James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to my Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution to allow the Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the Capitol Grounds. The District of Columbia Special Olympics will be held May 13- 23, 1996. The Special Olympics torch will be run across Capitol Grounds as part of the opening ceremonies which take place at Gallaudet University. As in the past, local law enforcement officials will participate in carrying the torch to the opening ceremony. The DC Special Olympics provides opportunity for approximately 2,200 local Special Olympians in 17 events. Worldwide, over 1 million mentally challenged adults and children participate in the Special Olympics program. Through successful experiences and athletic competition, Special Olympians gain confidence, build a positive self image, and greatly enhance their ability to contribute to society. I thank Mr. Gilchrest for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 146, and I commend him and Mr. Traficant for their leadership on this issue. I wholeheartedly support this resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Traficant and Mr. Gilchrest in supporting use of the Capitol Grounds for the 15th anniversary of the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. May 15 is the day designated by President Kennedy as the day to honor all men and women who have dedicated and sacrificed their lives in order to protect our lives. I commend Mr. Traficant for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 147, and for being a staunch supporter of this program. As we all know, the Capitol Plaza is used for the candlelight memorial service, which is the culmination of a series of events honoring peace officers who have been killed in the line of duty. The 1996 service will be hosted by the Capitol Hill Police Department. Tragically, during 1995, 155 law enforcement officers were killed while on duty. The average age of those officers was 37 years old and they had served the public for 9 years. Four of them were women. It is fitting and commendable that we support the efforts of the Capitol Police and the 675,000 law enforcement officials now serving in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 147, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time, and ask all Members to support this very important landmark legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Camp]. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay compliment to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] for the long years of work that he has devoted in the field of aviation and to this issue of an independent FAA. The gentleman has been a strong voice and a consistent voice, a strong point of support, and I salute him for all his contributions to the formulation of this legislation and getting us to the point where we are today.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the distinguished leader for our side on the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today marks a watershed day that I have long looked forward to since, in fact, 1987 when I introduced the first independent FAA bill, then with bipartisan support as we have today. But this is the first time in all the years that I have introduced and reintroduced that bill that it has made its way to the floor. For that, I salute our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his splendid cooperation, his willingness to move this legislation along as a high priority item for our committee. For that I salute our chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], who has taken on the burdensome task of learning all the intricacies of aviation, learning the importance of this agency and its role in modern aviation not only in the U.S. but worldwide and who has become a champion of aviation in the brief tenure that he has had as our chairman, and to our ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], who, though a longtime member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, has just recently assumed the role of the leader on our side for the Subcommittee on Aviation and who likewise has devoted himself and plunged in with great enthusiasm into this subject matter, and I am very grateful to the gentleman for the job he has done and for the workload and responsibility that he has shouldered. For many years of hearings of inquiry into the FAA, of safety in the field of aviation, one issue has jumped out, and that is the role of the FAA within this huge Department of Transportation subjugated to the interest to the will, to the changing of the leadership at the top of this department, and consequently with effects upon the FAA itself, have oftentimes gone months without an administrator under both Democratic and Republican administrations, without regard to which party was in control of the government. The FAA continued to have a back door sort of relationship with the Department of Transportation and yet one in which the Secretary of Transportation was all too willing to insert himself or herself into the internal affairs of this safety-conscious agency. It became so painfully clear to me that what Congress did in response to the Johnson administration's initiative in 1966, bringing all modes together in one Department of Transportation, was flawed in this respect: that the Federal Aviation Administration should not be included in that department, that it should be, as it rightfully ought to be, an independent agency. It ought to have its own independent status because that is the status of aviation. It stands separately in our national picture. It is at the heart of a $600 billion sector of our national economy. Ten percent of our gross domestic product is related to aviation. The FAA ought to stand on a par, frankly, with the other departments of government and not be subsumed under one. At the hearings that we had on FAA reform, all but one of the living former administrators of FAA endorsed a concept of an independent agency. Those former administrators served over a 30-year period from 1961 to 1991 in which there was a revolution in technology in the field of aviation. They served in Democratic and Republican administrations from President Kennedy to President Bush. They served at a time when FAA was independent and at a time when it was part of the Department of Transportation, and every one of them said the FAA should be independent. Now, the present Secretary of Transportation does not support that concept, and I understand no sitting Secretary of Transportation ever wanted to see the FAA become an independent agency. Of course, if the FAA is out from under DOT, the Secretary loses it as the majority of the Department of Transportation's total work force. And that is another problem that has disturbed me very much in this past year and a half when the FAA took more like 70 percent of the personnel reductions that the Department of Transportation experienced. That is unfair and unreasonable. They should not have had that kind of reduction. Another concern that I have is in the rulemaking, particularly in the safety rulemaking side of the FAA's responsibility. And that I consider its primary responsibility. There are 15 signoffers on a rulemaking from the time it emanates from the office of certification until it becomes a rule, and more than half of that time spent in signoffs is the regulation marching its way through the Department of Transportation. Well, as Chairman Shuster said a moment ago, there will be personnel savings if the FAA is moved out from under the department. There will be efficiency savings. There will be ability for the FAA to move ahead more effectively, more dynamically on modernization of the air traffic control system. And I think the whole aviation community in the United States and worldwide will have a greater sense of appreciation and respect for this