James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the bill before us is nearly identical to the Invasive Species Act that the House passed by voice vote earlier this week, except for limited amendments requested by the other body. I continue to have some concerns about at least one of those changes, but on balance those concerns are outweighed by the net gains to the Great Lakes region and to the rest of the Nation from this legislation. One of the concerns I have is a major concern with the application of this legislation to the salt water ports, and with our chairman managing this bill, and with his deep concern for environmental issues, I do want to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for a commitment that we will examine these issues in the proper detail that they deserve in the coming Congress. (Mr. OBERTSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day. It has been 5 years since the House has had a Coast Guard authorization bill ready to be sent to the President. This bill does that. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day. It has been 5 years since the House has had a Coast Guard Authorization bill that is ready to be sent to the President. S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, authorizes funding for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for their many missions: search and rescue; providing aids-to-navigation; drug interdiction; fisheries enforcement; icebreaking; marine pollution prevention and response; and commercial and recreational vessel safety. The House first passed its version of this legislation, H.R. 1361, way back in May of 1995. The Senate passed S. 1004 in November 1995. The House requested a conference on the Senate bill in February 1996 and the Senate finally agreed to go to conference in July. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and arduous process. Everyone has had to reach deeply to achieve a compromise that a consensus of the Members can support. On balance, this is a very good piece of legislation. Not only does it provide funding for the Coast Guard, but it improves their personnel management system, improves our marine safety laws, provides clear authority for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, implements the administration's proposal for streamlining the Coast Guard's regulatory system for commercial vessels, provides for the safer operation of towing vessels, conveys many lighthouses whose grounds will no longer need to be maintained by the Coast Guard, decreases the cost of financing U.S.-flag ships which will benefit both our vessel owners and our shipyards, and many other programmatic improvements to our Coast Guard laws. I would like to thank the leadership of our committee, our distinguished chairman, Mr. Shuster, as well as Mr. Coble and Mr. CLement for their outstanding work on this bill and for their dedication to improving the Coast Guard and all of our maritime programs. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of the conference report on S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the committee, for a brief explanation of the item concerning tort reform. Is the final language what we had agreed upon subsequent to the conference?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, so I have that language. We are comfortable with it, and with the gentleman's assurance that that is the language.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, if we had not had an agreement that created essential air service, we likely would not have had deregulation. Continuing EADS is continuing the commitment we made to small towns and communities and rural areas across this country, that they, too, would be served by aviation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is, on the whole, with one glaring exception, an excellent and bipartisan piece of legislation. Beginning with the work in the subcommittee, throughout the hearing process, the chairmanship of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and the leadership on our side of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the subcommittee worked together, ironed out many contentious issues, others of lesser significance, but worked through all of the fundamental aviation issues, to produce a truly fine piece of legislation. In full committee we did again the same thing. Working together with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, we were able to come to accommodation on major issues. We have already discussed these previously on the floor when the bill passed the House. The conference report largely reflects the House position on most of the significant aviation issues concerning structure and formula for the Aviation Improvement Program. All airports are going to receive their full formula allocation. The allocations for general aviation airports are streamlined and improved in many respects. We placed more emphasis on the need for a strong discretionary fund in the airport improvement program, and the reason for that discretionary fund is to underscore the role of the Secretary of Transportation in ensuring that we have a national system of airports. Mr. Speaker, the reason for the role of the secretary is to ensure that we integrate our national airports in the spirit of the national system of integrated airports. That is the concept of the airport improvement program. The conference report provides for a minimum discretionary fund of $300,000 for fiscal year 1997. That is an important provision. It means that in the future, emphasis will be able to be placed on those airports that truly contribute in a very special way to the movement of people and goods throughout the Nation's air space. The conference report also supports an important letter of intent program. That is important for major mega projects, to ensure that the revenue stream will be available over the period of several years needed to complete these large airports, like improvement of Hartsfield airport in Atlanta, and of DFW, O'Hare, of Los Angeles, of JFK, where you have major aviation traffic and projects that cannot be done overnight, that take years of planning and years to complete. So the letter of intent is vitally important to ensure there will be sufficient funds, and that provision provides about $150 million for high priority projects that offer expansion in capacity and improvement in safety. At the beginning of our process, there was a lot of pressure to eliminate the noise setaside program, the