the conclusion of the gentleman's remarks that we might form a track gang caucus, since this Member also worked in the iron ore mines on the track gang pounding oil and bumping rail.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, that leaves our side somewhat puzzled. During the debate on the rule there was some statement made about the shortness of the session and the urgency to move this bill ahead. Now it seems that the urgency has faded and I am very puzzled by this, and I am wondering what has happened on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, presumably we will begin tomorrow morning at some time? Has there been an announcement by the leadership of when we may anticipate?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], is my understanding correct that this afternoon we are going to do only general debate?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although we have more time, we have no further speakers on our side. In sorrow, disappointment, and puzzlement that we will not get to a vote tonight, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. At the hearing of the Committee on Rules yesterday evening, I specifically said my recommendation is make in order the LaTourette amendment, make in order the Quinn amendment, they deal with different aspects of the labor issue, and I specifically also said, ``But do not play a little game with us by making the Quinn amendment in order as a substitute for the LaTourette.'' I said that, I was very, very clear about that because it was a very important point for me. I did not ask for an amendment on our side. I asked for other amendments to be made in order. I did not ask for a substitute. The Committee on Rules crafted a rule that plays both ends against the middle. I do not believe that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] asked for his to be a substitute.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a billboard as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules had on who said what, but I do have the transcript of the debate in 1992, August 11, the last time that an Amtrak authorization bill passed the House to be enacted by the President. It is remarkable to note in that debate that not a single question was raised by either Democrat or Republican about labor issues. Not a single question. It passed on a voice vote in the House. It passed overwhelmingly on suspension later on when the conference report came back. Not a single question was raised about labor rights at a time when there are the same issues as there are today. So if we want to talk about consistency, one might be reminded by Samuel Pepys, the British poet and writer who said, ``Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.'' Because there is not consistency. There is a significant change in what has happened with Amtrak and with the issues underlying the effective operation of Amtrak. But that is not what I want to discuss at this time. There will be time, plenty of time in the general debate and on the amendments later. What I rise for here is objection to the rule that was crafted. It is not a fair rule. Democrats were not given an opportunity to offer pinpointed, specific amendments. Instead, what was done was to carefully, thoughtfully, and cleverly make in order the LaTourette amendment to rectify the passenger rail labor rights which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] requested and which we supported on the Democratic side, and then to make as a substitute to LaTourette an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], which vitiates LaTourette, reinstates essentially the committee bill, but corrects a little problem that was opened by obiter dictum language in the committee report to suggest that the Surface Transportation Board might extend these provisions of eliminating labor protection for freight rail and transit labor. So now we have the Quinn amendment that goes just so far, but not quite far enough, and the body never gets to vote on the underlying real issue of rail labor, the LaTourette amendment. And then the rule makes in order something we did not even ask for, a substitute on our side. Our committee has historically come to the Committee on Rules and asked for open rules. The chairman has always praised the leadership on both sides for doing so, both during the times when he was ranking member in the minority and now in his service as chairman. He has essentially remained faithful to that premise. But not in this case, and that is why I object to this rule. It is unfair. It sets up a process by which labor must fail or Democrats are going to be substantially divided on a range of issues and Members on the Republican side who might ordinarily be favorable to labor issues but divided on consumer questions are necessarily going to be divided. It is a fundamentally unfair rule. You did not lay the issues out and give an opportunity for each question to be debated and voted on its own merits. That is why I object to the rule. I think, in all fairness, that the gambit has failed, because labor is not taking the bait and the consumer groups are not taking the bait, and I think that in the end we are going to prevail because of the unfairness with which the issue has been handled in the present rule. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. It is an unfair rule. We should not have that kind of mischief visited in the legislative process. We ought to be able to vote on issues on their merits without these little games being played.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to make it very clear that labor opposes the Quinn amendment, because passage of Quinn forecloses an opportunity to vote ``aye'' on LaTourette-Traficant.