autonomous, independent agency. I use the word autonomous because the antidote for an independent FAA is a proposal to give the agency more flexibility or autonomy within the department. Friends, believe me, it will not happen. As long as the FAA is within the Department of Transportation, that agency, that department, is going to exert every measure of control that it can over the FAA, and doing business will simply be as it always has been. We need a change. We need dynamic, progressive, forward-looking change in personnel, in procurement, in management of the safety function of the FAA, and being the leader worldwide in aviation, and restoring to FAA a leadership role as an independent agency will put it back in charge. And that is what we achieve with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, over the last 20 minutes, Minnesota's dairy farms have seen half of their numbers cease operations. In my district half of the dairy farms closed their doors. That is 1,500 dairy farms. They were dairy farms. They used to be families. If the Solomon amendment becomes law, more Midwest dairy families will be driven off the land because the Solomon amendment will increase the price of Northeast milk, widen the disparity in regional milk prices, disadvantage Midwest dairy farmers, without real marketing reform. In our upper Midwest milk shed area, the average price dairy farmers were paid in 1994 was less than they were paid in 1980. The principle driving force behind that gaping price disparity and the loss of dairy farms in east-central Minnesota, in my district and elsewhere in my region, is the unfair, unbalanced, protectionist milk marketing order system. If you believe in a free market, get rid of the milk marketing orders. All you do is benefit some parts of the country and disadvantage others. The Gunderson plan in this bill is far from my ideal of real reform, but it is realistic, it is a workable step. We are moving in the right direction toward milk market order reform and consolidation. It moves the dairy sector toward a uniform national pricing system. The Solomon amendment is not reform, it is regional protectionism. We ought to vote it down.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I compliment our ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for the splendid job he continues to do as our voice on the Subcommittee on Water Resources. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, for their cooperative spirit as we worked our way through this legislation. Initially, as introduced, I was opposed to H.R. 2567. However, due to the willingness of the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], of the subcommittee, to work with us both in making substantive changes in the language of the bill and in committee report language to further clarify bill language, we have, I feel, addressed our concerns, certainly the concerns that we have had on this side of the aisle, and those that the administration had, and, as a result, I do not oppose its passage. I am not for it, but I do not oppose it. What really troubles me about where we are today and what we are doing today, is that for the second time in this Congress, our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is on the floor with a bill considering an item under corrections day procedure on an issue where there is either nothing or relatively little to correct or something that is in the process of being corrected by the administration. We are here considering a bill which would more appropriately and more properly be considered under one of the other calendars of the House, either the Union Calendar, where there would be general debate and an open amendment process or on the Suspension Calendar, where an individual Member would have more leverage to express their concerns and have those concerns addressed because the bill has to pass by, we know, two-thirds on the Suspension Calendar. I just viscerally oppose this corrections day process. In all of my 32-years' experience in the House, I think this is a very dangerous deviation from long-established process that protects interests that otherwise do not have an adequate voice. Now, I know corrections day was intended to address inappropriate laws or laws that people called dumb or regulations that are inappropriate or where there is a consensus that they ought to be corrected. Bills under this calendar were supposed to be narrow in scope, to address an immediate need that could not await reauthorization legislation. Well, that is the framework within which this corrections day was spelled out in the advisory to House Members last year. There is no reason this particular bill could not await the Clean Water Act reauthorization. In fact, a similar provision was included in H.R. 961. As we have already heard today, the bill is not noncontroversial. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], had very serious objections to it. The administration has expressed further reservations which they hope to have addressed when the bill reaches the Senate. If they are not addressed there, I suspect the administration would be opposed to the bill. Rather than making a limited technical amendment, the bill has far- reaching policy implications. Now, the worst of those, fortunately and wisely, and I think in a very timely fashion, was addressed by the majority in our process of negotiation, and, thank goodness, this bill came through this committee and not through some other committee where things are very contentious. We might have something very lopsided on the floor. I think we have a bill that has a reasoned approach to this problem. But, again, my objection is on the basis of process. There is no opportunity for amendment to this bill. There is no opportunity for votes on such amendments, and I think that we ought to have an issue of this magnitude considered under a process where it could be open to amendment. If there is going to be a continuation of this corrections day procedure, it ought to be limited much more narrowly than it has been in the two instances arising out of our committee and in the 10 other instances of other bills that have been considered so far in this Congress. I expressed concerns during our committee markup that the bill would allow States to forgo protection of human health and the environment in order instead to accommodate industrial, agricultural, and municipal interests who want to save money. Even in situations where it would be possible to strike a reasonable balance that would simultaneously accommodate multiple uses of a constructed water body and protect human health. I think we have to be sensitive, regardless of who owns this body of water, that all these waters eventually are in the public domain. There are many constructed water bodies that States have designated for uses both for irrigation, agriculture drainage, and for recreation, aquatic life, and for fisheries. Experience has shown us that we can use water bodies wisely, in a multiple-use way, for a wide range of purposes, for swimming, for example, and for irrigation, but also protect those individual multiple uses. We should not obstruct our ability to work in the normal legislative process to address these issues in the normal legislative way, open to amendment, open to broad and extensive debate and discussion, and to address, particularly in the environment, particularly in this area, of staying on course, to achieve the objective of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to make our waters fishable and swimmable. Mr. Speaker, corrections day was to address inappropriate or dumb laws or regulations about which there would be little controversy. Corrections bills are supposed to be ``narrow in scope'' and to ``address an immediate need which cannot await reauthorization * * * legislation.'' These are requirements spelled out by the Corrections Day Advisory Group in its letter