so-called part 150 program of FAA. The bill rejects that rather ill-conceived notion. Noise funding is a capacity issue. If people living near the airport or within the noise footprint of the airport object to increased traffic, then you cannot flow more traffic into that airport. If you can abate the noise, calm neighbors' concerns, you really have, in effect, increased the capacity of the airport. By the end of the decade, thanks to the 1990 aviation bill, we will cut in half the number of people impacted by noise, and this legislation continues that commitment. The bill also includes legislation previously passed in the House to require airlines to share pilot training records so bad pilots can be weeded out of the system, to ensure the tragedy that befell the 7-year- old child pilot trying to set a cross-country record is not going to happen again, to ensure that families of aircraft accidents, victims, are getting the proper consideration and care and sensitive treatment and the information and the prompt response that they require in the aftermath of an aviation tragedy. The bill will also remove the constitutional problems associated with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Commission and a bill that we passed in the House in August concerning anti-terrorism measures. The bill also brings small commuter airports up to the higher standards of major airports and inaugurates a pilot program to review the privatization of airports, whether this privatization program might be a good way to attract additional capital investment airports need that they otherwise cannot achieve in order to expand capacity. Mr. Speaker, for these and a host of other reasons, other provisions of the bill that I need not go into at this time, I think we ought to pass that part of the bill, the part that is offensive, which I shall address in later remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let us just get the record straight on this express issue. The reason for ending ICC regulation and oversight of express carriers was that the concept of express carrier had become obsolete. The ICC staff itself recommended the elimination of express carrier status. It was not an oversight, it was not something that someone forgot to do, it was not something that was neglected in drafting. It was not a drafting error. It was done for good reason. The last express carrier went out of business in the mid-1970's. Federal Express purchased that carrier's operating certificates. The Surface Transportation Board, successor to ICC, advised us in writing, ``Federal Express apparently never engaged in the operations authorized by these certificates.'' Subsequently, Federal Express obtained and operated new certificates which, according to the Surface Transportation Board, were ``different from the licenses typically issued to motor common carriers to provide express service.'' In short, Mr. Speaker, and factually, without hyperbole, Federal Express has never been an express carrier. There have been no other express carriers since the 1970's. The change in the Railway Labor Act does not deprive Federal Express or anyone else of rights they held in 1995. Whether you are an express carrier or not is going to be determined on the basis of the nature of your operations as a carrier. If express carriers continue to be covered by the Railway Labor Act, then we will be in an Alice in Wonderland situation. Supposing a trucking company is formed in the year 2000 and claims to be an express carrier under the Railway Labor Act. How will its case be decided? Will the National Mediation Board have to decide whether the ICC would have issued to this company an express carrier certificate? It just creates a lot of problems. Whether Federal Express is an express carrier within the meaning, or is a carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, is determined on the basis of the dollar volume of its operations and whether the preponderance of its operations are as an air carrier or as a truck carrier, motor carrier. They are an air carrier. We should not, on the thin thread of a nonexistent operation of a dormant authority purchased and never used, lock this carrier into a statutorily established position within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act forever and ever. That is simply wrong. If Federal Express wants to make its case, we can hold hearings in the ordinary course of events and attempt to find a way, but we should not use the subterfuge of dormant authority, never used, never undertaken by this carrier, to give them a very special and privileged status.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for H.R. 4119, a bill to designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse in Macon, GA, as the William Augustus Bootle Federal Building and United States Courthouse. Judge Bootle has been serving the citizens of Georgia since 1928 when he was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. He has been very active in the community, serving for many years as a Trustee for Mercer University. Judge Bootle is known for his fairness and judicial scholarship. This bill deserves our support and I urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great privilege to be a cosponsor of this legislation to name the new courthouse in Foley Square, NY, for our former colleague, Ted Weiss. It was a great privilege to serve with Ted Weiss, who escaped with his family just at the leading edge of the Nazi persecutions in Hungary. He grew up as a young lad in New York City and fulfilled the immigrant dream of being elected to the highest office in the land, the United States Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, where here his wisdom, his understanding, his memories brought justice to this body, brought justice to the issues of human rights, of civil rights, and to support for the oppressed at home and the oppressed abroad, a person who was always filled with justice and peace, of understanding and honor for others. His legacy will be one of deep sensitivity to the broadest of all human needs, and his name on this courthouse, I hope, will serve as an inspiration to all who enter it, to honor his name by deliberating in that place with the same spirit of fairness, justice, wisdom, understanding, and love of others that Ted Weiss demonstrated in this body. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4042, a bill to designate the new courthouse in Foley Square, New York as the Ted Weiss United States Courthouse. Ted Weiss was an active, vibrant, thoughtful member of the House of Representatives. He brought to our attention, indeed to the attention of our Nation, the need for an increase in funding for AIDS research long before the word epidemic was used. He was a leader in addressing the needs of the homeless and in devising an appropriate role for the Federal Government in solving this problem. Ted Weiss created a legacy of devotion and commitment to issues such as social and economic justice, environmental protection, and peacetime conversion of defense industries. Ted Weiss will be remembered as a brilliant, caring, conscientious public servant who cared deeply for people and worked tirelessly to bring society closer together. I urge support for H.R. 4042.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Cookeville, TN in honor of Judge Morton. Mr. Speaker, S. 1931 would designate the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Cookeville. TN in honor of Judge L. Clure Morton. This bill has full bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Judge L. Clure Morton graduated from the University of Tennessee Law School and practiced law in the private sector for 33 years. His judicial career began in 1970 when he was appointed to the Federal bench as District Court Judge in Nashville. In 1977 he was elevated to Senior Judge, and in 1984 Judge Morton took senior status. Judge Morton has decided to retire after 26 years of exemplary public service. He will be fondly remembered as a man of fairness, insight, and scholarly reasoning. It is fitting and proper to honor the outstanding career and civic contributions of Judge L. Clure Morton by designating the Federal buildings in Cookeville, TN as the ``L. Clure Morton Post Office and Courthouse.'' I support S. 1931 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for considering this legislation and bringing it so expeditiously to the floor, and to the gentleman from Ohio for supporting the legislation for a fellow Ohioan. Carl Stokes is more than a fellow Ohioan. He is more than an American citizen. He was a pioneer in his time, one of the very first handful of African-Americans to be elected mayor, and mayor of a large city. At the time I think there were only four. As I recall, Mayor Hatcher was elected the same day, received somewhat greater public attention than did Carl Stokes, but Mayor Stokes came in at a time when Cleveland was experiencing severe economic difficulties, racial strife, social unrest, and he brought calm and restored economic progress and focus in the community, brought a great leadership quality to his service as mayor. Following his leadership, more than 350 African-Americans are now mayors of American cities. He led the way. He showed them that it could be done. He was a journalist, a political commentator, a television anchorman and Emmy Award winner, a devoted family man. I had the privilege of meeting him but once. That once, the hour I spent with him and a group of other mayors, was enough to make a lasting impression of a person really dedicated to community service, to his fellow human beings, and to the vision of a greater city, the city being the crossroads of civilization, and he made his City of Cleveland that very crossroads and launched the city on a great comeback. It is very fitting that we designate the Carl B. Stokes United States Courthouse. We do his memory great justice and honor, and we expect that those who enter that courthouse will live up to that memory.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill to name the U.S. Courthouse in South Bend, IN for Judge Robert Rodibaugh. Judge Rodibaugh is a native of Goshen, IN and attended grade school and high school in South Bend, IN. He is an alumnus of Notre Dame University and received his law degree also from Notre Dame. From 1941 to 1946 during World War II he served in the military. Judge Rodibaugh has served the citizens of Indiana for almost 40 years as a prosecuting attorney, and then as a Federal bankruptcy judge. During his service as Chief Bankruptcy Judge the bankruptcy court has grown from one courtroom in South Bend to four courtrooms in South Bend, Fort Wayne, Gary, and Lafayette, IN. Known for his fairness and legal scholarship Judge Rodibaugh has set high standards for his law clerks and other judicial personnel. It is fitting and proper to honor the judge by designating the U.S. courthouse in South Bend, IN as the ``Judge Robert Kurtz Rodibaugh U.S. Courthouse.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, as my chairman noted the retirement of a very dear friend and colleague of our committee staff, we have a retirement on our side of Dara Gideos, who is retiring from the committee but not retiring from work. She is going on to a new assignment with a very important association where she will have a new responsibility as an executive assistant. She has been a role model on our committee staff for dedication to duty, unrelenting hard work, long hours, weekends during crunch time. She has demonstrated exceptional organizational skills, actually organizing the materials in the Subcommittee on Aviation staff room so that we can find what we need when we need it. She is a willing volunteer who has gone beyond her assigned duties to see the jobs that need to be done and plunged in to do them no matter what the issue or the hour. She has brought zest and sparkle to her job, to our committee staff, and she has a special talent of giving a lift to everyone who works with her. We will miss Dara very, very much but we wish her well in her new career. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a congratulatory letter from myself to Dara. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 26, 1996. Ms. Dara Gideos, Falls Church, VA. Dear Dara: Congratulations on a truly exciting, as well as earned and richly deserved, opportunity to serve as Executive Assistant to the President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. They are fortunate to have you and you will reflect great credit on GAMA, as you have done on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and specifically the Aviation Subcommittee. You have been superb: a role model for dedication to duty, unrelenting hard work, particularly those long hours, evenings and weekends during ``crunch'' time and for your exceptional organizational skills. What has especially impressed me and your colleagues is the initiative you have taken to reach beyond your assigned responsibilities, to learn Surface, as well as Aviation, issues in depth so that you could handle a wide range of inquiries directed to the Committee each day. On your own inspiration, you became the Committee's self-taught graphics specialist and produced exceptional materials for the various needs of the professional staff. You have always been so willing to volunteer beyond your assigned duties, and to see what jobs needed to be done and plunge in to help to do them no matter what the issue or hour of the day. Aboave all, we will miss your sparkle, the zest you brought to the Committee and that special talent of giving a lift to everyone who came to know you. On many occasions I have quoted: ``Success is getting what you want, happiness is wanting what you get''--you have earned both. I join all your many friends on the Committee in wishing you every success and happiness in your future endeavors. Warmest personal regards. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C., Ranking Democratic Member.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to express my great appreciation for the leadership Mr. Lipinski has demonstrated on our side on the Aviation Subcommittee on this and other aviation issues, and express again my appreciation for the cooperation that we have had in the bipartisan fashion from Chairman Shuster and Chairman Duncan on particularly this issue. For the National Transportation Safety Board, safety is not a partisan issue. It never has been within our committee, it never has been treated that way, and this legislation moves forward in that spirit. There is probably no entity in the Federal Government that has contributed so importantly to safety in all modes of transportation as the NTSB. Year after year, their recommendations, following upon investigation of accidents, of tragedies, and on many other occasions their studies, based upon reviewing the history of transportation incidents, have resulted in improvements in highway truck travel, marine safety, rail safety, and aviation safety, pipeline safety. We owe this very small Federal Government agency a huge debt of gratitude. Its work is best appreciated every day when millions of takeoffs and landings occur across this country without incident. The bill before us is almost identical to the House-passed bill reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board. It also includes the Intermodel Safe Container Transportation Amendments Act of 1996, which we passed last week. The bill includes a number of provisions requested by the NTSB and included in the House-passed bill to help NTSB in its accident investigation work or to encourage transportation entities to share important safety information with the NTSB without suffering a competitive disadvantage. These are important initiatives. They will help the safety board address potential safety problems before lives are lost. I have consistently maintained that the accident investigations conducted and the safety recommendations offered by the NTSB have made the lives of all Americans safer in every mode of travel. In addition, it is not well understood that the NTSB is often asked to participate, and often times to take the lead, in investigation of accidents overseas, particularly in aviation. The NTSB, for example, right now is participating in the investigation of the aircraft accident that occurred off the coast of the Dominican Republic. The NTSB does all of this work with an extraordinarily small staff, for the workload they undertake, of only 350 people. This particular year, the demands have been very heavy upon the NTSB as their investigators were literally required to be in two places at once. I recently talked to one of the NTSB investigators who had not been home to his family in over 2 months, going from the ValueJet crash to the TWA crash and literally spending his entire time on travel. The investments that we make in the NTSB are an investment in the future safety of every mode of travel. We cannot quantify the value of this agency's work with any degree of accuracy. Many people would say, well, if they had done this work, maybe the accidents would have been avoided anyway. I don't think so. I know better. I believe that, because I have seen the recommendations, and I know our committee has acted on the recommendations of the NTSB, and the FAA has accepted over 85 percent of the recommendations made by the NTSB in aviation safety, and that the result has been to improve safety for the air-traveling public. We have worked together in the committee to improve the funding level for NTSB, not to increase the size of bureaucracy, but to modestly increase the size of the work force from 350 to 370 employees and to maintain that level of employment throughout the duration of this authorization. This increase will allow the board to add specialists in rail, highway, avionics, and human factors. The people employed by the NTSB, I must emphasize, are highly trained, skilled specialists in metallurgy, for example, in avionics, in electronics, in all these technical fields that require very meticulous investigative skills to detect the smallest deviation from normal, to get to the cause of a complex accident such as the ValuJet that went down in the Florida Everglades or the TWA 747 that went down in the waters off Long Island. We have come to expect also that the NTSB will treat the families of victims of crashes in a very sympathetic and sensitive and informative manner. This is another dimension of the work of the NTSB, not envisioned when it was created in 1967 when the Congress separated the NTSB out of the Department of Transportation and created it as an independent safety board, but this has come to be an important role of the NTSB. We know, and families have come to expect, that they will be treated with the dignity and the understanding and the sympathy and sensitivity that they deserve in those very tragic and heartfelt moments after the loss of a loved one. The bill also deals with legislation that we passed last week to correct the widely recognized shortcomings of the 1992 Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act. With broad support from a consensus of transportation interests, the 1992 law was intended to encourage compliance with U.S. highway weight limits by ensuring that the party who first tenders cargo for intermodal shipment would be responsible for verifying the weight of that container and providing appropriate documentation. However, as so often happens, the 1992 law did not go into