James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is my understanding and the gentleman has stated the issue correctly.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again the gentleman has stated the issue correctly. That is the understanding and that is the purpose of this amendment to H.R. 3153.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I have never liked this corrections day procedure. I think it is very much contrary to the spirit of legislating, creating a whole new category of majority, and because my concern at the very outset was that these issues would not likely be given substantial consideration in committees. Today we have an example of an issue that was not given the benefit of public hearings, either in the Committee on Commerce or in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I do not disagree with the intent of the proponents of this legislation, but it does raise very significant policy issues that at least ought to have been aired in the committee process. The legislation would create an entirely new type of exemption to the Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. That is cause in itself to have hearings and to air this issue so the public can have input and so Members of Congress who have concerns about the policy could have at least the opportunity to debate the issue in the committee structure. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is proceeding on streamlining its transportation conformity rule, and specifically is reviewing this issue of signalization in the course of rulemaking. That public process of rulemaking should be allowed to proceed prior to any legislative action being taken by the Congress, especially on a bill on which hearings have not been held. There is a jurisdictional concern for me, and that is the issues raised within the bill are clearly within the ambit of the congestion, mitigation and air quality provisions of ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Therefore, they are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom the bill was not even referred. The bill affects the ability of States and localities to use Federal transportation funds in nonattainment areas. A change of that significance ought to be reviewed by the committee with generic jurisdiction over transportation. In addition, the bill specifically amends section 176 of the Clean Air Act. In 1990, when the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, as it was then known, undertook consideration of ISTEA, we very clearly and extensively looked at the impact on clean air requirements of congestion in urbanized areas. We specifically amended section 176, and the Speaker of the House appointed Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members as conferees on this section during consideration of ISTEA. The bill is properly within the jurisdiction of our committee. Under EPA's rules, transportation projects that have a neutral or a very small impact on air quality are exempt from conformity determinations, those determination which cover a project's impact on a region's air quality. So when a community constructs bike and pedestrian paths or purchases new buses, it may use Federal transportation dollars to fund the project without showing the air quality effects, in this case benefits, or alternative transportation projects. Under current rules, traffic signalization projects which are not regionally significant may be funded without a new regional emissions analysis but region-wide traffic signalization and synchronization projects that affect hundreds of intersections are not exempt from the Clean Air Act's conformity determination. Those projects are likely to affect traffic on a regional level, and the impacts may be positive; they may be negative, depending on the pollutant involved and the speeds on the roads and the impact of traffic flow at the regional level. Improved traffic flow and increases in traffic speed may reduce carbon monoxide emissions. They may also increase nitrogen oxide emissions in certain speed ranges; particulate matter, PM-10. Those emissions may also increase under certain conditions. These pollutant effects, together with the affected projects, are best considered as part of a community's conformity plan. Under this legislation, region-wide traffic signal synchronization projects are prospectively exempted from the Clean Air Act's required conformity determination. So States and localities can use Federal funds to adopt region-wide synchronization projects without considering the Clean Air Act effects of the projects before they undertake them. Subsequently States and localities will look back at the effects of these projects in their next conformity determination. So the bill creates an entirely new category of exemption: projects not required to show conformity with air quality controls prior to funding, but projects that have to look back to see what good or harm they did after they have been done. Now, that is an inherent conflict, and it should have been aired, should have been extensively discussed, and it was not, unfortunately. So I just do not think in the waning hours of the Congress we should pass something so hastily, albeit in response to a wide range of concern. I do not question at all the concerns based on real circumstances, but their is another forum, the rulemaking process in which this should be considered. There is another forum, the committee hearing process, in which this should be considered. We should have taken this matter up in our committee against the backdrop of 2 years of hearings prior to enactment of ISTEA, against the backdrop of regional transportation institutes that are studying and developing synchronization projects under scientific conditions, and given this a full, thorough in-depth consideration. That is what troubles me about