James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to raise one aspect of the Transportation appropriations bill that gives me concern. I believe modifying the Wright amendment without a careful and serious debate about the safety issues involved is premature. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am not against competition in the airline industry. In fact, I have worked many years as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and now as the ranking Democratic member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that competition is alive and well and that consumers are protected. My concerns focus entirely on the safety of permitting greatly expanded traffic growth at Love Field in Dallas, which might complicate the air traffic patterns in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Let me begin by saying that the Wright amendment was a carefully crafted compromise which resolved a heated and long standing dispute between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Today, Dallas Fort Worth is a vibrant international airport and Love Field is very successful and the home of Southwest Airlines. I will not go into the history of the Wright amendment except to say that it has served the Nation well. Dallas Fort Worth and Love Field airports are only 8 miles apart. Only 2 nautical miles separate the approach patterns between DFW and Love Field. The runways at Love Field point into Dallas Fort Worth's most heavily used arrival routes. Over the years, FAA has developed air traffic control procedures to prevent planes from coming too close to one another. The approach procedures into Love Field are more circuitous in order to facilitate a more direct approach into Dallas Fort Worth. These procedures work well with the Wright amendment in place. Safety is assured. Congestion is controlled. With the modification of the Wright amendment, I am concerned about the potential safety impacts from the anticipated growth at two airports in such close proximity. The Federal Aviation Administration's data shows that Dallas Forth Worth totaled almost 900,000 operations in 1995, making it the second most active U.S. airport. Analysts at the Federal Aviation Administration Believe that this will increase to over 1.2 million operations per year by 2010, an increase of almost 40 percent. Love Field, on the other hand, experienced about 208,700 operations in 1995 and is expected to grow by about 5.9 percent by 2010. But that was before any thought was given to modifying the Wright amendment. If airlines move into Love Field, the airport will quickly reach capacity and significant delays may become commonplace. The safety impacts of these developments in such confined airspace, particularly in poor weather, are uncertain at best. In September 1991, the House Aviation Subcommittee held exhaustive hearings on this issue and explored the competitive and safety impacts of repealing or modifying the Wright amendment. At that time, we heard from experts in the aviation community, local and State leaders, and many others. The subcommittee explored the safety and competitive issues in great depth. Najeeb Halaby, a former FAA Administrator cautioned against repealing the Wright amendment on safety grounds and told us that the margin of safety would be compromised. Again, we need to examine the facts, analyze the safety issues, an get a full understanding of all the complexities of traffic flow and air traffic control before such a major change is even considered. Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that the burden now falls on the Federal Aviation Administration to make sure that both Dallas Forth and Love Field can operate safely and can handle growth. The conferees to this bill expressed similar concerns and have directed the Federal Aviation Administration to report on the additional equipment or air traffic control support necessary to enhance traffic flow, airspace management, and safety in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Also, FAA is to review the implications of increased traffic levels on the area and recommend the appropriate steps. We should have had the answers to these questions before we voted on this provision.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the language in the bill drafted by the Senate dealing with Dallas' Love Field. I will include a statement expressing my concern about the safety implications of that position.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have joined the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Petri, in introducing H.R. 2474, the Railroad Tax Equity Adjustment Act of 1997. This is a significant piece of legislation which will remedy a serious tax equity problem which burdens our important freight railroad industry. Because of the 1990 and 1993 reconciliation acts, the freight railroads have been paying 5.55 cents-per-gallon in fuel taxes into the General Treasury for deficit reduction. All other modes of transportation--highway, air, water--pay only 4.3 cents per gallon. This is an obvious inequity. Now, as a result of the recent tax reconciliation law, this situation will get even worse. That law transfers the 4.3 cents deficit reduction taxes paid by highway users, including truckers, into the highway trust fund, leaving only the railroad and waterway users paying any taxes toward deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, the differential between what railroads pay in fuel tax and what other modes pay--1.25 cents-per-gallon--should be repealed as a matter of equity. In addition, the 4.3 cents in deficit reduction fuel taxes paid by railroads should be eliminated, to the extent such taxes paid by trucks are placed in the highway trust fund and spent for highway improvements. H.R. 2474, the Railroad Tax Equity Adjustment Act of 1997, will accomplish these goals. The bill has two essential components: First, effective October 1, 1997, the 1.25 cents-per-gallon