effect. DOT could not write regulations to make it work. So the parties went back to the drawing board and, through negotiations and give and take on all sides, reached an agreement on how to achieve the goals of the 1992 act without disrupting the flow of cargo. The bill raises the weight threshold from 10,000 to 29,000 pounds, and that dramatically reduces the number of affected containers but still ensure that shippers will identify containers likely to cause highway weight violations. These amendments also clarify that description of a container's contents must be more specific than ``freight all kinds'', a term of art in the trade, when 20 percent or more of the weight is from one commodity. This is a very important initiative. It is legislation that we have passed that now deserves to be enacted and signed into law by the President, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with him in recognizing Erla Youmans and paying tribute to her. She started with the committee a year before I did, in 1963, is when I came then to work for my predecessor, John Blatnik. But I started on the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee as what was quaintly known as a clerk in those days, and Erla was there. She has been there all through the years since then, and worked in such a bipartisan manner, years later that I realized she worked for the Republican side of the committee. We did not know the distinction. She gave 38 years to government service, 36 of them with the committee on Public Works and then Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now Transportation and Infrastructure. We served 6 years together, those first 2 years as I worked on the subcommittee and then 4 years when I was administrator of the Public Works Committee staff. In every respect, Erla was a thorough-going professional. I just kind of looked it up the other day. If she had been a Member all these years, she would rank third in seniority, having begun her service in the 85th Congress. That is a long and dedicated career. She has made such a lasting contribution. Many Members come through here, they might get a bill passed, they might even get an amendment passed, they might even have something become law. Erla has presided over many bills, many laws, too numerous to mention, provided enormous service. A person of great patience, devotion, deep professionalism, and now she, as the chairman said, had the opportunity, which I am very happy for her, to have served as the majority staff person and run a very smooth and efficient operation. I am going to miss Erla. Always a ready smile, always a warm word, always a kind person, and always a professional.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman especially for those kind words, Mr. Speaker, and I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] for the steadfast dedication he has devoted on our side to the complex issues of clean water, the Clean Water Act, the Water Resources Development Act, and the many other issues that have come before that subcommittee. I would also express my very great appreciation to our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], who has led us through many complex issues in the course of this Congress. There will be other bills on which I will also be saying the same thing as we go through these last hours of this Congress, but we have worked together in the time-honored tradition of this committee, the buildings committee of the Congress. I would say to the gentleman, I appreciate the leadership that he has provided for us, particularly on this legislation and that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who has worked very diligently and exercised visionary leadership on these important issues. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee for the consideration he gave to me on a matter of importance in my district. Although we could not resolve it satisfactorily, there was a partnership and an understanding that I shall long cherish. Mr. Speaker, we should support this legislation, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. We deal here with the oldest infrastructure programs of the whole country. In fact, after the Committee on Ways and Means, the first committee established by the Congress in 1789, the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, or committee was created, which later became a subcommittee of this full committee; recognizing, as the Congress did, that to grow as a nation, we needed to develop means of transportation. Ports were our first cities. America grew up along the water, as 75 percent of our people still live along the water. The first project authorized by the parent and predecessor committee of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was the Fort Henry Lighthouse, guiding navigation. Mr. Speaker, over the years of development and expansion of the Nation, water resources have been fundamental to our development and growth as an economy and as a people, and as a means of safety and navigation. Today, we continue that grand tradition, that more than 200-year-old tradition of taking the next steps. We continue the development of water-related infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, virtually every 2 years this committee comes to the House with legislation based on the work of the Corps of Engineers to respond to the needs of carrying goods to market in the most cost- efficient and energy-efficient means, by water; to protect people from floods, from disasters; to restore our shorelines; to deepen the harbors of our great ports and improve the navigation channels. In 1986, we first called this legislation the Water Resources Development Act. Since then we have come every 2 years, with one exception, in the last Congress, when we passed legislation in the House, having again done our work, and sent the bill to the other body, where, unfortunately, it languished and did not pass. So this is 4 years, not just 2 years, of accumulated legislative needs, and we have done our work, again I think in a responsible manner, responding to the usual assortment of flood damage reduction, navigation, storm damage reduction and to continue the work of this committee in emphasizing environmental improvement within the Corps program, environmental restoration and environmental enhancement. One of the great initiative that we undertook was the great river improvement program, an initiative undertaken by the predecessor of the gentleman in the chair today. Mr. Quie and