to House Members last summer. There is no reason this bill could not await Clean Water Act reauthorization, especially in view of the fact that a similar provision was included in H.R. 961. Moreover, this bill is not noncontroversial, and is not limited to a specific problem. Rather than making a limited technical amendment, this bill has far-reaching policy implications. Prior to committee action I recommended amending H.R. 2567 to address only the particular irrigation issue which gave rise to the bill, but that suggestion was rejected by the majority. Instead, we have a bill of national application with no consideration of its national implications. Most disturbingly, there is no opportunity for amendment on this floor. Had this been brought to the floor as a freestanding bill on the Union Calendar, it would have been open to amendment. If it were brought on the Suspension Calendar, it would have been subject to a higher level of consideration, where a Member with concern over this issue could have insisted that his or her concerns be reflected in the final version of the bill considered on the floor. This bill should be considered either on the Suspension Calendar or in regular order, not on the Corrections Calendar. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a corrections day, let us limit it to true corrections, and not subvert the regular legislative process. This bill would allow States to not establish recreational, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses for certain constructed water conveyances in limited circumstances where these uses would give rise to an unreasonable burden. During markup of H.R. 2567 I expressed concerns that the bill could allow States to forego protection of human health and the environment in order to accommodate industrial, agricultural, and municipal interests in saving money, even in situations where it would be possible to strike a reasonable balance that simultaneously accommodates multiple uses of a constructed waterbody and protects human health. There are many constructed waterbodies that States have designated both for uses such as irrigation, agricultural drainage, and flood control and for recreation, aquatic life, and fish consumption. Experience has proven that we can use waterbodies for a range of purposes--for example swimming and irrigation--and simultaneously protect those multiple uses. This Congress must not obstruct our proven ability to strike a reasonable balance that both protects people who swim and fish in constructed waterbodies, and avoids unreasonable burdens on agricultural and municipal and industrial interests. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention two of the most important improvements made during committee consideration of H.R. 2567: First, under the bill as introduced, States were not required to establish water quality standards for recreation, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses if those uses would impede other authorized uses of the waterbody. I was vigorously opposed to this provision because it set a very low threshold for excusing the protection of recreation and other uses and thereby endangering human health. Where multiple uses, such as swimming and fishing and agriculture, can reasonably be accommodated, it would be a terrible precedent to allow for standards that fail to protect people who swim and fish in canals. The preferable approach would have been to modify the bill by eliminating the clause concerning interference with the intended purposes of the conveyance system. The committee amendment substituted the word ``interfere'' for the word ``impede.'' This change and the explanation in the legislative history indicate the committee's intent to establish a meaningful, substantive threshold. The committee amendment reflects the intent that States will be required to establish water quality standards for recreation, aquatic life, and fish consumption uses, unless doing so would create an appreciable interference that diminishes the ability of the conveyance to accomplish its intended purpose. As the chairman noted in the committee report, ``[g]enerally speaking interference caused by reasonable, affordable measures to accommodate multiple uses would not be expected to exceed the threshold.'' For example, measures that would not be expected to meet the threshold for modifying the requirement to establish water quality standards for recreational, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses include rice growers in California who have changed irrigation practices in order to capture, hold, and reuse irrigation water contaminated with herbicides. The new practices significantly reduce the amount of chemicals discharged to the Sacramento River, while reducing the amount of water used and, therefore, the cost of the water. Measures such as these would not be expected to justify a State's decision to not establish water quality standards for recreational, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses. The second amendment I would like to note narrows the breadth of the bill, by clarifying that it does not apply to conveyances constructed for navigational purposes. As introduced, H.R. 2567 applied to constructed conveyances regardless of their purpose. The bill reported by the Transportation Committee limits the application of the bill to those conveyances constructed for agricultural purposes or municipal and industrial water supply purposes. Although I believe that the bill should be narrower still, I believe that this modification is an important one. Under H.R. 2567 as reported by the Transportation Committee, if a constructed water conveyance was constructed for or serves more than one purpose, and navigation is one of those purposes, then that conveyance is not covered by the bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a few ways in which I believe H.R. 2567 does not alter current law under the Clean Water Act. The bill does not modify existing law relating to the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to approve or disapprove water quality standards. Nor does the bill authorize the downgrading of existing uses. Finally, the factors for consideration under subparagraph (C)(i) of the bill are in addition to, not in lieu of, those under current law at section 303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Speaker, with the changes offered by the chairman and adopted by the committee, and with the explanation of the bill in the committee report and as outlined above, I do not oppose passage of this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment to compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the legislation just passed which is now on its way to the White House and to a certain signature into law. Mr. Speaker, this completes a very long and very labored process of completing the economic deregulation of rail and of trucking transportation and of sunsetting the Nation's oldest regulatory body, the Interstate Commerce Commission. We were able to come to this resolution today because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is a committee that works because its members work together. When we work together, we accomplish good things for this country and for its economy. Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a good note on almost which to conclude this part of the session. There was a time in the past when Bob Michel and Tip O'Neill would join in singing songs as we approach the Christmas season. This body is not in a mood to do that. But at least we can say that on the Committee on transportation and Infrastructure, we are singing from the same page today, and for that I compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], who is chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, and the members on my side, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], on the splendid job of working together. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to discuss in greater detail the legislation we have just passed by unanimous consent. To get to this point we have undertaken long and difficult negotiations, which finally resulted in a successful resolution of many complex and controversial issues. The process worked. We labored, discussed, negotiated, compromised, and in the end came together on a product that we all can support. For the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this conference agreement is another testament to the fact we can do the best job for the Nation by working together on a bipartisan basis. I am particularly appreciative of the efforts of Chairman Shuster. He spent many hours dealing with the complex and technical issues involved in this legislation. He listened with an open mind to all parties, and showed his dedication to the overall public interest by developing a creative compromise which protected the basic interests of all parties, but did not give any party all that it wanted. Special recognition also goes to our Rail and Surface Subcommittees, including Rail Subcommittee Chairwoman Molinari and ranking Democratic member, Bob Wise; former ranking Democratic member, Bill Lipinski; Surface Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri; and ranking Democratic member, Nick Rahall. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the compromise we have reached, rail labor, rail management, shippers, motor and water carriers, and ICC reformers all support the conference report. In addition, with the compromise on rail labor protection, I expect that the President will sign the bill. This conference agreement includes many important provisions ensuring continuation of critical safety and economic regulation of motor carriers and railroads, and, as a result of the concurrent resolution we just passed, the conference report will treat railroad employees fairly. As amended by the resolution, the conference agreement will reflect the House provisions which were a fair compromise between the competing needs of management and labor. However, I wish to make it clear that I could not have supported the conference report without the amendment made by the concurrent resolution. The original conference agreement was highly unfair to rail employees. The original conference agreement represented a picking and choosing of provisions from the House-passed bill. There was a serious imbalance between the provisions selected and those that were dropped. The original conference agreement kept all the concessions labor made in the bill, but dropped the one benefit labor received in return; protection of collective bargaining agreements. Specifically in the House-passed bill, labor gave up a wide range of labor protection involving severance pay for employees who lose their jobs in mergers. The House bill reduced or eliminated severance pay in transactions involving line sales to noncarriers, line sales to class III carriers, line sales to class II carriers, mergers between class III carriers, and mergers between class II and class III mergers. The original conference agreement accepted these reductions in employee protection. Let me provide a few examples: Under current law if the Maryland Midland Railway Co.--a class III carrier, merges with Shenandoah Valley Railroad which is also a class III carrier, the railroad employees would receive 6 years of labor protection. Under the original conference agreement the employees would get no labor protection at all. That's a big concession on the part of labor, and one they agreed to only in return for protection of collective bargaining agreements. Another example, under current law if the Wisconsin Central Railroad--a class II carrier, acquired a line from the Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad, with 50 employees working on that line, those 50 displaced employees would receive 6 years of labor protection. Under the original conference agreement they would receive only 1 year of labor protection. Again, a significant concession on the part of labor. A final example, under current law if RailTex, a holding company of class III railroads, sets up a new noncarrier subsidiary and acquires a branch line from Conrail, it could be required to pay up to 6 years of labor protection to any displaced employees. Under the original conference agreement, those same employees would get no labor protection. I reiterate--no labor protection at all. Labor agreed to this and much more. In return, for these concessions what did railroad employees ask for and receive in the House bill? They received a right that every other American worker has--to bargain collectively with their employers and have those collective bargaining contracts upheld in court. But the original conference agreement didn't give them these rights. Instead, it gave the carrier applying for the merger the choice of whether to accept rights of employees under collective bargaining agreements or ask ICC to throw the agreements out. That was unacceptable. I simply could not support a bill which in essence took away the basic rights of employees to bargain collectively simply in an effort to make a merger move ahead a little faster or be a little more profitable at the expense of the employees. Overriding freely negotiated collective bargaining agreements has been a practice the ICC has used many times in order to effectuate a merger. The result of those actions has been detrimental to rail employees. For example: Employees of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad have negotiated a collective bargaining agreement which gives them priority to keep the jobs they now hold. To gain these job rights, the employees made substantial concessions to the company in other provisions of the agreement. Now following a merger between C&N and the Union Pacific, the ICC has been asked to set aside the collective bargaining agreement to enable UP to ignore the employees' collective bargaining rights and furlough 1,000 C&N employees or to move them to new lower paying jobs in other cities. Why should a Government agency be able to set aside job protection rights which were freely negotiated between management and labor? Another example--in the mid-1980's, Springfield Terminal Co., A class III railroad, took over two class II railroads, the Maine Central and the Boston & Maine Railroad. Both the Maine Central and the Boston & Maine Railroad employees were covered by national collective bargaining agreements which provided, in part, for seniority and safety training standards. Springfield Terminal's collective bargaining agreement had substandard seniority and no safety training standards. When the ICC approved the transaction, it replaced the national collective bargaining agreements, at management's request, with the substandard Springfield Terminal agreement. As a result, the seniority system was turned upside down and junior employees became senior employees. In addition, safety standards were compromised even to the point that a janitor became an untrained locomotive engineer. Some of the safety compromises even resulted in injuries and death. Had the original conference report been adopted without change these abuses would have proliferated. Under the original conference agreement, ICC would have continued to hold broad authority to override collective bargaining agreements. After the original conference agreement was filed we held extensive discussions with our Republican colleagues on the labor provisions. Yesterday we agreed to a modification of the conference agreement, which restored the entire House-passed provisions--both the concessions labor made and the benefits it received. The revised conference agreement has now been passed by both bodies. Under the revised conference agreement, railroad employees will receive the right that every other American worker