deficit reduction fuel tax paid uniquely by the railroad industry will be eliminated, reducing the overall deficit reduction diesel fuel tax for railroads from 5.55 to 4.3 cents-per-gallon. Second, in subsequent years, the excise tax rate on diesel fuel paid by the railroads will equal the portion of the corresponding 4.3 cents-per-gallon excise tax paid by highway users, including trucks, which is spent on highway infrastructure improvements in the preceding year. For example, if 2 cents-per-gallon of the highway users' excise tax revenues were spent in fiscal year 1998, the railroad industry's deficit reduction fuel tax in fiscal year 1999 would be reduced by 2 cents-per-gallon to 2.3 cents-per-gallon. The current fuel tax inequity imposed on America's railroads must be remedied at the earliest opportunity. It is my sincere hope that the Ways and Means Committee will seriously consider including a solution, such as that contained in the Railroad Tax Equity Adjustment Act of 1997, as they develop the tax portion of the ISTEA reauthorization legislation. Furthermore, I fully expect the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to include in its reported version of BESTEA sense of the committee language urging that this situation should be remedied, as provided in H.R. 2474. In the interim, I encourage all Members to give this issue their utmost attention and join with me and others in cosponsoring H.R. 2474.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so for the purpose of simply stating that it is my understanding that the bill before us will extend the programs authorized under ISTEA for 6 months, without substantive changes, at exactly one-half the amount provided in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 and under a distribution formula which is the exact same percentage that the States received in fiscal year 1997. Is that the understanding of the Chairman?

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his very heartfelt comments, and if my mother were watching, she would be very happy to have heard those kind words, as well. It is very reassuring that she has been able to rebound from a very serious illness and assume her normal course of activities, cooking, baking, the things that she loves best. The woman, who in her lifetime has cooked probably three tons of bread, is not going to be stopped by a heart attack. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his kind words and all those who have been so supportive.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, support H.R. 2036, the War Risk Insurance Reauthorization Act of 1997. This is one of several times we have come to the floor to reauthorize this legislation, and this particular reauthorization extends the program until December 31, 1998. This is very important legislation. It may not seem large in the great scheme of things that we do in the House or even on our Committee on Transportation, but this particular legislation is vitally important to our national security effort. This bill includes provisions to ensure that the program will run more smoothly the next time we have to call upon the airlines to engage in national security support initiatives. The War Risk Insurance Program was most recently put into operation during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. U.S. air carriers flew thousands of U.S. troops and tons of equipment from the United States and from Europe into the Middle East theater of operations. During that period of time, the FAA issued nonpremium war risk insurance for some 5,000 commercial flights that operated air lift services as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. In fact, in an assessment after Desert Storm, President Bush complimented the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, the domestic airline carriers and both the scheduled carriers and the charter operators and our cargo fleet on the superb job they did, saying that without those 5,000 fleets, we could not have met the challenge with the readiness that the U.S. forces demonstrated at the outset of both Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Not only is insurance vital to airline operations, it is essential in operations such as this type in high-risk combat zones. The FAA and the DOT requires insurance for airline operations under any circumstance. But in these circumstances, there is a higher risk and a higher need. And that is why this is a matter of national policy to provide war risk insurance. The very simple fact is that such operations are carrying out foreign policy objectives of the United States in a highly contested arena. The program is divided into two parts, both premium and nonpremium insurance. Under the premium policy, insurance is provided to U.S. or foreign carriers for commercial scheduled and charter service. It can be used only for international flights. It is a very important distinction. Premium insurance was provided during the Vietnam war and on 37 occasions after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Nonpremium insurance is used to ensure that airlines operating under contract to the U.S. Government, either State or Defense Department, and it can cover domestic or international flights. In the course of the Subcommittee on Aviation hearings conducted by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], our very distinguished chairman, GAO raised two issues that should be addressed legislatively. First, air carriers that are purchasing premium insurance, in GAO's opinion, needed to have a better guarantee that if they suffered a claim in excess of the amount in the revolving fund, they would be assured of complete and immediate reimbursement. Second, there was a need to clarify whether flights conducted on behalf of Defense and State covered by nonpremium insurance had to be determined by the President to be in the best foreign policy interests of the United States. Both of those concerns are