I together worked on the great river improvement program so that the Corps would be required to contemporaneously undertake the environmental improvements at the same time it was doing the navigation improvements, so that we would not have the navigation first and the environmental damage later. The two, environmental protection and enhancement, worked hand in hand and that is a great legacy to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, years ago, but again within the ambit of the Corps of Engineers programs. The Corps often takes a rap for effects on the environment, and I just want to take that moment to point out how the Corps has done such wonderful work to protect the environment. This legislation does raise the minimum non-Federal share of protect costs from 25 to 35 percent. It does not go as far as the administration bill requested, but it is a responsible step and I think the chairman has sensitively understood the needs of communities that have already made commitments and made plans, that to go beyond 35 percent would put unreasonable financial burdens. The legislation also addresses the concerns of our committee and our colleagues to provide meaningful ability to pay relief for lower-income communities, and this legislation will provide that kind of help that was envisioned when the 1986 WRDA act was first enacted for helping lower-income communities. For the Great Lakes I am particularly pleased that we continue the important sharing of costs on confined disposal facilities for dredge materials to protect those extremely sensitive waters of the Great Lakes which represent one-fifth of all fresh water on the face of the earth. The conference report, however, is not perfect. The bill, I feel, does not go far enough in adequately balancing structural and nonstructural options in the Federal flood control program. I am troubled by provisions that have the effect of legislatively interfering in the 404 wetlands permitting program under the Clean Water Act and the implementation of the national flood insurance program. Both of those provisions, I think, are an unnecessary intrusion and should not be considered precedent for future legislation. The conference report also has language included at the insistence of the other body that abrogates, in the case of one project, cost-sharing rules, cost-sharing rules that were insisted upon by the other body many years ago. For one project, they were required to provide land easements and right of way but no cash in a matching basis for its project. We have steadfastly opposed repeal of cost-sharing rules for any project, and we should not do that in this case. Those shortcomings mentioned and noted, I think, for the record, this is a good bill. This is good, solid legislation. Ninety-eight percent of this bill is good policy, good initiative, good for the country, good for the community is serves and will stand as a legacy to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] who has labored so hard. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3535, a bill to designate the Federal building in the Suitland Federal Center, 4700 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD as the W. Edwards Deming Federal Building. Mr. Deming, who died in 1993, was honored throughout the world as the quality management guru. Dr. Deming began his career as a physics teacher at the University of Colorado, and from 1928 to 1939 held a Federal position as a mathematical physicist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He also presented special lectures on mathematics and statistics at the Graduate School of the National Bureau of Standards. In 1931 Dr. Deming was inspired by the book ``Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Products'' and he subsequently undertook the task of improving quality in manufacturing. His work in this area, as we are aware, strongly contributed to the economic renaissance of Japan. Dr. Deming was a prolific writer, teacher, and lecturer. He has received numerous awards, honorary doctorates, and honors including the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure, awarded by the Emperor of Japan. It is fitting and proper to honor the distinguished career of this truly outstanding American by designating the Federal building in Suitland, MD as the W. Edwards Deming Federal Building. I thank Mr. Wynn of Maryland for introducing H.R. 3535 and urge support for its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to offer a correction of my own. In my statement I said we held 2 years of hearings on ISTEA before bringing the legislation to the House floor. I felt this provision should at least have had hearing, not 2 years of hearings. The gentleman may have confused something I said earlier with my suggestion that we have hearings. At least a half day of hearing, at least an hour of hearing the issue would have been sufficient.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have got a good bill here, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I appreciate the initiative that the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, has taken, in moving the bill initially, the work that the gentleman from New York Chairman Boehlert, has undertaken on our committee to move this legislation along, and the support that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, has demonstrated, and the work that our ranking member, the gentleman from the inland waterways, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Clement. It shows the great consensus that we can build and good legislation that can come in response to a very serious problem, a very serious environmental problem, that is a by-product of our enormous waterborne commerce. It took about 130 years for the first devastating effect of an invasive species to be felt upon the fisheries of the United States, when in the mid-1950's the lake trout fishery on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan plummeted dramatically from 3 million pounds of lake trout caught in a year down to 300,000 pounds over a 2-year period, the light fish fishery plummeted from nearly 2 million pounds to under 250,000 pounds in scarcely a year and a half. Suddenly, the Great Lakes States, the Nation, realized there was an ecological disaster at hand, and little understanding of what caused it. And we found what caused it, the lamprey eel, first introduced into the Great Lakes through the Welland Canal when it was opened to commerce in 1829, carried in as part of