James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in these days when we hear too many voices ask ``What's in it for me?'' It is always refreshing to hear of those who freely donate their time and efforts for the good of their fellow citizens--in other words, volunteers. Volunteers can be found in every community. They are both male and female, of all races and faiths. They come from all walks of life and from all economic strata, and they range in age from elementary students to senior citizens. However, these volunteers all have one attribute in common: they ask for no compensation other than the good feeling they got from helping their fellow citizens. One such volunteer is Joseph Peterson, of Carlton, MN in my congressional district. Mr. Peterson is an amateur scholar in American history, particularly in the history of the Presidency. He is an amateur in the root sense of the word: he is a true lover of his chosen field of study. Like all volunteers, Mr. Peterson does not hide his light under a bushel. He happily shares his knowledge of our Government and our Presidents with schools, churches, social groups, and libraries in Carlton County and throughout Minnesota. A democratic society relies on an educated electorate, and Joseph Peterson is one man in one American community who is doing what he can to inform, educate, and stimulate interest in our democratic process. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to share with you and my colleagues a newspaper article about Mr. Peterson from the Cloquet Journal and a sampling of the letters I have received recognizing his activities in the community. I'm sure you will join me in recognizing the importance of this volunteer's contribution to our society. [From the Cloquet Minnesota Journal] Presidential Buff Continues Hobby (By Wendy Rockvam) February is the month the nation traditionally honors its presidents. For one Cloquet resident, however, Presidents' Day is a year-round observance. Joe Peterson, a presidential history buff whose pursuits have taken him to President Bush's State of the Union Address and President Clinton's Inauguration, has been interested in the lives of the presidents since he was in second grade. During that year, President Kennedy was assassinated, and Peterson put together a detailed report on it for his class at school. His teacher gave his efforts high praise, and thus began a lifetime interest in the presidential office and those who have held it. Peterson's hobby has involved an extensive amount of reading and study as well as a vast amount of correspondence. He has received Christmas cards, birthday cards, and autographed photos of several presidents, and he is constantly on the lookout for presidential memorabilia of all sorts. Peterson said he tries to view presidents as people rather than political figures and finds them all fascinating in their own respect. His personal favorites are Pierce (``He kept the same cabinet for all four years of his presidency'') and Polk (``He was the only Speaker of the House to go on to become President''). He is also a collector of presidential trivia. ``For example,'' he asked ``did you know that there are only three states--Ohio, Nebraska, and Hawaii--that actually recognize all the presidents on President's Day? All the others honor only Washington and Lincoln.'' ``Another thing I've uncovered that most people don't know,'' he said, ``is the fact that no left-handed president has ever been re-elected to office. President Clinton, by the way, is left handed. . . .''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Morella substitute and in support of the Smith amendment and to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], on his sustained, vigorous and forthright leadership on the issue of opposition to abortions performed with U.S. funds overseas. He has been vigilant on this issue and has led the way on the committee and in the House year after year. Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow U.S. funds to be used for population control programs in other countries where abortion is the means of population control. it is just that simple. If we do not support such policies at home, and we do not-- consistently under the Hyde language year after year we have opposed the funding of abortions with U.S. taxpayer dollars here at home--we should not be promoting such practices or allowing such practices to take place overseas. An unborn human being is still a human being whether American, or Chinese, or African, or wherever in the world. Clearly the language offered by our colleague from Maryland would open the way for funds to be moved from one account to another, would make, as the technicians say, those monies fungible [[Page H5495]] to be used for abortion support activities in other countries, and particularly in China. The language in the bill is insufficient to prevent the use of Federal funds for abortions overseas. The Smith amendment will tighten that language up, will make it very clear that no U.S. funding to any private, nongovernmental or multilateral organization that directly or indirectly provides funding for or performs abortions in a foreign country can be supported with U.S. taxpayer dollars in our foreign aid program. That principle should be maintained, should be set forth very clearly in law, and the Smith amendment will do so. Support the Smith amendment. Defeat the Morella amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and compliment our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for the leadership he has demonstrated so vigorously and intensively on behalf of clean water