this process. That is why I oppose the legislation and urge Members to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join in supporting this legislation, a fitting and appropriate tribute to one of the most decent people ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, Mark Hatfield. A student, practitioner of the legislative art and science, a teacher of public service throughout his public life, a person whose personal life has mirrored his public life of integrity, honesty and decency, he has championed conservation and environmental causes, supported and protected our national forests and parks. He has called for reform in our health care system. Years ago I remember him very distinctly as an advocate for nuclear arms control. There are few people who cross our paths in public life who have, who display that kind of broad concern, genuine, deep humanitarian, felt concern and exemplify it in their public practice and in their personal life. To name a building in honor of such a Member reflects credit not only on him, on the people of Oregon who elected him, but on the entire U.S. Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I very much appreciate his recognition of the staff on both sides. Certainly Jack Schenendorf has provided leadership and vigorous initiative, as Dave Heymsfeld has done on our side and have worked together to iron out differences that maybe sometimes Members could not resolve. They have found creative ways. I do want to express my appreciation for the chairman's recognition of Dick Sullivan. I talked with Dick last Friday. Though his voice was weak, his spirit is certainly strong. I know all of us join in our prayers for his recovery in a bout with cancer and with ongoing chemotherapy. He certainly did set a standard, as the chairman said, for excellence in staff performance.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a really exciting initiative, the National Air and Space Museum to be developed at Dulles Airport. It is under the leadership of a truly great leader in aviation, former Adm. Don Engen, former administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and former Member of the National Transportation Safety Board. He is in charge of the fund-raising and of the organization and development of this project and has already launched a very significant nationwide effort, working very hard to raise the private sector funds which, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] indicated, will be entirely constructed with private sector funds. It is going to be a true monument to aviation, to aviation technology, and I am very pleased that the committee has moved this legislation to make the extension facility possible. It is really an extension of the Smithsonian, but at a place that makes sense: Out at one of the Nation's premier airports, and an international airport; one of advanced design at that, where we can put on display this leadership that the United States has demonstrated throughout decades in the field of aviation. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our full committee chairman, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, for the work that they have done to bring this legislation to this point. Mr. Speaker, I also commend the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], on our side, who has devoted a great deal of time and energy to resolving a very puzzling and complex problem; one that on the surface would seem to be amenable to ready resolution. In 1992, when we passed the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act, we thought that the legislation had corrected the problems. A broad consensus of transportation interests got together to support this legislation to encourage compliance with U.S. highway weight limits by ensuring that the party that first tendered cargo for intermodal shipment would be responsible for verifying the weight of that intermodal container and for providing appropriate documentation. Unfortunately, DOT could not write regulations to make the law work. Try as they might, there was a combination of problems, conflicting interests, difficulty in writing appropriate language, to prevent the issuance of those regulations. So when I say it took a great deal of effort on the part of the leadership of the subcommittee to work this out, it certainly did. It was a matter that the Department itself, with all of their staffing, could not resolve. So the parties went back to the drawing board, they reached agreement on a measure that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] has, I think, quite adequately described. In 1989, the Federal Highway Administration estimated that some 1 million containers moving through U.S. ports over a 1-year period would likely cause highway weight violations based on most commonly used truck configurations. Some 40 percent of the 20-foot containers would potentially cause overweight trucks; 17 percent of 40-foot containers were more than 10,000 pounds over the cargo weight. Truckers should not have to bear that responsibility. Goods should not have to be impeded in their movement to marketplace, and bridges should not have to be encumbered and highways should not have to accept that additional pounding due to our ocean shipping interests. So the legislation we have today will provide workable tools to allow carriers to comply with highway weight limitations and improve enforcement by ensuring that the one responsible, the party that loads the container, is the one liable if a subsequent violation occurs. Mr. Speaker, that is what we bring to the House today. I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia for the splendid effort that he has invested in bringing this issue to resolution, and again to our full committee chairmen for resolving the matter.