has--to bargain collectively with their employers and have their collective bargaining contracts upheld in court. I am pleased that the revised conference agreement upholds fundamental rights of employees to bargain collectively. The revised conference agreement is fair to rail employees and I support it. Mr. Speaker, apart from labor issues, I am supportive of the conference report because it strikes a good balance between continued deregulation of the rail and motor industries, and the preservation of the safety and economic regulatory powers needed to protect shippers against abuses which will not be remedied by competition. The provisions in the conference report dealing with railroads, eliminate and modify many current railroad economic regulatory requirements. All remaining ICC rail oversight responsibilities are transferred to a new Surface Transportation Board at the Department of Transportation. The conference agreement repeals requirements that freight rail carriers file their rates with the Federal Government, repeals prohibitions against a rail carrier transporting commodities which it produces or owns, and repeals requirements that railroads obtain Federal regulatory approval to issue securities, or to assume certain financial liabilities with respect to other securities. At the same time, the conference report maintains some critical regulatory authority that both the rail industry and shippers agree is necessary. These include maximum rate standards which protect captive shippers from unreasonably high rates; requirements that a rail carrier provide transportation upon reasonable request--better known as the common carrier obligation; and requirements that rail carriers maintain, and make available to shippers, schedules of their rates, with the Federal Government retaining authority to review and order changes in these schedules to protect captive shippers. Additionally, to permit further deregulation in appropriate cases, the Board will have authority to exempt railroads or rail services from regulatory requirements. With regard to motor carriers, the conference report continues the deregulation that has progressed over the last 15 years by eliminating virtually all remaining tariff filings, deregulating significant portions of the household goods traffic, eliminating the possibility of future undercharge claims, and eliminating the Federal role in resolving routine commercial disputes. The bill retains key provisions of current law which establish uniform commercial rules such as billing practices and credit rules. The bill also enables small regional carriers to compete with national carriers by providing for limited grants of antitrust immunity for carriers who pool their traffic and develop standardized guides. In addition, the bill provides household-goods shippers with access to arbitration for disputed claims. This option will encourage equitable resolution of damage claims, eliminate Federal Government involvement in individual disputes, and minimize reliance on the courts. The bill also clarifies that carriers may limit their liability, provided that they give all terms and conditions to the shippers on request, and that carrier organizations may not discuss liability limits. I know that many shippers have serious concerns about this provision. That's why the conference report includes a 12-month study of loss and damage liability. We will monitor the effects and determine whether adjustments are necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the revised conference agreement is a balanced bill and a fair compromise. I urge the President to sign it promptly, sot that there will be no lapse in implementation of responsibilities now entrusted to the ICC.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met last night and our side testified at the meeting of the Committee on Rules, we asked for very few things. We asked that if points of order are going to be waived in this rule, that they be specified, that there be a specific reference to which points of order are to be waived in the interests of fairness and openness, and we asked that issues such as scope, germaneness, Budget Act problems, 3-day layover of conference reports issue be specified if there are going to be waivers of points of order. The rule comes out with no specificity whatever. It just waives all points of order. We also made a very modest request that if the Senate acted on a Senate concurrent resolution to restore the Whitfield amendment as a substitute for the language in the conference report dealing with labor protective provisions, that it be made in order for us to take up that Senate concurrent resolution. The Senate has not yet acted. It may not act on that concurrent resolution. But there is no provision in this rule as we requested. It was a modest request. I thought it was favorably received by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. But it is not included here as a mere courtesy to the Democrats. This conference report is not a simple matter. This is 164 pages of very technical language dealing with a complex subject in the sunsetting of the oldest regulatory body in the Federal Government structure dealing with a mode of transportation that, in the 19th century, was the life line of America and all the way up through until the end of World War II was the cornerstone of our national economy, the railroad industry. We are going to wipe it away. We have a bill with 164 pages of technical language. Points of order are simply waived. They do not say which ones. They do not give us the opportunity to bring up, should it be enacted, should it be passed by the Senate, the Senate concurrent resolution. I find this very, very curious. I find it unpalatable. I find it inappropriate. Nonetheless, I recognize that the other side has the votes. We will save our fight for the conference report.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 4, it was my great privilege and pleasure, on behalf of the Federal Bar Association's Transportation Section, to present the ``Lawyer of the Year Award'' to David A. Heymsfeld, Democratic Staff Director, for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I would like to take this opportunity simply to restate my remarks at that very special occasion: David Heymsfeld's exquisite legislative craftsmanship has defined and given direction to an entire generation of aviation law. His 20 years of service on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; his keen eye for detail; his zest for and command of the broad policy issues of aviation law; his respect for the opinions and concerns of others, and his exceptional ability to meld them into a cohesive whole have left an indelible, constructive imprint on the complete body of aviation law just prior to and since enactment of the watershed Aviation Deregulation Act of 1978. David has been plying his legislative craftsmanship for so long that Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena was probably still in law school when David joined our committee staff. David's immersion in aviation law began during his service at the Civil Aeronautics Board with the ``father'' of aviation deregulation, Chairman Alfred Kahn--but, I think it is fair to say that David has had a more enduring impact on aviation law than Chairman Kahn since then. His Senate staff counterparts, over the years, have gone on to other pursuits: Phil Bakes to Texas Air; Will Ris to American Airlines; and one, Steven Breyer, made it to the Supreme Court. Many of his colleagues in the field of aviation law have made important contributions over the years, but David Heymsfeld stands alone, astride the entire compendium of law and regulation in the field of aviation. Every day practitioners of the art and science of aviation law diligently analyze, report on, and make marketplace decisions based upon statutes and their accompanying reports that David Heymsfeld has crafted--and they will do so for generations to come. David's great gift is his openness, his willingness to work with all segments of the aviation sector, both public and private, and to work collaboratively with his colleagues in both the House and Senate on a truly open, bipartisan basis. Mr. Heymsfeld received his BA from Columbia College in 1959 and an LLD from Harvard Law School in 1962. It is now my great pleasure to present the award, which reads: ``Transportation Lawyer of the Year Award'' to David A. Heymsfeld, Minority Staff Director, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Monday, December 4, 1995. Congratulations, David, this is an honor richly deserved and truly earned.