James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but observe the wry comment by our colleague from Pennsylvania about a kind of role reversal going on here. I might say to the gentleman, it is refreshing to see the gentleman come down to the well and lower his voice and speak with a smile, in contrast to a style, a very different style in previous Congresses. Adoption of this rule will let us make it very clear, eliminate the Department of Commerce, a proposition concocted in the dead of night by the Republican majority leadership, takes a Department of Commerce crafted by a Republican administration in earlier years, creating one- stop shopping for all American businesses, combining economic development, trade and technology in a way to promote growth in our economy and job creation, and scatter this all to the winds in a disjointed shuffled jumble of unrelated functions and proliferation of agencies that are now combined under the umbrella of the Department of Commerce. If the Republican leadership were serious about this proposal, they would not join it in this fashion with time spooned out in limited debate; they would bring it to the floor under an open rule subject to amendment and subject to adequate debate before the American public and air the issue, its merits, its demerits. But no, they want to hide this thing under their bushel and bring it here to the floor and abolish programs like the Economic Development Administration, which has survived numbers of administrations, numbers of attempts to abolish EDA, and on a bipartisan basis, by three- and four-to-one votes in this Chamber. EDA has been preserved because this is a program that creates jobs, that returns more in tax dollars every year than all of the money that has been invested in EDA over its entire period of time. Even in this Congress on a bipartisan basis, an amendment during the appropriation bill consideration on this floor, the proposal to eliminate EDA, the amendment to abolish EDA, was defeated on an overwhelming vote of 310 to 115. It had the support of a majority of Democrats, a majority of the Republicans, and a majority of the Republican freshman class. Why would we want to in this cavalier fashion abolish a department of government without adequate discussion and debate? We ought to stop the partisan politics. If we are serious about the Department of Commerce issue, bring it up fairly. Take the bushel off the issue. Let it be debated in the sunlight of open discussion and floor debate and open amendment process. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stokes- Boehlert motion to instruct conferees. The restrictions and riders in this legislation would allow backdoor repeal of protection from raw sewage overflows, would reduce protection of wetlands, would stop many State clean water programs in the tracks. That is now what the American people want or expect. Every Member who voted to rid this bill of the riders has put himself or herself on record as opposed to backdoor, closed-door, back-room efforts to roll back environmental protection. The vote to delete the riders was reversed at a time when many Members were absent, many of the Members who would have voted to keep the bill clean of those riders, and even then the reversal came only on a tie vote. So if you voted right last time, you need to vote right this time, and this time let us do what is right for the American people, what is right for the environment, what is right for future generations. Let us vote to rid this bill of the waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks that are included in these riders.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is the good fortune of our colleagues and the American people that talented professionals from throughout the United States seek to serve in the national interest as staff members in the House of Representatives. One of this company, Paul Schoellhamer, has served this institution for more than a dozen years, and we have had better public policies, I believe, for his tireless efforts most recently as Democratic chief of staff for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In this Congress, Paul has had the thankless job of reducing the most impressive committee staff in the House by 60 percent. But in so doing Paul and the just-retired ranking Democratic Member, Norm Mineta, succeeded in creating the most versatile and experienced body of professionals to help do the work of protecting the Nation's transportation and environmental investments. For this job alone, he has the respect and appreciation of this Member. Mr. Speaker, I would like our colleagues to know something more about Paul, who is a native Californian. He is the son of Alicia and Jack Schoellhamer. Norm Mineta, in tribute 5 years ago to Paul's late mother, said that she was ``loved throughout her community, for her tireless charitable work and her devotion to bettering the lives of those around her, especially those in greatest need.'' Of Paul's father, Norm noted his many years of service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Paul is clearly, in the work and in the friendship I've known with him, the son of his parents. Paul received his bachelor's degree from the University of Santa Cruz and not all that many years later found his way to Norm Mineta's personal office in 1975, volunteering as an intern. Norm soon found his work indispensable, put him on his paid staff, and within 2 years assigned him to the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Over the years, Paul built a substantive expertise throughout our committee's jurisdiction--first, on the Public Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee; next, on the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee; and last, on the Aviation Subcommittee until 1985, when he became a vice president of Republic Airlines. After a few more years in the private sector, we were able to lure him back to the House as chief of staff for the Public Works and Transportation Committee in one of our most productive Congresses on record--and I say that having myself been committee administrator for Chairman John Blatnik of Minnesota prior to my election to the House in 1974. In 1993 alone, in his first year as chief of staff at the beginning of a new Congress, here's a sampling of the legislative product Paul helped our colleagues produce: law H.R. 904, to create the Airline Commission, which investigated the condition of the Nation's airlines. H.R. 2121, legislation to resolve the costly and contentious ``negotiated rates'' problem affecting the trucking and shipping industries. H.R. 3445, legislation assisting victims of