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. We, too, on the other side of Lake Superior have a lot of snow, in the range of 130 to 140 inches a year. I am afraid the gentleman from Michigan gets the benefit of the prevailing wind passing over the 30,000 square miles of Lake Superior and dumping the excess moisture on the upper peninsula. I think that the Federal policy on snow removal in disaster assistance situations should be clarified, and FEMA is moving to do that. I do not think this legislation is necessary. In just 3 weeks, FEMA, in their testimony before our committee, committed by October 1 to have an NPRM, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register, complete the 60-day comment period, and have a final rule in place by mid-December, in time for the snow season. I think that is quite fair, and I think that the agency is moving along appropriately and there will be plenty of time for comment on their regulations. It just does not seem necessary to legislate what the agency is already doing. I understand the arguments this is a push, this is a nudge, this is a shove from the Congress to FEMA to stay on track and do their job, but frankly, I am really concerned about disaster creep. We are seeing the spread of Federal responsibility to more and more types of situations that can be called or can somehow qualify as disasters. Most of these calls come from State government, from local government, who preach to the Federal Government balance your budget. We hear this from the Governors all the time: Balance your budget, Federal Government. But then as soon as they have an earthquake, a tornado, a hurricane, heavy snow, they have their hand out to the Federal Government to come in and bail them out. But in the years when they do not have hurricanes or earthquakes or tornadoes, I do not see them coming back to the Federal Government and saying here is a downpayment for your good will on helping us out in times of disaster. In the case of snow, snow is different from hurricanes. They come with some suddenness and unpredictability. Earthquakes come with great unpredictability. In the northern country we know the glacier retreated 10,000 years ago and every December it makes a return appearance, or at least a return effort, and we are prepared for it. Now, I can understand when there is an occasional extraordinary event, a multi-State occurrence that dumps unprecedented amounts of snow and the economy is disrupted, the travel is interrupted for long periods of time. That makes a case for what FEMA is doing trying to develop a common policy. But I am concerned that this legislative push is moving us into ever more responsibility and ever greater expenditures and outlays of extraordinary amounts of Federal funds. Someone may think that is strange coming from one who is advocating increasing our investment in infrastructure, but I think that is where we need to put those investments to make our economy more efficient. So I just say my piece, express my concern, set a mark out there for those Governors and local government officials who come to Washington preaching to us about balance your budget, but help us out when we have a problem, to understand the broader responsibilities of the Federal Government and to shoulder more and more of their own financial obligations under circumstances of this kind. I think we need to be careful about expansion of Federal disaster policies. I think that we can and we shall watch very closely FEMA's commitment to promulgating the NPRM on October 1 and getting a final rule out in December, and I will join with the chairman in any initiative needed to prod them along that route. I just wish we did not have to move on legislation, but I will certainly not stand in its way, and I appreciate the cooperative spirit we have had with the majority in scheduling hearings and hearing the issue, bringing these matters forth. I understand the genuine concerns of our colleague from upstate New York, the gentleman from Michigan, and others who have concerns about snow removal policy and the application of the disaster assistance rules.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a broad consensus now and should pass. It was not always so. At the outset, when the legislation was first proposed to revitalize the Louisiana offshore oil port and to revitalize the basic underlying law itself, there was considerable environmental concern and vigorous opposition. In fact, there were concerns expressed by the Department of Transportation that wanted to maintain a very strong regulatory hold on this legislation. Those concerns came to my attention. I discussed these matters with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our chairman, and with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, and we set about on our side to resolve within our Democratic ranks the outstanding issues. We brought in the environmental groups, we brought in the Department of Transportation, we heard them out, and we came up with proposals which I think were well received by the majority. We worked out a very fine bipartisan solution. I say that because I have a piece of legislation pending in the other body that is not receiving the same kind of comity. I would hope that the leading supporters of this legislation in the other body would extend the same comity to concerns House Members have about issues that are intensely of concern to the people in their district. This legislation is going to benefit not only the Louisiana offshore oil port but all future possible deep water ports by allowing ports to become more competitive, be more efficient and to do so in an environmentally safe regime with economic considerations that will advance the cause of energy efficiency and keep the cost of imported energy within reach and keep our U.S. ports competitive. We can do those things when we work together on a sound, bipartisan, constructive basis, to look at what is best for the overall interests of the country. I urge the same kind of comity from our colleagues in the other body. It had been my intention to obstruct the passage of this legislation by asking for a recorded vote, but I will not do that out of respect for our chairman and out of respect for the merits of the issue and in hopes that we get the attention of our colleagues across the way.