addressed in this legislation. Since then, the administration has expressed again its concerns about a provision in the bill that provided borrowing authority to the FAA in the event a claim would be made in excess of the amount in the revolving fund. The administration wanted time to work out an agreement between the FAA and DOT to meet the concerns expressed by GAO. We have agreed to drop that provision but have shortened the length of time for this authorization from 5 years to 15 months. Normally, we would have a much longer authorization period. I felt that this shorter timeframe needed to be explained, because it is not the committee's intention to proceed without some understanding on this very important matter of extending the borrowing authority for those cases in which claims are made in excess of the revolving fund. I know that is the concern of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan]. I know that is a concern of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], our remarking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, and I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] shares that concern. We do want to ensure that there will be continuity for this program. We want to ensure that it will not be subject to stop and start by fits. We prefer a much longer period of authorization. But until this issue is revolved, I do not think it is responsible for the Congress to proceed until this matter is resolved. I take this opportunity to urge the DOT, as the lead agency here, and State and Defense and all the other entities in the administration that have a say in this issue, to get together, resolve the issue so that we can provide the longer term authorization that is our customary practice in the war risk insurance issue. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], our subcommittee chair, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], our ranking minority member, for the splendid work they have done, and our staff on both sides of the aisle for paying such careful and detailed attention to this very important issue that might otherwise not be so fully appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown].

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I do want to congratulate and commend the chairman of the subcommittee for the splendid job that he has done. The gentleman from Kentucky has led this subcommittee very ably, and has made the case, I think, very persuasively, and has worked with our authorizing committee, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] indicated earlier, to sort out some of the problems, narrow the focus, target this program more effectively and more efficiently, reduce its staffing level, and I take issue with some of the numbers cited just a moment ago. The fiscal 1997 funding level for EDA, for this year, is $427 million. The subcommittee has cut $65 million out of that level. That is not a cut in the growth. That is a cut from this year's level. That is a cut in the real program down to $361 million. The vote that my good friend from Florida referenced about eliminating EDA was not a vote on eliminating EDA. That was a vote on eliminating the Department of Commerce. It was part of the Republican reconciliation bill. EDA is included in the Department of Commerce. It is a stretch to say that we voted on eliminating EDA. Those who would say that, oh, 90 percent of the country is eligible for EDA funds, that is not true. Ninety-three percent of EDA funds go to the eligible areas, only those areas that qualify with a 1 percentage point level of unemployment above the national average. EDA has been an extraordinarily effective program for the small communities of America and even for larger cities. I have been watching this for 25 years. The opponents of EDA come up here representing comfortable areas of this country and tell the poor areas of America, ``You do not need this help. You do not need this lift up.'' Well, every dollar of EDA leverages $10 of private investment money. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] cited the study that showed that there is a minimal cost of $3,000 of EDA investment per job. You want success stories? We have got them. During the time that I was privileged to chair the economic development subcommittee, we held hearings, we brought in all those who were critics, we brought in those who benefited from the program. A Georgia development district received $3.1 million in EDA funds, matched by $3.1 million in non-Federal local private funds. That generated $142 million in private investment, creating 2,238 private sector jobs. EDA cost per job, $1,000. Fort Holabird Industrial Park. Fort Holabird was shut down by the military. Baltimore was in distress. EDA granted a title 9 emergency grant to help rehabilitate that community, $11.3 million. The city matched it with $11 million. There was private investment of $42 million, 1,000 new jobs. GM came in, made an investment in the community. They put in $258 million with the funds that EDA provided to stimulate water, sewer, road access to this park facility. 4,000 jobs were protected and retained. There is story after story of success. I do not want to belabor the body. I just want to quote from one of the witnesses when our committee went into Kentucky, southern Virginia, and West Virginia, a wise witness stood up and said, ``We are proud, conservative mountain people. We don't ask for anything that we don't give of ourselves. But you can't turn around 50 and 100 years of decay and decline in 1 or 2 years of water and sewer grants. Give us a hand. Give us the opportunity. We have the energy. We have the youth that wants a future. We are proud mountain people. Give us the opportunity.'' EDA gives them that opportunity. I ask my colleagues, defeat this amendment. Give rural America an opportunity.