and particularly, in the case, on the wetlands issue. Mr. Chairman, our Nation was rich in wetlands when the settlement of America began. But civilization took its harsh toll: agriculture, highways, railroads, cities, suburbs, exurbs, flood control, destroying the wetlands along our Nation's major riverways and our coastal waterways. All in the interest of progress and without concern for an understanding of the enormous power and strength of the wetlands as a filtering device, preventing sediment from getting into the streams, preventing pollution from getting into our major waterways, estuaries, and lakes. By the time I was elected to Congress in the mid-1970's, the lower 48 States had been diminished in wetlands by half. Our migratory waterfowl have declined in numbers over the years, and few are here in the Chamber today who can remember, but all of us surely should have studied the dust bowl days of the 1930's caused, not by drying up of the rains, but by man's thoughtless and senseless use and overuse of the land, draining the wetland-rich prairie pothole region of America's midsection. One-third of our endangered and threatened species are sheltered by wetlands. Coastal wetlands are the nursery and spawning grounds for half to 90 percent of the Nation's fish catch. Wetlands protect against floods. They recharge our groundwater. They filter pollution. They store water for recycling. They are a buffer against erosion. We used to call them swamps and bogs and worse and drained them, dredged them and filled them in, then dug them up to grow crops on them and put housing on them and pave them over. We cannot do that any longer. We are today at the point where I am reminded of the commons of medieval England where herdsmen were accustomed to bringing as many of their sheep as possible to graze on the commons pasture. They overgrazed and overused it and war and disease reduced the commons to a place of filth and destruction, and the carrying capacity declined, and so did the commonality of civilization until the people realized that they needed to restore the commons and build it back. The tragedy of the commons is a story about mankind's determination to populate the planet to death and develop it to death. One farmer can benefit by putting one more sheep on the commons even though each time they do so they degrade it. That is what we are doing to the wetlands, putting more and more pressure on them, degrading and destroying these irreplaceable storehouses of water. Let us work together to learn the lesson of the commons and let it not be the epitaph for our generation that we permitted the destruction of our commons, the nation's wetlands. Please support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 1392, the Federal Aviation Administration Reform Act of 1995, introduced by our colleague, Jim Lightfoot. Congressman Lightfoot's bill makes important reforms which will enhance FAA's ability to carry out its responsibilities, while preserving FAA's basic structure which has enabled the agency to become the world's finest. Although I have reservations about some provisions in the Lightfoot bill, overall it is a major contribution to our effort to reform the FAA. I strongly support the provisions in H.R. 1392 which would take FAA out of the Department of Transportation and make FAA an independent agency. This reform has been supported by 10 of the 11 living former Administrators of FAA. The strong support of the former Administrators should be given great weight, in view of their distinguished careers in the military and private sector, and the fact that they served our a period of more than 30 years, under Presidents of both parties, from John F. Kennedy to George Bush. As the former Administrators have pointed out, FAA's responsibilities to develop the aviation infrastructure and to ensure aviation safety and security are basically technical in nature. FAA's skilled professionals are well equipped to carry out these responsibilities, without second guessing from political appointees at the Department of Transportation. I have observed DOT's oversight of FAA for many years. DOT's review often does little more than delay important decisions. In some instances, DOT overrules sound FAA decisions, on ideological grounds, or to gain short term public relations advantages. I would also emphasize that all 11 of the living former Administrators strongly opposed a reform which is not in the Lightfoot bill, but has been proposed by the Department of Transportation; to split FAA into a quasi-public corporation, like the Postal Service, for air traffic control and a rump FAA to regulate the corporation and carry out FAA's other responsibilities. In hearings before the Aviation Subcommittee, Najeeb Halaby, FAA Administrators from 1961 to 1965, testified that: ``Corporatizing part of the FAA could disintegrate the present comprehensive system of safety which has served the nation so well. It would result in potential serious conflict between the new corporation, the NTSB and the DOT/FAA. Since the proposed corporation would be a monopoly, it would not achieve the savings of free competition. Since it would be a federal corporation, the public would not consider that federal employees really had been reduced or true savings achieved. . .'' Administrator Halaby's statement was specifically endorsed by all 11 former Administrators. The Lightfoot bill makes important reforms in the laws and regulations governing FAA's procurement of equipment and FAA's relationship with its skilled work force. FAA is now governed by burdensome procurement laws and regulations which have slowed