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and I would like to say a few words on this measure. To the very great credit of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], in the aftermath of the ValuJet crash, when we in the committee heard some of the tragedies that have already been related by the chairman of the committee, by the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], about treatment of the families, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], made a commitment to seize on this issue, to deal with it, to bring justice, and to build upon the legislation enacted in the aftermath of PanAm 103. We are here today because of that commitment. I salute our chairman for moving decisively, and bringing this issue to closure in the House and I hope closure in the other body rapidly. Already the commission, headed by Vice President Gore, has taken a central element of this legislation and incorporated it into the Vice President's recommendations without waiting for legislation to be enacted. Of course, enactment of the legislation will only reinforce and strengthen what the Gore commission has initiated. There is plenty of praise and commendation to go around, beginning with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for the leadership he has demonstrated, for the genuine caring and sensitivity that he has shown on this issue; the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], also a man of great compassion and sensitivity, who has devoted a great amount of time and effort to the issue; to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], our ranking member, who again spent a great deal of time with family members hearing their concerns, addressing those issues, working together with Chairman Duncan to resolve some of the sticker questions, and to come up with a piece of legislation that will vastly enhance the treatment of families in the aftermath of an air tragedy. Obviously, we all hope we will never have to exercise the provisions of this legislation, but we also know that tragedies happen in aviation, for one or another cause. We need to be prepared. The FAA needs to be prepared, the DOT, the airlines have to be prepared. This legislation will put a framework around preparedness, to deal with these tragedies in the future, so never again will a family member have to agonize, waiting for information, not know where to call, be given abrupt treatment or no information whatever, worst of all. Outside the confines of the committee, Vicki Cummock, who lost her husband in PanAm 103, has proven to be a champion on behalf of family members. She has counseled in the case of many subsequent air tragedies and helped us formulate this legislation; George Williams, a leader of another group of families of the victims of PanAm 103, has provided great insight; Bill Kessler, with his tragic experience losing his wife in the ValuJet tragedy, provided great, compassionate insight. I also would like to mention a woman from my district, Lorelei Valerie, who lost her father in a tragic crash 6 minutes from my home in Chisholm, MN, when a commuter aircraft crashed into a hillside for want to a ground proximity warning system, and who experienced many of these similar problems: notification, treatment of the families in the aftermath of a tragedy. This legislation takes a big step forward. The bill specifies that its provisions do not prohibit airlines from providing families, victims' families, with additional support beyond what is provided in the framework of this legislation. It does require that all airlines, regardless of the size of their fleet, have disaster response plans on file with the Department of Transportation. The bill does not require that the plan be approved as part of the carrier's operations specifications. That would be my preference. I believe, however, that if we included such a requirement, notwithstanding that it would improve the bill, it might also impede its chances for action. There will be an effort to develop a model plan. When such a model plan is developed, I believe the DOT should give strong consideration to promulgating regulations to require that at least the contents of the model plan be included in each carrier's own individual airline response plan. That is an issue that I am going to be watching very closely. There may come a time when we need to take a tougher approach on these response plans than we are taking in this bill. This bill is a good step in the right direction. I just simply put the airlines on notice and the DOT on notice that we mean business in this committee on this issue. We will not tolerate inaction or lack of compliance with the spirit of this legislation. I urge strong support and a wholehearted unanimous vote in favor of this legislation. In 1990, Congress passed legislation that required carriers to confirm a passenger manifest in a maximum of 3 hours on international flights. The airlines have been successful in forestalling the implementation of this requirement through a rider in the early appropriations legislation. Each time I learn of an aviation accident and hear and families waiting for hours without definite word of whether their loved ones have been involved, I cannot help but blame the airlines for working so hard to find a legislative fix to allow them to keep families in a state of uncertainty longer than necessary. The recently released recommendations