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, last week, when the House of Representatives considered H.R. 2378, the fiscal year 1998 Treasury- Postal-General Government appropriations bill; House Resolution 168, the House Ethics Reform recommendations; and House Resolution 233, a resolution concerning the House floor privileges of former House Member Robert Dornan, my vote was not recorded. On approval of H.R. 2378, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting with constituents and the following day, I was in Minnesota to care for my mother who had suffered a serious heart attack. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2378, rollcall No. 403; I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn, rollcall No. 405; I would have voted ``aye'' on the approval of the House Journal, rollcall, No. 406; I would have vote ``nay'' on the previous question on House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 407; I would have voted ``aye'' on the Livingston amendment to House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 408; I would have voted ``nay'' on the Murtha amendment to House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 409; I would have voted ``nay'' on the Tauzin amendment to House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 410; I would have voted ``nay'' on the Bunning amendment to House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 411; I would have voted ``aye'' on the Cardin motion to recommit House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 412; I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of House Resolution 168, rollcall No. 413; I would have voted ``nay'' on the Stearns motion to table House Resolution 233, rollcall No. 414; and I would voted ``aye'' on House Resolution 233, rollcall No. 415.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 358 I inadvertently voted ``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.'' I have, throughout my service in the Congress, consistently supported international family planning funds, as long as those funds are not used to perform or promote abortions. The Paul amendment would have cut off all family planning funds, a position which I do not support. Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of House service for Eric Federing as the Democratic director of communications for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Eric began his service to the House 10 years ago this week. In 1987, his first position was as press secretary and speechwriter to our former colleague, Norm Mineta. When Norm became chairman of the Public Works and Transportation Committee in 1993, he moved Eric to the committee to open and modernize its information services to better serve all of our colleagues and the news media. In addition, in Norm Mineta's last year in Congress, Eric also served as his congressional liaison to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. Starting tomorrow, however, after more than 4\1/2\ years of service to our committee, Eric will move to the other body and take up the post of press secretary to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Eric has provided great service to our members and staff. Daily he provided a news summary of more than two dozen newspapers, trade periodicals, and major wire services--all arriving on our members' desks before the start of every hearing or markup. He also organized news events in concert with the personal staffs of our members and with the Democratic leadership, and responded professionally and quickly to numerous press inquiries. In the last Congress, he led our way along the information superhighway by instituting our site on the World Wide Web. In addition to his communications expertise, his political counsel and information strategy have been very much appreciated. On his own time, Eric also worked for the best interests of our Democratic Party and for our national interests abroad. He distinguished himself with senior positions at the last two Democratic National Conventions--serving as manager of press information center operations in Chicago last year. Overseas, Eric embarked in a unique association with the United States Information Service whereby he undertook four month-long trips to Australia in as many years to lecture on American Government, the Congress, our elections, our news media, and civil rights. As a voluntary visitor working with USIS, he has visited just about every university on that continent and spoken with numerous journalists, business leaders, government officials, and students. Amidst all this, Eric has also found time to dabble in the arts. Last year, he signed a contract with the Farber Literary Agency of New York, which is representing him on a novel he has written about Hollywood and politics. Through much of the 1980's, Eric founded and led an independent effort to restore the 1963 motion picture ``It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.'' That effort gained Eric a touch of national fame and a greater appreciation for America's cinema heritage. He has been active in the effort to preserve some of our Nation's remaining motion picture palaces of the 1920's and 1930's. Mr. Speaker, many people come to work in this institution for as many reasons as there are staff positions. As a teenager, Eric was greatly influenced by watching the Watergate hearings. While at George Washington University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa while working half-time at the State Department, Eric knew then that he wanted to work in Congress to help communicate the Nation's business to the world. As I said, he began to do that 10 years ago, and has done so with consummate skill and impeccable integrity. For all his hard work, dedication, and counsel, I ask that all of our colleagues join with me in thanking Eric for his great service to this House, particularly to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and to our Nation. We wish him well now and in the future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ehlers