the 1993 Midwest floods. passed by the house H.R. 5, striker replacement legislation, which would guarantee that striking employees could return to their jobs. H.R. 2739, The Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act, a three-year program to improve airports and airways. H.R. 3276, technical corrections to the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. H.R. 2440, reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board for three years. H.R. 881, legislation banning smoking in Federal buildings, with very limited provisions for designated smoking areas. passed by the committee H.R. 1865, legislation to create a Federal program to construct water supply systems. H.R. 2442, to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, including provisions to assist communities adversely affected by military base closings. Mr. Speaker, Paul is now joining our former colleague, Norm Mineta, at Lockheed Martin's transportation systems and services division. I know that Paul's skills in the private sector will parallel those he polished in our company, both professionally and personally. Our loss here in the House is considerable, but we are far better for having had him with us for so many years. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife, and their children well in their new adventure.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, under the amendment, there are separate requirements. There is a requirement for separate regulations for edible and nonedible oils under any Federal law. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from North Carolina: What laws have been researched to determine the application of this language? Could the gentleman tell us which laws specifically are affected?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, it is not the differentiation that concerns me. It is to be clear about the scope of impact of this legislation. I would suggest that when the gentleman asks unanimous consent for leave for Members to submit additional comments for the Record, that he or the committee chairman submit for the Record the list of those laws that will be affected by this legislation so that the public, in evaluating, and other Members, in evaluating this legislation would know which laws specifically are affected by that very broad language.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I think that would be very important and very useful. When the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, considered this legislation, we considered specific laws. The bill before us is a broad sweep and says all laws. It just sort of cast a wide net out upon the waters and said anything that we did not think of specifically, we just cast this language out. That is, I suggest, not very appropriate legislation, it is not very carefully crafted legislation, and it is again a reason for being concerned with this process. I am a very strong believer in processes protecting rights of individuals and rights of the Members of this body, protecting rights of various interests and the broad public interest, and I think this process here is truly a disservice to that process.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, the issue again, I state very clearly, is not differentiation. The issue I am raising here is what are the laws under which differentiation is to take place. There is no listing. There is a broad, sweeping grant of authority, and that is the matter that concerns me. Yes, there should be a differentiation. But under which laws? How broadly? How narrowly? How specifically is this language to be drawn? How specifically is it to be targeted? As my colleagues know, we did that in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We were very careful about it. This bill is just a broad, sweeping generalization. I do not think it is appropriate to do that. We must be more specific about the laws that are going to be affected. Now, as to the matter of differentiation, that is a matter of substantive debate, and we could have a discussion on whether the edible oil industry is appropriate in their concern that the oil they produce should not be considered in the same breath with the toxic effects of certain petroleums or petroleum derivatives, and that is an entirely different matter. But, as I said in my opening remarks, we have had our own experience in Minnesota where with the soybean oil spill there were toxic effects. Nontoxic substances in high amounts can have toxic effects. They ought to be considered separately and appropriately. In addition, just because one industry or one sector says we do not want to be included with everybody else that has toxic oils, and ours are not from one standpoint, is no reason to bring a special bill to the House floor for a special purpose. We had the opportunity to consider this issue when the House took up the Clean Water Act. The degree of specificity provided in that legislation, in both the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act, where relief was provided, did not raise any kind of debate, did not ask for any kind of consideration, and I do not think it is appropriate, and that is the basis of my objection. The matter of differentiation, simply because it has taken a long time for the appropriate agency of Government to issue regulations under previously existing laws, is no reason to bring a special bill to the House floor. It is difficult, going back to the gentleman's point about differentiation, it is difficult to know whether such differentiation is appropriate when we do not know specifically in this bill the laws to which that differentiation should be applied.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I just say that when language in a bill says any Federal law, it is incumbent upon the author of such language to be specific, to say what those laws are. I do not think that we should ask the public to accept something so broad and sweeping they have no idea of what its implications and what its applications are. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that for all the hoopla over Corrections Day created by the majority, that in 10 months we have considered San Diego sewage and edible oils, one of which is being resolved by the Environmental Protection Agency on its own, and the other of which is being resolved by the Department of Transportation, and regulations that agency has issued, which is part of two other bills which have passed the House. This is a large waste of the body's time and a process that is inappropriate for the consideration of such subjects. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman that the process has worked as far as the substance of the gentleman's issue is concerned. This body has acted in last Congress and this Congress. It is the other body that has not acted. I suggest the gentleman direct his anger to the other body.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is not my question. I did not ask how many committees. I asked how many laws. The gentleman does not have a catalogue of laws affected by this provision?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I understand that. But what I am trying to get at is the scope of this provision. I think it should be clear on the record what it is, which laws are being affected by this process we are engaged in here.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I submit there are more laws that would be affected by this provision. The oil pollution law, for example, has two applications to the Clean Water Act and to the transportation of oils. So we are talking about the Coast Guard. We are talking about rail. We are talking about pipeline transportation. Is that what the gentleman has in mind?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have just seen in my reservation how flawed this process is even as a process, and I object to it more as process than substance, although the substance is also of concern and I will address that in a moment. The suspension calendar is truly the more appropriate means of addressing noncontroversial issues on which there is a general agreement, in fact an overwhelming consensus. But this process of corrections day is just fraught with danger and fraught with opportunity for special interests. It was conceived as a means of correcting regulations that had become too burdensome or making adjustments in law that, relatively minor in their application, have become too burdensome. Process-wise, it was also intended to protect the rights of the committee system. But the way it has worked out, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is the committee of primary jurisdiction, it is our committee that has handled the Clean Water Act, it is our committee that has twice reported this language in two different bills, in slightly different form but twice reported to this House and it has passed this House. But in the rush to deal with an issue that on its face is relatively noncontroversial, the majority has bypassed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, causing it to waive its referral rights, and proceed to get a bill to the floor to justify this process. If a special interest has a problem, they have an interest, all they need to do is get someone in the majority to pay attention to them, craft a bill, get it introduced, maybe drag along one from our side, and then ram it through in this process. There is no urgency to this legislation to justify the trampling of the legislative process as we have seen it. We dealt with this issue appropriately in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in the Clean Water Act amendments that we passed earlier this year. We addressed it later in the Coast Guard authorization bill, which was an appropriate place. Again it went to this body and again the issue passed. The regulations DOT issued which caused the concern, caused that language to be included in two bills, have been withdrawn. Why do we have to have a bill on the House floor under this extraordinary procedure to address the issue that is frankly not much of an issue? The substance of the issue is within the ambit of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. That bill defined oil as including oil of any kind or form. At the time we debated that legislation in committee and on the floor, it was clearly understood that the definition would include vegetable oils and animal fats. In the course of implementation of the Oil Pollution Act, there has been an increasing desire on the part of a number of interests to have edible oils treated differently from oils that are derived from petroleum. The snack food industry in particular has been very interested in this issue and been very vocal on this issue. Edible oils, to be sure, do not pose the same toxic threat to the environment as petroleum oils do, but they are not without harm to the environment. Edible oils may be the same type as you put on a salad, but a spill of 10,000 gallons or more can be very toxic to birds, to aquatic animals. We need look only to the mid-1960's in my own State of Minnesota when a soybean containment tank burst at very, very low temperatures, subzero temperatures, 30, 40 below zero. The soybean oil spilled out into the Minnesota River, where it could not be reclaimed at those very low temperatures in mid-February. It remained there until the spring when the migratory waterfowl, notably ducks, got into it and got fouled and we lost tens of thousands of migratory birds. Edible oils are high in biological oxygen demand. They can and in this case did result in fish kill. They resulted in bird kills. They are appropriate, therefore, edible oils, for regulation with respect to their effect upon or potential effect upon the environment. That is why the legislation that we passed in the House addressed this issue, to keep a containment process, to keep the management of edible oils within the ambit of government regulation, not exclude them, but to treat them with the proper concern and respect that ought to be considered. There is one shortcoming. If you are going to do this process, then you really ought to be fair to all industries, and there is the issue of silicone fluids. The bill that we are considering today applies to all laws but does not include silicone fluids. In the course of discussion of this issue in our committee deliberations, we included silicone fluids. That leveled the playing field. But the present bill does not include silicone fluids. Again, the process, had this been brought to the floor as a freestanding bill on the Union Calendar, 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. [[Page H 9752]] That is, both on process and on substance, sort of the essence of the concern that I have. I will address further concerns later. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that the only Federal law? It says ``any Federal law.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the concern that I have is that this procedure violates the rules of Corrections Day. Under the rules, the bill called up, ``shall not be subject to amendment, except those amendments recommended by the primary committee of jurisdiction, or those offered by the Chairman of the primary committee,'' and it does not say, or his designee.

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