of the Gore Commission include a proposal that the requirement in the 1990 legislation be implemented. In fact, many of the provisions included in H.R. 3923 are also Gore Commission recommendations. The purpose of this legislation is to help create a process that, at a minimum, does not make an already very emotional situation even more traumatic for family members. It requires that all airlines, even the smallest, have, as a prerequisite for their operation, a disaster plan submitted to the Department of Transportation. The plan must address a number of key areas, including the notification of family members, and the ongoing obligations the carrier has with respect to the information and services to be provided to the family members throughout the duration of the disaster. The bill charges the National Transportation Safety Board with designating an individual to work with the family members and provide them with periodic briefings on the status of the recovery of victims' remains and the accident investigation, as well as coordinating and disseminating to family members other pertinent information from various government entities. We have learned that it is very important that family members not feel they have to contact several different Federal State, and local entities to be fully informed about matters of importance to them. Also in response to the testimony received at our June hearing, this bill requires that the NTSB designate an independent nonprofit organization with experience in disaster response to work with the families to provide information and counseling as required. In the hearing, the Red Cross was mentioned specifically as an organization that would be well suited to the role envisioned, and we have worked with that organization in developing this legislation. This legislation does not improve the safety of commercial aviation or the adequacy of the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of airlines, yet it address something that, in its own way, is just as important; the need for compassionate treatment of people who have suffered the unexpected loss of a loved one. The legislation is intended to help people who are desperate for information about their father, husband, son. It is intended to protect people who are hounded by the media as they seek news about the safety of their mother, wife, daughter. It is intended to assist people who are subjected to lawyers eager to take advantage of their vulnerability and great personal loss to gain a percentage of a potential financial award. This legislation is about providing compassion and respect for individuals experiencing deep grief. I think the fact that we need legislation to mandate compassion is a dad statement about our society, but I am gratified that, having seen a need, our committee has been able to respond in a timely manner. The victims' families have known deep loss and shared similar experiences at the hands of Government agencies and the media. Some of these individuals have gone on to use their painful experiences to help others deal with their grief under similar circumstances, and we have worked with these individuals to develop this legislation, and will hear from some of them again today. Their shared experience has helped us in the legislative process. They understand the need to ensure that the dignity of the families will be preserved to the extent possible under extremely adverse conditions. It is important to understand that there are services that an airline can provide that no government or independent agency can. As private companies, airlines can authorize immediate expenditures to provide transportation and lodging to family members, as well as accommodate other requirements they may have. Most large airlines have established disaster plans in place and trained individuals at the ready in the event of an accident. In fact, some airlines have worked with the family members groups who have testified before our committee to develop or modify their disaster response plans. Many airlines provide each family with the name and telephone number of an airplane employee who will work with them to provide them with the information and services needed. The airline representatives can help provide family members with assistance that is tailored to the needs of an individual family. For example, airlines have accommodated a family's need for money to make a mortgage payment or school tuition that comes due during the tragedy. This bill recognizes the need to preserve the airline's ability to provide financial support and other assistance to family members during emotionally stressful times. The role that many airlines have played in response to an accident cannot be duplicated by any Federal, State, or independent agency, and the services they provide must not be sacrificed in a naive attempt to eliminate contact between airlines and families. However, while this bill specifies that its provisions do not prohibit airlines from providing the victims' families with additional support, it does require that all airlines, regardless of the size of their fleet, have disaster response plans on file with the Department of Transportation. The bill does not require that the plan be approved as part of the carrier's operations specifications. I believe that if we included such a requirement, it would improve the bill. But I recognize that there will be an effort to develop a model plan. After such a plan is developed, I believe the DOT should give very strong consideration to promulgating regulations to require that at least the contents of the model plan be in each carrier's own plan. I will be watching this issue closely. There may come a time when we need to take a more firm approach on these plans than we are taking today in this bill. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. I first want to thank my colleague, our chairman and my dear friend, for his good wishes on this day that we all face once a year. I looked in the obit column this morning and did not find my name in there so I decided to come to work. Today we consider legislation very, very thoroughly described by our chairman to reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration but particularly and most importantly the Airport Improvement Program. At the outset, I want all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to note that this legislation in the long honored tradition of our committee has been prepared and advanced in a truly bipartisan process with complete openness and participation, not just consultation but participation on both sides of sharing of ideas, of working issues out, of coming to agreement on matters on which maybe at the first we might have had some differences. In the end we were altogether. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, who has been a strong advocate for aviation and especially for small airports, as I have been, and Chairman Duncan, who has given aviation his full energy and effort and who has proven a really distinguished and worthy chairman of this subcommittee and has come to have a sure grasp of the issues. I salute him and congratulate him. I also want to express my great appreciation to the leader on our side on aviation, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], who has plunged into aviation and likewise has become thoroughly knowledgeable and self-assured on this subject. I also see my good friend and former associate when I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], now chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I want to thank him for the partnership that we have had over 14 years working together on economic development, investigations and oversight and aviation. As he prepares to leave our company to go on to other pursuits, I just want to say what a great, distinct pleasure it has been working with the gentleman, a professorial scholar, a dear friend, one who is committed to the pursuit of truth and of good legislation in the best public interest. This legislation establishes funding for FAA's facility and equipment operations and maintenance and airport improvement programs at levels that assume the aviation trust fund has been taken off budget. Funding levels are necessary to support vital safety and capacity enhancing projects, including upgrading air traffic control, implementing the global positioning satellite system, meeting the safety and capacity needs of the Nation's airports. While I completely support the funding levels included in the bill and want to assert that they are more than justified in light of the needs of the system and indeed modest compared to the needs, we must unfortunately and realistically assume that these programs will receive a lower appropriation level than the authorization that we have provided for, given the current budget climate and the fact that the other body has failed to pass off-budget legislation. I emphasize that these levels are right, they are necessary, they are what this committee says is needed. We set that mark out there. It is important that that mark be set even though realistically the appropriation level may not come to what it should be. We will continue to argue for higher and adequate appropriation levels in the future. This means that the different FAA accounts will essentially be competing with each other for limited funding available. So much of FAA's costs are fixed costs. That means the program likely to be most negatively affected is airport improvement. That level currently is 1.45 billion, and that represents a $450 million decrease in funding from 1992. That was the high point for AIP funding in the history of the FAA. This funding distribution formula in the current AIP program was drafted when we expected funding levels to continue to increase. They work well when AIP is funded at close to $2 billion, but the formulas create a significant problem for a large number of airports, at funding levels closer to the 1.45 level. So the formula modifications in the bill are recognition on our part, on bipartisan basis, of a need to streamline the program in the light of diminishing resources. We are simply dealing with reality, trying to accommodate the needs of all airports, large and small, in order to project a national airport and air capacity system. While there are understandable concerns about the effect of formula modifications, we have struck a reasonable balance with the competing priorities. The bill preserves a significant noise program, it protects existing letters of intent commitments, it provides a $50 million discretionary account regardless of the size of the overall program. Unfortunately, formula modifications are only one element providing adequate funding for airport needs. The effects on the system caused by extreme funding cuts cannot be remedied simply by adjusting the formula. No one disputes that projections for passenger growth will require additional airport capacity. Everybody understands our aviation system is going to go, goodness. Ninety-four percent of all paid intercity travel in America is by air. There may be dispute about existing airport needs, but everyone agrees that funding AIP at its current level or below that level in 1997 is simply not adequate to meet the demands of the projected passenger growth in this country. We have an obligation to the future. So until we can get all the money paid by the users out of the airspace system for distribution through FAA from the trust fund, either through passage of the trust fund off budget or some other means, we have to find a way to insure that the system can meet the capacity demands placed upon it. A critical funding issue which has significantly affected the