amendment and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Much of the controversy over the National endowment for the Arts [NEA] stems from a very small number of artistic projects funded by the NEA which some people find in poor taste or morally objectionable. In fact, only 45 out of the 112,000 NEA grants awarded over more than 32 years have been controversial. Further, ``taste'' and ``moral objection'' are highly subjective yardsticks by which to measure the arts, and I certainly do not take issue with those subjective judgments. I do, however, take issue with the conclusions such people draw that, because they object to the work a few artists have produced with NEA funding, the whole program should be terminated. Make no mistake--that is what will happen if the Ehlers amendment is adopted. This proposal for a block grant to States will diminish the national stature of the arts; it will substitute the judgment of one level of government for another; it is no guarantee the States' judgment will be any better than that of the NEA; and, in the long run, it will mean diminished funding and the ultimate termination of support for public funding for the arts. In my congressional district, over my entire service in the Congress, I have never heard an objection to a local arts initiative supported by the NEA. Quite the contrary, those funds are highly prized and put to very good use to stimulate initiatives in small communities, which would not have been possible without those very modest Federal NEA funds. A few examples from this past year will suffice to make the point: Little Falls received $7,500 for the St. Francis Music Center; Pequot Lakes Children's Theater Company received $22,000 for the production of a new work, ``A Mark Twain Storybook,'' scheduled for an extended tour during the 1996-97 season; the public television station in Duluth received a $40,000 grant to broadcast ``Headwaters,'' an acclaimed public TV series; and the College of St. Scholastica's Arts Midwest group received a grant for $131,000 for a performing arts tour by the college's arts group. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Era, it was the doges of Italy, the archdukes of Austria, the kings and queens and other nobility throughout Europe, and a few individual wealthy patrons who supported the arts. In our post-monarchy world of democracy and egalitarian governments, it has been the Fortune 500 corporations and wealthy philanthropic industrialists who supported the arts, until the election of President John F. Kennedy. He recognized that a nation that rightly invests in the infrastructure, military readiness, education, and adventure in space should also invest in the enrichment of the human spirit by supporting the arts, and he launched the National Endowment for the Arts and its companion program, the National Endowment for the Humanities. If your community happens to be fortunate enough to have Fortune 500 mega-corporations in its midst, or a philanthropic foundation with a commitment to the arts, children's theater, community music centers, the local symphony orchestra, and other similar expressions of the spirit, the arts may well be adequately nurtured. But if your community happens to be rural, remote, and devoid of multimillionaire philanthropies, then the arts and artists will either perish, if they exist, or never take root at all for lack of funding. President Kennedy said: ``A nation devoid of the arts has nothing to look backward at with pride, nor to look forward to with hope.'' The NEA has, for people in many small communities and their artists, been a source of both pride and hope. Do not vote to extinguish either hope or the NEA.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has stated the case exceedingly well. And I just say that those who are advocating this amendment do not have in mind the roads and their utility or their significance. They really want to get at the timber harvesting program. I think we have a fair balance of sustainable yield management on the national forests of this country. We ought not to cut it or gut it by means of this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in Minnesota if a private citizen fails to pay his or her property tax bill within 7 years, they lose their property. The Federal Government is 20 years behind in keeping up with its payments to the counties of northern Minnesota and elsewhere around this country under the terms of the Payment In Lieu of Taxes legislation. Twenty-five years ago, as a staff member for my predecessor, John Blatnik, who served in this body, I helped write the language that became the Payment In Lieu of Taxes law that is in place today. As a Member, I have worked to keep it in place, to expand it, to update it. But it has not kept pace with the needs of the counties in which these great Federal landholdings are located, and it has not kept pace, by any means, with inflation. These are lands held in public trust for all Americans to enjoy, and they do come from all over the United States to enjoy the land of northern Minnesota, the boundary waters, canoe area, the Voyageurs National Park, Superior National Forest, I can go on with several others, and I will not name them. But who is stuck with the bill? When the accident happens on the highway between Duluth and Grand Portage, MN, up in Cook County, it is the Cook County sheriff's department that has to come to scrape the bodies off the highway. It is the Cook County hospital that has to stay open 24 hours a day to accommodate them, in a little county of 3,600 people, 94 percent of the land in public ownership, most of it Federal, and they do not have the resources. How can 6 percent of the land sustain the total needs of that area and all the tourists who come from all over America to enjoy this land, and then they say, well, take care of our health needs, take care of our safety needs, take care of our requirements, law enforcement requirements, while we are