FAA's program to modernize the air traffic control system. Equally burdensome laws and regulations on personnel have limited FAA's ability to recruit scientific and engineering professionals and to fully staff air traffic control facilities in high cost of living areas. The Lightfoot bill adopts a balanced approach to these problems by giving FAA flexibility to develop its own procurement and personnel systems, while retaining an opportunity for Congress to review these programs before they are implemented. Congress would also review the new personnel and procurement programs in the year 2002 when they would need to be reauthorized. The personnel and procurement reform programs developed under the Lightfoot bill would not only benefit FAA, but would also provide important data for reforming these processes for other Government agencies. I am also supportive of the provision in the Lightfoot bill which gives the FAA Administrator a 7-year term in office. In recent years, Administrators have often served for 2 years or less. This is not enough time to ensure that needed reforms are implemented. The turnover in Administrators has caused reform to proceed by fits and starts, and prevented a sustained, consistent approach. Last year we passed legislation giving the Administrator a 5-year term in office. A 7-year term would be even better. I have reservations about the provision in the Lightfoot bill to establish a panel to consider innovative financing mechanisms to ensure adequate funding for aviation infrastructure needs. We do not need a panel to discover that the basic problem is that the more than $5 billion a year generated by excise taxes on aviation system users, such as the 10 percent tax on airline passengers, is not being fully spent to develop the aviation infrastructure. The failure to fully spend these revenues is a breach of faith with aviation users. The taxes were imposed in 1970 for the purpose of financing the airport and airway trust fund which supports development of the air traffic control system and airports. In recent years, the user contributions have not been fully spent, but have been used to reduce the deficit in the general budget. The cumulative amount of taxes which has not been spent now totals more than $3 billion. A critical step in overcoming this problem is to pass H.R. 842, which would take the trust fund out of the budget process and permit all funds contributed by users to be spent for the intended purpose of developing our Nation's airports and air traffic control system. Overall, I believe that the Lightfoot bill makes a major contribution to FAA Reform. I look forward to working with Congressman Lightfoot and my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to develop an FAA reform bill which will ensure that [[Page E1051]] we will continue to have the world's finest aviation system.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman from California.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I make no apologies for the administration proposal. I think it is grossly inadequate. But I think the committee bill, which the chairman has reported out, is on target, it is responsible, it is less than, I think, what we need, but I think in today's budget climate it is an appropriate number, and we ought not to undercut the good work the committee has done.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of the ability of cities to meet their obligations to clean up the Nation's waterways. At the very start of the Clean Water Act in 1956, my predecessor, John Plotnik, took on the daunting task, and then formidable and incredible task, of crafting legislation to clean up the Nation's waterways which are in a despicable state. He recognized that at the end of all the laws and all the discussions we have to have funds to cities and States to build sewage treatment plants to clean up their effluent, an incentive. A partnership was struck between the Federal Government, and municipalities and the States, and that partnership has grown, and it has worked extraordinarily well. Over the years of construction, of the construction grant program for the Federal water pollution control program, municipalities have used, in combination with Federal funds, some $75 billion to clean up point sources of discharge. And industry has spent in the range of $130 billion to clean up their responsibility. Together over $205 billion spent in the last 25 years on cleaning up point source discharges to help clean up America's waterways. Most municipalities of large size meet secondary treatment standards, but the unmet needs and the most recent EPA surveys show $137 billion in needs by municipalities to build sewage treatment facilities to clean up those discharges. Talk will not clean them up. Talk will not take sewage out of the Nation's waterways. Treatment facilities do, and that costs money. Now several years ago we eliminated the construction grant program and replaced it with a revolving loan fund that shifted significantly greater costs to municipalities for their responsibility in what is essentially a Federal problem: Rivers run between States; that is a Federal responsibility. We have a partnership to carry out with them. We said no more grants, loans, that it is going to cost more, and now what the gentleman's amendment would do is for each State cut roughly one-quarter of the funding available to them to help municipalities to do the job of cleaning, continue the job of cleaning up, discharges into lakes and streams. Shifting of burden on to State and local governments is not the direction that we ought to go in the clean water program. It will take longer to achieve the Clean Water Act goals. It will take longer to address the incredibly complex problem of separating combined storm and sanitary sewers in this country. The CSO, the combined sewer overflow, problem continues to grow as we urbanize America, and less water is soaked up by wetlands, and goes directly into sewers, and causes more sewage to go into the Nation's waterways. We need to stay on track with the construction of sewage treatment facilities. I wish we did have a construction grant program. We now have this revolving loan program. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't make it more burdensome for local governments to meet their responsibilities to continue with the task of cleaning up their discharges partnership.'' The funding in the bill that the committee has reported is in my judgment modest. It is less than what we need to achieve our goals. But it is a responsible figure. We should not cut below that number. Defeat the Largent amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, nonpoint source pollution is the next frontier of our clean water program. The Nation has done very well in cleaning up pollution from point sources. Over the past 20-plus years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, industry and municipalities both have spent on the order of $230 billion cleaning up point sources. Yet, although a measure of progress has been made in our lakes and streams, we still have unacceptably high levels of pollution, principally coming from runoff from open land sources: agricultural lands, lands under development for housing or other purposes, forestry lands that have not been properly protected. The most egregious effect of such runoff from nonpoint source was the already-referred-to attack of Cryptosporidium in the city of Milwaukee a couple of years ago, where runoff from agricultural land carried with it a deadly disease; it got into the drinking water of the city of Milwaukee, and affected some 400,000 citizens, of whom 120-plus died. Those illnesses and those deaths could have been prevented with effective nonpoint source protection programs. I spent some 10 years attempting to develop such language, which was included in the committee bill introduced by our chairman in the last Congress, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and which I have very strongly advocated. That bill died with the 103d Congress, and in the current legislation, the bill before us does attempt to deal with the issue of nonpoint source. I commend our current chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, for attempting to address this issue. However, there are two fatal shortcomings in this bill that make the nonpoint source program utterly ineffective. The first is one that introduces into this debate a totally new concept. On section 319 (B)7, subsection 7, there is language providing for an exemption for whole farm or ranch natural resources management plans, but nowhere in the bill are those two items defined. Nowhere in legislative language do we have those items clarified. Yes, there is some reference to it in committee report language, but as we all know, when an issue of this kind is challenged in court, the court does not look to committee report language. It scarcely looks at the debate that we conduct here on the floor. It looks to the legislative language, and there is no definition of what is a whole farm or a ranch natural resources management plan. The bill, therefore, in that section, where it should be addressing runoff from open sources, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, fertilizers, herbicides, makes no such reference, has no control mechanism. Then in a further section, the bill provides some funding, for which I do commend our chairman. It starts off at $100,000 and goes up to $300,000 a year. Then it says ``However, if the appropriation level does not meet the authorization level, the enforcement does not follow.'' The State is not required to enforce the program. EPA has no enforcement authority. This scenario, and in these tight budget times, that language becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy. If we get close, say $95 million in appropriation, but not $100 million, there is no requirement for enforcement. There is some sort of language that suggests that if the administrator of EPA and the State together certify that the amounts appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of the section, that the deadline then will be enforced. I do not think that will ever happen. I do not think we are ever going to have a Governor saying less will do more.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although we know the pressures and constraints and we know very well what enormous pressures there will be on Governors not to move to the stage of compliance, I want to see compliance. I want to see our open spaces, runoff of pollution from open lands, cleaned up. That is the next frontier. That is the challenge that we must meet. This bill gives 19 years to get to that point, but the deadline will always be a mirage. It will always be out there just beyond our grasp because the funding will never be there. I wish the Chair would agree to a means in which we could accomplish that the objective without having it slip from our grasp and not be so elusive as this bill provides. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which strikes those provisions and puts some teeth into the non-point source provisions of this bill, which otherwise are reasonably good.