aviation trust fund was expiration of the airline ticket tax which lasted almost 11 months and severely depleted the reserve in the trust fund account. During the time that the taxes lapsed, the uncommitted balance of the aviation trust fund was depleted at a rate of $600 million a month. We have to take responsibility to assure that taxes do not lapse again at the end of this year, and I just want to take this opportunity to urge our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means to pass legislation before we adjourn to extend the airline ticket tax beyond the end of this calendar year. It is simply not responsible to let that ticket tax expire at the end of the year and have airports, airlines, wondering how they are going to meet capacity needs. The American people also want to know that they are safe when they get on board an aircraft. We have repeatedly heard the citizens of this country articulate their willingness to incur higher costs if those costs are going to mean more airport security and better safety. It is irresponsible to let the excise tax lapse when safety and security are on the line when we are going to put another billion dollars of cost on this system to make it more safe and more secure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, about the Doppler radar issue. I agree, Doppler radar is critically important. It has been cited by the NTSB as a factor, or absence of it as a factor in not only the Raleigh crash but in other situations. The unfortunate thing is that the location of the Doppler weather radar in New York is the issue, not the radar itself. It is not in my backyard. I have followed this issue for many years with great dismay. There was a proposal to put the Doppler radar in a location in one part of one of the boroughs of New York City, whose name I do not recall, and there was an uproar by the citizens of that area, and the junior Senator from New York came to their defense and said, now, let us hold this off, let us not put it there now, let us find another place to locate it. The provision in this bill directs a feasibility study of locating the terminal Doppler weather radar on an offshore platform before selecting some other site. I do not see this as a delay to installation of the radar. This is going to be a very quick study. It will be one conducted very readily, a conclusion that can be reached in a very short period of time. Local concerns are the issue that are holding up this radar. I wish folks would just say, we understand the need for aviation safety, we do not want planes landing in our apartment buildings or in our backyards because they do not have the right radar, do not have the right weather information. But that is not the way people react. We have this controversy in Minnesota over power lines, over long- distance power lines being too close to dairy farms, and fugitive electricity causing double-headed cows. People have it in their minds that that is a consequence of having electricity so close to their animals. Then we have to deal with that reality. We may have to relocate that line. Madam Speaker, this is just a technology issue, and it is a people problem as well. We have come to a compromise. I will not stand for any unreasonable delay, and I know the chairman of the committee will not stand for any unreasonable delay. We want this radar to go forward. That is an extremely busy airport. I share the gentlewoman's concern. Let us see if we can get this study accomplished, put fears to rest, and then let the location of the technology take place on its own. I just want to make one final comment, Madam Speaker. We have heard so much in our committee and by commentators every time there is a disability in the Air Traffic Control System about problems with the Nation's Air Traffic Control System, and allusions to vacuum tubes being used in our Air Traffic Control System. Less than 1 percent of all the technology used in our Air Traffic Control System is dependent upon vacuum tubes. All of it is scheduled for replacement. Our committee on a bipartisan basis over several years has worked very diligently to upgrade and to speed up the technology in our Air Traffic Control System. As a result of our efforts, working with both the previous administration, the Bush administration, Secretary Skinner, Admiral Busey, when he was head of FAA, and now the current head of FAA, Mr. Hinson, they have brought a new team in, and every month we get this report, an air traffic systems development status report, with which we can track month to month the progress on all of the several key items: The end route, the terminal, the tower, the oceanic and offshore and the air traffic management systems. We know what the cost is, whether they are on track, whether they are behind schedule. I just want to say that the core of this new technology system is the initial sector suite, or the display system replacement. The first article is going to be installed in Seattle in December, the end of this year, to begin a year of operational testing, so that by 1998 we will be able to move ahead with full deployment of the system. This program was in as bad a shape as we could possibly imagine any Government program getting into, but FAA Administrator Hinson and his team of Associate Administrator George Donahue and his deputy, Bob Valone, working with the new contractor, Lockheed Martin, have turned the program around. We ought to take credit for this. This committee has diligently worked to make sure that the public investment has paid off. We have real results and real progress to show for it. We are going to see some real solid developments, for example, in the terminal and the end route system modernization, that are actually ahead of schedule. The display channel complex project is ahead of schedule. The voice switching and control system is enabling communication between centers and between units on the ground to do things that they never believed were possible a few years ago. Madam Speaker, I just would like to say to the listening public, this committee has done its work diligently. We have worked together. We have made sure that the public investment has been cut where it was excessive, has been moved ahead where it was necessary. We have moved to a more modular technology system in the total modernization of the Air Traffic Control System. This is a huge undertaking, the biggest technology program in the entire Federal Government. We have it on track. We have something really to be proud of. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation, that of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], to the staff, and the participation of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who has devoted so many hours to this thing. We have something good going here. The rest of the world envies our system, and they are buying up pieces of it as soon as we put them into operational use. We are the world's leader in aviation. Let us never forget it. Let us be proud of it. Let us make this bill the flagship of that leadership. I thank the chairman of the committee for his vigorous work on behalf of this legislation. This bill ought to pass overwhelmingly. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. When all else fails, Mr. Speaker, read the bill. The findings section of the Safe Drinking Water Act says: The Congress finds that the Federal Government commits to maintaining and improving its partnership with the States in the administration and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States play a central role in the implementation of safe drinking water programs and need increased financial resources and appropriate flexibility to ensure the prompt and effective implementation of safe drinking water programs. Under the rubric of States come cities. Cities are entities of the States. What we are doing here is helping cities deal with the problems of providing clean and safe drinking water for their people. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a little friend to bring with me down here to the podium, but I do have an example. Just about 4 years ago, the people in the city of Milwaukee were frightened out of their wits by an attack that hospitalized thousands and affected 400,000 people with abdominal pain, diarrhea, dysentery, and caused 131 deaths when an attack of cryptosporidium found in the drinking water was unable to be cleansed by the drinking water treatment system of the city of Milwaukee. If ever there were a red flag on the horizon for America to wake up and deal effectively with both the standards and the infrastructure for providing safe drinking water for our people, that was the wake-up call. This legislation originated in the 103d Congress, moved out of our Committee on Public Works and Transportation, did not make it through the Congress; but what we have today is an adaptation of that legislation. I simply want to emphasize that, while there is a great deal of talk about specific designation of projects, that is in the report language. It is not in the bill. We do this regularly in numerous pieces of legislation. Statements of managers in conference reports make specific references. This is not law, this is an exhortation of examples of the kinds of projects that need to be done and communities that need to be helped. We have rendered that judgment. I urge my colleagues, this is a fine bipartisan piece of legislation. Support the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a clarification for the record about the process that was followed. While certainly our side was not in on the takeoff, we certainly have been in on the flight and on the landing on the development of the aviation security portion of this legislation. We have had splendid cooperation from the Republican side; our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], in fact sort of delegated me to participate in all of these discussions. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has been marvelously cooperative where I raise questions from my background in work that I have done in aviation security over many years. They were most accommodating, responsive. Senator Hutchison from the other body has been very cooperative. we have crafted a good piece of legislation here on a bipartisan basis, and I just want to make that clear for the record.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, on Christmas Eve 1988, nearly Christmas Eve, the world of aviation as we know it changed. People had felt secure against skyjackings from the time in the late 1960's when we were experiencing one skyjacking every 2 weeks. Then the United States required the installation of metal detectors and x-ray machines at major airports to screen passengers and their carry-on baggage and skyjackings dropped off the horizon as a threat to aviation in the domestic United States. But with the devastation of Pan Am 103, in which 270 people died, people from 21 countries besides the United States, the world of aviation changed. The new threat was terrorist acts against the flag of the United States. In the aftermath of Pan Am 103 a commission was created by this Congress, in cooperation with the Bush administration, to look into the causes and recommend actions to be taken to make aviation more secure. We have in place a strong law to protect against terrorist actions. We must understand that we are operating now in a world in which aviation is the target of State-sponsored terrorism, and the American flag and American air carriers and American passengers are its targets. Mr. Speaker, we must enact strong legislation. I will deal with that later in my further remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].