ballast water, discharged into the Great Lakes, and undisturbed, unchallenged by natural predators, it grew to enormous proportions, and then in one 2-year period, devastated a multimillion dollar fishery, now a multibillion dollar fishery. Forever, we shall have to apply lampreycide to the estuaries of the rivers discharging into the Great Lakes to control this invasive species; we, Canada and the United States together, spending millions of dollars a year, to correct a mistake. You would think we had learned that the source of that aquatic problem, aquatic disaster, was ballast water from foreign vessels coming into the Great Lakes, but we did not. We did not take sufficient control steps. And then came the zebra mussel, and the Eurasian milfoil, and then the European ruffe, which is now one of the most abundant fish in the harbors of Lake Superior, destroying other species, eating up the forage for other species, crowding them out. And there was a simple way to control this, and that is control the ballast water. That is what we did on the Great Lakes. It has taken 5 years for our program of ballast water control to take hold in Great Lakes ports and to begin to control these devastating, nonindigenous species. In the meantime, the problem multiplied on the salt water ports of the United States, as we have learned in the port of San Francisco, where every 12 weeks a new nonindigenous species is introduced into that harbor causing devastation upon the native species in their harbor. And just a few miles from here, 3,000 miles across the continent, in the Chesapeake Bay, we have nonindigenous species introduced into this greatest of all the estuaries in the world, the Chesapeake Bay, where over 100 nonindigenous species have been introduced into those unique waters, where the fresh and the salt water meet and create new forms of life, but not new forms of life introduced by ballast water, because those forms of life are brought in without native controls, without other environmental conditions that control the growth of those species. So how are we going to deal with this issue? Well, we have here a legislative package that provides a framework for protecting our waters against the spiny water flea, the purple lustrife, the zebra mussel that I have already mentioned, and numbers of others, hundreds of other species that wreak devastation upon our fisheries, upon our water intakes, upon the quality of the waters, not just in the salt water ports, not just in the Chesapeake Bay estuary, not just in the Great Lakes waters themselves. But as fishermen go into the Great Lakes and move their boats from the Great Lakes into inland lakes, they carry these same species with them, and now we find zebra mussel spread all through lakes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, reaching down into the Mississippi River, and some of the zebra mussels are now being found as far south as New Orleans. We have to use good judgment, learn from the past, and put into effect control measures that are reasonable, that will do the job effectively, and that is what this legislation does. It strikes a balance, as the gentleman from Ohio said so well and the gentleman from New York, not a hard regulatory program right from the outset, although frankly, given the experience we have had in the Great Lakes, I would welcome such a program. I think we need to get tough right from the outset, because we know what the problem is, we know what to do with it. But this is a balance. We have struck a balance between a totally voluntary program on one hand and a regulatory program on the other. This legislation expands the scope of the 1990 Great Lakes law that is now coming to be effective in controlling ballast water in the Great Lakes, to apply it to the salt water ports as well, a voluntary national ballast exchange program under which the vessels that operate outside of the exclusive economic zone exchange their ballast, purge the nonindigenous species in the high waters of the oceans, and thereby prevent their introduction into U.S. harbors. But we also recognize that there are safety problems. The newer vessels in the international ocean trades have chambered ballast control measures. They can empty one chamber, fill it, and then empty another chamber and refill it, without endangering the safety of the vessel. Older vessels do not have that same ability. They have to pump all the ballast out at once on one side and load it with new ballast and then move to another side. So there are safety concerns about the stability of the vessel under those conditions, particularly if you have rough waters. So the legislation recognizes that the safety of the crew or passengers or safety and stability of the vessel is paramount. So if the master of the vessel determines it would be unsafe to exchange ballast water under existing weather conditions or other conditions, then the judgment of the master of the vessel is paramount and ballast exchange is not required. But our legislation does say that when a regulatory program is in place, and goodness knows, experience on the Great Lakes means it will take 5 years, then you have to comply with those regulations, but even then the judgment of the master of the vessel is paramount. The legislation does keep in place our very effective and strong Great Lakes program. It authorizes continued funding for invasive species prevention programs, provides for demonstration programs and new technologies such as filtration for preventing the spread of invasive species in U.S. waters. Since ballast water exchange is not a feasible control technique once the species are already into the Great Lakes, new technologies are critical to prevent the spread of dangerous species into the Great Lakes. I just want to address another matter that has been added late in our negotiating process and which I fully support, and that is for our colleague from the great State of Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, Mr. Young, who has had a lot of experience with crude oil tankers engaged in the coastwide trade. The exemption included in this legislation is based on our understanding that the current practice of these oil tankers is to discharge their ballast into tanks where the ballast water is treated, thereby avoiding the discharge of nonindigenous species into U.S. salt water harbors. It is our expectation that crude oil tankers will continue their practice of treating their ballast water prior to discharge. For these and for many other reasons that I will not go into at this point in order to save time, I think we have a good piece of legislation here. It will prevent the introduction of new time bombs into the salt water ports of this country. It will strengthen our ability to prevent introduction of new aquatic time bombs into the Great Lakes and the other inland waters of the United States, and it will give us tools to protect and take control of our own environment. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3153 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the subcommittee. Again, I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], for the splendid working relationship we have had throughout this rather complex and at times contentious issue, not contentious among Members, but contentious among those affected by the issue, and to come to a meeting of the minds and an agreement on how to proceed. We have, I think, a very fair and workable and, most importantly, a good piece of policy here. Madam Speaker, as we proceed with this issue, we have to keep the objective in mind. That is, management of hazardous materials in transportation. Hazardous materials are regulated as they move among the States simply because they are potentially dangerous. Federal involvement is an important element to assure that citizens across the country receive equal treatment and the same level of protection. The Department of Transportation should not grant exemptions from its standards unless the Department is convinced that the exemption will not reduce the margin of safety. The substitute amendment before us deals with two exemptions now under consideration by the Department of Transportation. First, the substitute directs DOT to complete expeditiously that part of its HM- 200 rulemaking related to hazardous materials of trade. DOT proposes exceptions in response to comments it received on the broader, more controversial intrastate rulemaking. Many businesses use small quantities of hazardous materials in conducting their principal business. Among those are lawn care companies, pest control companies, swimming pool service companies, and many of those are very small businesses. They are family owned, they have very few employees, and they present unique cases. It was appropriate for the Department to understand their unique circumstances and undertake to alleviate heavy burdens, while at the same time assuring that public safety will be protected. The proposed rules would exempt those companies from complying with a limited number of transportation regulations, including training and incident reporting requirements, under controlled conditions. To qualify, a company would have to meet 3 basic criteria. First, the affected materials would include only those normally carried on a motor vehicle in relatively small quantities. The exemption should be limited with respect to both the quantity per package and the total quantity per motor vehicle. Second, to qualify for the exemption, a company would have to use either the manufacturer's original packaging or packaging of equal or greater strength. Third, to qualify, the motor vehicle operator would have to be aware of the materials that are on board and be familiar with the materials of trade regulations. I think that is a fair requirement to impose upon small companies. These regulations are not burdensome. These requirements and exceptions are not serious exceptions from public safety, either. The chairman's substitute directs DOT to complete action on the proposal in an expeditious fashion. The substitute, though, does not dictate the outcome of DOT's rulemaking. That was very important for me and I think for our side and for the Department, that under the substitute the DOT should have complete discretion in making its final decision as to whether an exemption can be granted without sacrificing safety. The substitute also addresses the concerns of farmers and farm- related service industries who operate pursuant to State exceptions. The substitute provides that if the final rule for HM-200 relating to intrastate transportation prohibits States from granting exceptions for not-for-hire intrastate transportation by farmers and farm-related service industries, in that circumstance, the rule would not take effect for those entities until either the reauthorization of the HazMat program or until 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, whichever is sooner. That is an important distinction. I had initially proposed that the rule not take effect for 270 days after the initiation of the rulemaking. We now have a compromise that is fair, 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The practical effect of this language is that it takes the application of the HazMat rulemaking well past planting season next year for farmers and well past the summer season for farmers so that they can continue to operate under existing rules and laws without any changes while the full effect of any change adopted by the Department of Transportation is evaluated by the farming community and while Congress then will have time to more fully consider both the safety implications, the regulatory burden, and, if necessary, take additional legislative action. So the provision that we are including in this legislation preserves the integrity of the rulemaking process, not prejudging its outcome, allowing it to proceed to completion, but providing a safety valve for those who are either adversely affected by it because they are the operators or those who may be adversely affected by a spill that will cause harm to the environment or to health and safety. Neither the materials of trade nor the farmers and farm-related services provision predetermines the outcome of DOT's rulemaking. The rulemaking process goes forward including thorough consideration of all relevant comments in support of and in opposition to the proposed exceptions. I think this is a fair outcome. We have had extensive discussion with Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, with the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Poshard, of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Barcia, of our committee, and the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Ewing, on the Republican side also of our committee. And we have had very good discussion with farmers and farm-related entities who also have a stake in the outcome of this legislation and in the outcome of this rulemaking. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.