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 5, the House unanimously passed H.R. 308, a bill to transfer certain surplus Federal land in Hopewell Township, PA, to the Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development. The goal of the corporation, a nonprofit entity, is to utilize the transferred land, in cooperation with Hopewell Township, as the centerpiece of a Hopewell Aliquippa Airport Industrial Park, and thereby promote economic development and create needed jobs for the people of Hopewell Township. Mr. Speaker, as I stated during debate on this legislation, the Federal Government should be alert to opportunities like Hopewell that link property transfers to airports, industrial park opportunities and other core infrastructure facilities to create and promote jobs. The fact is that the only way to create job opportunities to succeed those that no longer exist because of industry closing or dislocations is to make property available for new business to locate there. The transfer of Federal property, when done effectively, can reap untold benefits in terms of employment, economic development, and economic stimulus. Such is the case with the U.S. Bureau of Mines' Twin Cities Research Center in Minneapolis, MN. The 225 outstanding and dedicated employees have provided world-class research capabilities for the mining industry for over 85 years. Their research has resulted in the development of advanced technologies that: First preserve and enhance the quality and integrity of the environment; second, mitigate health and safety in the work place; third, improve efficiencies and economics of current mining practice; and fourth, develop new and more environmentally-friendly mining systems. With the impending closure of the facility, the Twin Cities Research Center Transition Task Force has been developing a vision to transform the center into an applied engineering and physical sciences research institute. In order to accomplish their mission, the title of the land, buildings and equipment must be transferred at no cost to the State of Minnesota so that the new institute is able to lease the facility from the State to work in conjunction with the University of Minnesota. In this new arrangement, it may be necessary to transfer the equipment to the Natural Resources Research Institute in Duluth, sell some of the property, and/or manage the facilities in an innovative and cost- effective manner. This no-cost transfer of public property will preserve the research capabilities of the Bureau of Mines' Twin Cities Research Center, continue the University's partnership with the State, and create economic opportunities for Minnesotans and the mining industry. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated, this property transfer is important. That is why in the report accompanying H.R. 308 (House Report 104-372, p. 2) language is included directing the General Services Administration to expedite negotiations to transfer the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center, in Minneapolis to be used in conjunction with the University of Minnesota. I am pleased with the inclusion of this language and look forward to the transfer.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, and compliment him, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], for the splendid work they have done on this whole series of legislation we bring to the House floor this afternoon. They are important bills and in a cooperative fashion, they bring to the House very sound legislation, including this particular bill to transfer surplus property in Hopewell Township, to an organization known as the Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development. Mr. Speaker, the significance of this action is that this will provide an opportunity to create jobs, jobs in Beaver County, an area that I have traveled to in the past and know quite well, having seen the unemployment, the severe dislocation in this area of the steel valley, the whole steel county to which my district in northeastern Minnesota is tied. We produce the taconite, or steel ore, to produce this basic building block of [[Page H 13950]] American industry, steel. But as steel has suffered dislocation over the last decade and a half, so have the people and the communities and the townships. The only way to create job opportunities to succeed those that have passed from the scene because of the downsizing of steel is to make property available for new businesses to locate there. This legislation will achieve that objective by requiring the General Services Administration to transfer this land at no cost to the Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development. The corporation, in cooperation with Hopewell Township, will use this property as the centerpiece for the Hopewell Aliquippa Airport and Industrial Park to promote economic development and create jobs. Mr. Speaker, wherever we can, we should be alert to opportunities to link property transfer to airports, to industrial park opportunities to create jobs. We have seen the enormous engine of growth that airports represent for job creation in this country. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] for the time that he has put in with Hopewell Township and with the Beaver County Economic Development Corporation. I know, from 15 years ago, what a splendid organization this is. It is a high-minded, hard-working, public-private cooperation initiative that has worked together to create jobs in this distressed area. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy we are able to bring this legislation to fruition today, and I thank the gentleman for his work and thank the ranking member for his leadership.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues in supporting this legislation and compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for leading the way on this legislation to honor Judge James Lawrence King, who has so ably presided over the Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge King was a native of Florida; graduate of the University of Florida; got his law degree from that institution; served in the U.S. Air Force; served in private law practice, and in 1964 was appointed a circuit judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida. He continued a very distinguished legal career, in 1984, becoming chief judge, and then took senior status in 1991. The Judge is still working a full caseload, as is so characteristic of most of our senior judges, that is those who take senior status, they continue to show up for work every day in their office and decide on important cases. In this particular instance, we are giving fitting tribute to a distinguished jurist who deserves this honor for his vision, for his stewardship, and for the lasting contribution that he has made to the body of law in this country, and particularly in some of the very, very complex cases that he handled in the 11th District. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly pleased to join my colleagues, Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Meek of Florida in supporting H.R. 255, a bill to honor Judge James Lawrence King of the Southern District of Florida. Judge King, a native Floridian, graduated from the University of Florida and in 1953 received his law degree from that institution. From 1953 to 1955 he served his country with distinction as a lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. After several years in private law practice, Judge King was appointed in 1964 Circuit Judge to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. He was appointed to the Federal bench in 1970 and continued his distinguished legal career. In 1984 he became the Chief Judge, and when his term expired in 1991 Judge King took senior status. Today, he still retains a full caseload. Judge James Lawrence King has exhibited outstanding leadership and dedication to his profession. It is fitting and proper to honor [[Page H 13952]] Judge King for his vision and effective stewardship by designating the Federal Justice Building in Miami in his honor. I urge adoption of H.R. 255.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the senior Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for the work that he has done on this legislation, chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and our colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], who has been a sponsor of this legislation. As with other bills that we are considering this afternoon, this, too, was reported from our committee in the last Congress, passed the House and languished in the other body. We are happy to have this opportunity to bring forward this legislation. It honors a very distinguished jurist who so served the State and the national judicial system that he has won widespread support and the naming has won endorsement from virtually every organization with interest in the law in the State of Nevada. And the Nevada State legislature passed a resolution endorsing the naming of the Federal courthouse in Reno to honor Judge Thompson. With that kind of support, we ought to move ahead. It is fitting. It is proper. It is appropriate for us to take this step. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 395, honoring Judge Bruce R. Thompson, who has enjoyed a full and distinguished judicial career. Judge Thompson graduated from the University of Nevada and received his law degree from Stanford Law School. He practiced law for 27 years, when he served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada from 1942 to 1952, and as special master for the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada from 1952 to 1953. Judge Thompson was also president of the Nevada State Bar Association from 1955 to 1956. Following a term as regent to the State Planning Board in 1959, he served as its chairman from 1960 to 1961. In 1963, he was appointed U.S. District Judge by President John F. Kennedy, and as a jurist, has earned the respect of his colleagues. H.R. 395 has received widespread support and the endorsement of virtually every legal organization in the State of Nevada. The Nevada State legislature has passed a resolution endorsing the naming of the Federal courthouse in Reno in honor of Judge Thompson. It is fitting and proper to recognize the career of Judge Thompson in this manner. I join the Nevada delegation in their support of H.R. 395, and commend Congresswoman Vucanovich for her leadership on this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for yielding this time to me, and I also thank our chairman, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, it was my great privilege and pleasure to serve with Walter Jones on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. We served in Congress together on that committee, worked together on a lot of issues. But what struck me was first of all he succeeded Herb Bonner, who was chairman of that committee and then in his own right became chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. It is very unusual for one State, let alone one district, to have a succession of chairmanship of one particular committee. But Walter Jones served in that capacity in a very unassuming, very affable, very warm, but also very knowledgeable manner, with a quiet, unsuspecting country humor. He would often break the tension in a very hotly contested markup over some very difficult and hotly contested issues with just a bit of folk wisdom, or country humor, or an observation that would devastate one side or the other. He had that remarkable knack, that personality that just fitted the occasion, and he did not have to say much, and he usually did not, but what he said was compelling, and whether, as I said earlier, it was humor, or whether it was a bit of folk wisdom to enlighten a point, or whether it was to hurry a vote; when he called a vote, he said all those in favor say aye, aye, and everyone else jumped in, and, before they knew it, the bill was passed. Mr. Speaker, maybe some of them wanted it passed or not, but they followed his leadership, and his wisdom, and his care about America's merchant marine, about our Coast Guard, about our marine environment, about endangered species, and that committee had jurisdiction over the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and he saw to it that that jurisdiction was carried out and that America's concern for our Marine Mammal Protection Act and for the endangered species of the great oceans of this country was carried out appropriately. Mr. Speaker, for us to name a building in his honor is a very small, but deserved, honor, one that we can and that we should pay. The greater tribute to Walter Jones is the legacy of legislation that he left. But more importantly, the care that he had for the people he represented; he loved them and spoke of them often, and he represented them with great honor and dignity, and his legacy will carry on in the name that we give to this building in his honor. Mr. Speaker, this honor is long overdue. Walter Jones' career spanned over four decades beginning in 1949 with his election as the mayor of Farmville, NC, then in 1955 to the North Carolina State Assembly, in 1965 to the State senate and finally in 1966 to the U.S. House of Representatives. From his days in Congress, Mr. Jones worked hard and long for his constituents. He became a tireless advocate for the American worker and the American farmer. He was reelected to eleven successive Congresses, serving in the United States House of Representatives from February 5, 1966, until his death in 1992. He was a Member of the House Agriculture Committee and served as chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee from the 97th through the 100th Congresses. As chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Walter Jones committed himself to ensuring the United States maintained a viable merchant marine fleet and maritime industry. His stewardship of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee was recognized for its fairness and openness. I had the pleasure of serving under Chairman Jones on the Merchant Marine Committee. He was not only known for his dedication, hard work, humility and humanity, but he also had a quiet way about him that oftentimes brought great results. Walter B. Jones was one of the most respected and accomplished Members ever to [[Page H 13956]] serve in the House of Representatives, and H.R. 840 is a fitting and appropriate tribute to his honor. I urge passage of H.R. 840.