in your midst? All of America holds these lands in trust, and all of America should help pay the bill. We have not kept pace with the needs. That is what this amendment simply does. It is unfortunate, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, that it comes out of a project or out of a resource or a fund that benefits a resource in his district. That is the budget economy we are dealing with. I also happen to have iron ore mining and manganese deposits in my district, and the research conducted by the Bureau of Mines was terminated. The Bureau of Mines was eliminated under this budget economy of ours. That is unfortunate. But this is an obligation of all Americans to those who live in the area where we took land and said we are going to hold it in public trust. Let us take St. Louis County. We could put the whole State of Massachusetts into St. Louis County; not all of the people, but the geography. Some people might say, that is a good thing; not the folks in northern Minnesota, however. That is how big this county is, 3,000 miles of county roads that have to be maintained on this little county budget. All we are saying is increase, increase the funding under this Federal program to help this county take care of search and rescue, law enforcement costs, lost hikers who are out there in the Superior National Forest who need help. Someone has a fishhook in their eye in the Boundary Waters canoe area, they have to be treated in the Cook County Hospital, or in the Cook Hospital in St. Louis County. Sanitary enforcement, planning and zoning, health services, groundwater, surface water, all of those are needs that the county has to attend to, and they do not have the resources to deal with it. All we are saying is help them keep pace.

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

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I was remiss in not thanking the chairman and recognizing the chairman for his efforts to increase the funding of PILT. I really do appreciate the initiative. This is not a comment in any way on the gentleman's custodianship of that extraordinarily difficult budget which he has to administer. These are very difficult choices. We understand that. We understand the need for research. We have spent millions of dollars on those research projects for fossil fuel over the years. I compliment the chairman on the job he has done. It is just that we feel that we need to go further.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the Porter amendment and in support of the Dicks amendment, and might add that my colleague from across the water in northern Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] joins me in that position. We sure heard a lot of hyperbole and imagery tonight. Paul Bunyan, you left out his ox Babe, and corporate giants. Let me introduce my colleagues to Tony Vukelich, logger from northern Minnesota, 3 or 4 pulp cutters, maybe 10 or 15 in his little sawmill. Let me introduce my colleagues to Howard Hedstrom up in the Gunflint Trail up in northeastern Minnesota in a small sawmill, and about 10 or 15 loggers. Let me introduce my colleagues to Toivo Maki, a Finnish pulp cutter from northern Minnesota. I do not think their income, their gross revenue, is $100,000. We are talking about small operators, heart and soul of northern Minnesota, the heart and soul of rural America, people who try to make an honest living in the woods. A logger has to bid on these sales that are offered by the U.S. Forest Service and has to include in the bid the price of the road that he has to build. That road is there available for snowmobilers in the wintertime and for the hikers and the campers and for the people going out fishing, all sorts of recreational uses on that road. They do not get charged for it. But it is there for everybody's use. We used to call them tote roads in northern Minnesota. The annual allowable cut in our two forests of the Chippewa and the Superior is way down to about half of what it was. Yet we are still cutting timber that was harvested on sales that was harvested first in the 1930's and then in the 1960's and now it is being harvested in the 1990's. This is a renewable resource. This is not an issue between corporate giants and little guys. This is silk stocking urban environmentalists against us rural hicks from the sticks, and I am fed up with it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that elaboration. We are simply making an appeal for fairness, those of us who represent areas with large land jurisdictions in Federal holdings, for justice, decency, and respect for the people who are holding, who are the custodians of these lands held in public trust for all Americans. Help them pay the bill. Vote for the Sanders-Bass-Oberstar amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. He has just made a very lucid, factually substantiated statement, the best I have heard in years on this floor about the issues involved in this question of timber harvesting and the relationship with the road program. The gentleman represents a great saw timber area of the country. In my district, we have pulp wood principally and we do not have the big saw timber trees, but it is as important a yield for our forests, for the pulp and paper industry and the particle board industry, as the saw timber is for the lumber and homeowner and home building sector of our economy. Something I think is very important to understand, we are talking about a sustainable yield, a renewable resource in forestry. We are also talking about roads that are used for other purposes than for timber harvesting. There are all sorts of recreational activities that take place on these roads, and they never get, those other uses rarely get charged for the cost of the road construction that is always attributed to timber harvesting. I know in the forests in my district and in northern Wisconsin and in the upper peninsula of Michigan that we now have an above-cost operation; that is, the cost of the road is more than amply paid back simply by the cost and the value of the timber harvesting. And there are all these recreational benefits that follow upon the road program.