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the ranking member on the subcommittee, and the chairman, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], for bringing forth this bill. This is certainly a case of a tribute long delayed and an honor bestowed in a manner that certainly is appropriate. When a man is so great that the people of a community a century later ask that he be memorialized in a particular way, then certainly the Congress ought to respond to that appeal as we are doing today by naming the Federal building at Fort Smith, AR, in honor of Judge Parker, whose great career, whose remarkable career has been spelled out by Chairman Gilchrest. I urge support of the legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the leader on our side, for persisting on this legislation and bringing it forward once again. It passed the House in the last Congress and again did not muster support in the Senate. I appreciate the role that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has played in assuring that we again consider this legislation and bring it to the floor and I appreciate his support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is appropriate to honor Judge Lambros, who played a role in a very important area of law that often is poorly understood and overlooked, and that is the voluntary public defender program that provides free counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Judge Lambros was responsible for reforms in this area of the law that are very significant, and he laid the groundwork for, but his work preceded the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gideon versus Wainwright that guaranteed free counsel to indigent criminal defendants. It is often difficult for us to understand and to take up the cause of those who are indigent and who have committed a crime, but nonetheless they deserve in our legal system legal counsel. For a judge who provided that kind of distinguished leadership in an often neglected and poorly understood area of the law, it is appropriate to honor Judge Lambros by naming a Federal building and courthouse in his honor. He is a good friend of the Democratic leader on the subcommittee, Mr. Traficant, who has been an advocate for this cause, and I compliment the gentleman, and I know that today we will again pass this legislation so justly deserved.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], our senior Democrat on the subcommittee, for bringing forth this legislation, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for his support of the legislation to honor Ron Mazzoli. Mr. Speaker, I came to know Ron Mazzoli, a very distinguished and special man, when I served on the staff of the Committee on Public Works and on the staff of my predecessor, John Blatnik, when I was administrative assistant and who took Mr. Mazzoli under his wing when Ron was first elected and counseled him in his early days serving in the Congress. I think what the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] said of Ron Mazzoli epitomizes his service in the Congress; Honor, integrity, respect for the institution, a person who approached each issue on the basis of the merits of the case. He studied every issue that he was about to vote on the House floor, often agonized over votes where there was a conflict, at least ideologically, between a national issue and the views of his constituency. He always made sure that the vote he cast was the right vote, not just for his district, but also for the national interests. He left a great example that all of us could well follow. Clearly, his great legacy will be that in the field of immigration. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act that shapes the current body of immigration laws is one that scholars, attorneys, and Federal agency administrators will pour over for years to come. It was his great legacy, along with many other issues that were listed by our chairman. For me, this is a very personal matter. Ron was a graduate of Notre Dame. I am very proud of his education at Notre Dame. When my son graduated from high school, Notre Dame was at the top of his list of universities that he wanted to attend, and he was a little uncertain about Notre Dame and I arranged for Ron to visit with him. It was Ron's encouragement, painting a picture of the quality of education, but especially the values. Whether you agree with Notre Dame on football or basketball or any other sports activity, on the matter of values I think there can be no question of the standard set by Notre Dame. It was that that persuaded Ted, and he entered Notre Dame on a scholarship, graduated with distinction, is now pursuing a master's degree in theology, and with very fond and very warm memories of Ron Mazzoli. I mention that because so often I saw him take time with young people to talk to them about education, about career, and about values, and about what is important in life. That we name a Federal building in his honor is a tribute to his service to this country and to his care and concern for what this institution is all about, the people we represent. No one served them better than Ron Mazzoli.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, again we bring to the floor a bill that passed this body in the 103d Congress but did not make it through the other body. I am very appreciative of the efforts of our chairman, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and our senior Democrat, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for bringing forward this bill to honor Judge Thurgood Marshall. No one, no one deserves our respect and appreciation for the work in civil rights more than Justice Marshall. His leadership, going back to the famed Board of Education case, all through his service on the Supreme Court, is one of the high points, one of the storied chapters in American jurisprudence. He is a man, if we are going to name a building for anyone, a Federal courthouse for any person associated with the law in this country, we should do it for Justice Thurgood Marshall. We do that today. I hope the other body will act promptly and decisively on this legislation. It is appropriate that we have a landmark, that there be many in this land to honor Justice Thurgood Marshall. At the beginning of the 103d Congress a bill was passed to name the Judiciary Building here on Capitol hill after Judge Marshall. H.R. 653 would further acknowledge the contributions of Judge Marshall by designating the U.S. courthouse in White Plains, NY, the ``Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.'' He exemplified the highest ideals of fairness and equality and his struggle against the evils of intolerance and bigotry spanned over five decades. Upon graduation from Howard University School of Law, Justice Marshall embarked on a legal career with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP]. In 1940, he became the head of the newly formed NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, a post that he held for 20 years. It was during this tenure as chief counsel that Justice Marshall organized efforts to end segregation in voting, housing, public accommodations, and education. These efforts led to a series of cases grouped under the title of Brown versus Board of Education, in which Marshall argued and convinced the Supreme Court to declare segregation in public schools unconstitutional. In 1961, Marshall was appointed to the second circuit court of appeals by President John F. Kennedy. Four years after he received appointment to the appeals court, President Lyndon B. Johnson chose Justice Marshall to be the Nation's first black solicitor general. Two years later, on June 13, 1967, President Johnson chose Marshall to become the first black Justice of the Supreme Court where he served with distinction until his retirement in 1991. He died in 1993. This bill enjoys broad, bipartisan support from the New York delegation as well as the Westchester County Board of Legislators, the Common Council of White Plains, the White Plains-Greenburgh NAACP, the African-American Federation of Westchester, and the Westchester County Bar Association. It is fitting to name a courthouse in honor of this great American who believed in equal jsutice for all Americans, and devoted his life to obtaining the values which we all hold dear. I am proud and honored to support this legislation, and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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