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Further to that point, we do have a letter from the administration, from the Office of Management and Budget, indicating no objection to the legislation but also indicating that when the legislation is considered in the Senate, they would ask for a full year to coordinate and issue implementing regulations for the bill. First, this legislation requires the Department of Transportation to issue regulations after notice and after opportunity for public comment to specify how the displacing agencies will go about determining who is and who is not eligible for assistance because of their immigration status. The regulations must provide that all applicants for assistance will furnish information about their immigration status, not just those who speak with foreign accents or those who have a different skin color. All agencies, Federal, State, or local that use Federal funds for a real estate acquisition that displaces people must comply with these regulations. And these uniform rules will apply whether the displacement is caused by a new highway or a new senior citizen center, to be evenhanded. Secondly, the bill makes it clear that the ban is intended to be limited to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. The prohibition on assistance does not affect a person's right under the Constitution to due process or Federal or State law for just compensation for taking of property. Third, the bill provides for a limited administrative decision in cases of extreme hardship. I insisted that the bill include this provision to ensure that agencies will have some latitude to respond to complicated cases where refusing assistance might be devastating to families which include U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. We cannot predict every possible situation that may deserve that kind of discretion, but we can be certain that this narrow flexibility will someday enable Government agencies and State agencies to provide critically needed assistance to U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents. I would also note there is a high standard for qualifying for this waiver and that the burden of proof is shifted, the burden of proof will rest on the applicants. This provision is not meant to create an impossible standard, a bar so high that it would preclude assistance to even the most deserving families which include U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. The Department of Transportation must ensure that it will carefully guide agencies in the judicial use of this provision. Fourth, the bill further requires the Department of Transportation to develop training and technical assistance activities that will help promote implementation of the ban. Education, in other words, a very important component, I believe, of this legislation. And that will ensure that the many agencies covered under the Uniform Relocation Act will understand the complexities of determining eligibility based on immigration status. We have to remember that the issue of illegal immigration stirs very deep passions across this country. And it is a problem that has given rise to appalling examples of avoidance of the laws, as the gentleman has pointed out, but also appalling examples of blatant discrimination. We cannot allow a sensible policy to become a new tool for discrimination against those who may differ from us. If that were the case, as my colleague from Ohio said a little earlier, we are a nation of immigrants, in particular, in the district that I represent, they come from all parts of the world; we would certainly not want to discriminate against people because of where they originated or how they speak English with a different accent. The very diversity that has made this country strong should not be a pretext for treating people unfairly. Again, I want to thank Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri as well as Mr. Packard for their cooperation in addressing those concerns that I have had on constitutional grounds, on personal grounds, and for bringing this piece of legislation together. I have no objection to adoption of the bill now before us and urge its enactment. However, on a personal basis, I have to once again express, as I have repeatedly in this Chamber, my opposition to this Correction Day calendar procedure. I believe it short-circuits the regular legislative process. It abbreviates, it compresses the deliberative nature of the legislative process. And my deepest concern is that in time, without care and attention, it can become a vehicle for special interest favoritism. Bills proposed for this corrections calendar, at least those that have come through our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, could well have come up under the suspension calendar, subjected to a much higher test of a two-thirds vote. In this case this particular bill could well have come up on the union calendar for a much broader deliberative text test, subject to amendment, open to broader debate and consideration on the House floor and broader test of suitability. While I think our committee has been very judicious in the way it has handled correction calendar legislation, I personally am, just on a procedural basis, very much opposed to this process. While I am not going to be obstructionist about it, I must once again express my reservations and my opposition to the practice. But, again, let me express my appreciation to Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri and to the staff on both sides for their deliberate consideration in giving this bill every full measure of consideration that it would have had, had we brought it up under other procedures. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.