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on February 16 I stood on the floor of this House, during debate on the NATO expansion bill, and asked that any efforts to bring Eastern Europe into the Western community not ignore the former Yugoslav Republic of Slovenia. A country of just over 2 million people, independent for less than 4 years, Slovenia has successfully thrown off the economic shackles of the Socialist Yugoslav system and is leading the newly emergent countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkan States in conversion to a free and open market economy. In per capita terms, Slovenia is the 20th largest exporter in the world, exporting over $7 billion in goods each year, which accounts for 60 percent of Slovenia's GNP. Slovenia now enjoys a lively trade with the United States, shipping $229 million worth of goods to the United States each year and importing some $180 million in United States goods annually. It is with great pride, then, Mr. Speaker, as a Slovenian-American, that I return to the floor today to bring my colleagues more accolades over Slovenia's accomplishments. This time, the praise comes from none less than the Journal of Commerce, which headlined an April 6 editorial ``A Model for Eastern Europe.'' I commend this article to my colleagues and to the leadership of our various executive branch departments. I ask that you remember to include Slovenia and its hard working, enterprising people when making decisions on our country's future relationship with the transitional economies and governments which have replaced the former Communist regimes of Eastern and central- southeastern Europe. [From the Journal of Commerce, April 6, 1995] A Model for Eastern Europe (By Timothy Ashby) Eastern Europe has had its share of bad news recently. Painful economic reforms and factional strife in Russia, political turmoil in Poland, continuing ethnic warfare in parts of former Yugoslavia--all have made Western businessmen cautious about trade and investment in the region. Yet one small country, Slovenia, has emerged as an economic and political model for the old socialist bloc. Slovenia's accomplishments over the past year read like a wish list for its neighbors. 1994 exports were more than 14% greater than the previous year, and now account for 60.4% of gross domestic product. Manufacturing production increased 6.8% last year while unemployment fell 1.5%. The tolar, Slovenia's national currency, appreciated 11% against the deutsche mark in 1994. The country has a very low debt service ratio of only 5.5%. At $6,957, Slovenia has the highest GDP per head of all former socialist bloc republics in Eastern Europe, nearly twice that of the Czech Republic. GDP grew more than 5% in 1994 and the country enjoyed a healthy current account surplus of $2.6 billion at the end of last year. Foreigners made direct investments of $72.3 million last year. Three factors account for Slovenia's success. The first is its geographical location. Lying at the crossroads of Western and Eastern Europe, Slovenia borders European Union members Italy on the west, Austria on its northern border, Hungary to the northeast and the Republic of Croatia to the east and south. Slovenia also has a coast on the Adriatic Sea, where the major Port of Koper serves as a gateway for international seaborne trade with all of Central Europe. The second factor is political stability. Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek presides over a Western European-style coalition government. Slovenia is a healthy young democracy, with parties in its Parliament running the gamut from Christian Democrats and Greens to reformist communists. Despite rivalry between the parties, an unusually high degree of consensus over economic policy has been achieved, a fact foreign investors find reassuring. All sides are committed to the transformation to a Western-style market economy, but also to maintaining a strong social safety net and to forcing money-losing state enterprises to become competitive in the private sector. Slovenia's carefully conceived strategy for creating a modern free market economy is the third reason for its success. The government has adopted a gradualist approach to economic restructuring, striking a pragmatic middle ground between the Czech Republic's shock therapy methods and the meandering reforms undertaken by some former Soviet republics. To lessen the political and social impact of widespread redundancies, privatization has been undertaken at a slower pace than in other former socialist countries. The government occasionally intervenes and provides help to ailing companies by guaranteeing finance-for-debt rescheduling in return for moderation in dividend distribution and wage increases. By the end of 1994, a quarter of all Slovenia's state-owned enterprises had been privatized. The process will be accelerated during 1995 to achieve the goal of placing 50% to 65% of public assets in private hands. Preference is given to privitization via management and employee buyouts. While initially criticized by some as a method that would do little to attract foreign capital and technology, many privatized companies have established joint ventures both domestically and internationally. As a result, Slovenia has not suffered from a lack of investment in new plant and capital equipment. Domestic savings play a major role in the modernization of Slovenia's industrial sector. The growth in all areas of demand has stimulated a continuous expansion in industrial capacity. Much of this is fueled by the capital city's Ljubljana Stock Exchange, which together with the rest of the private financial services sector contributes 3.2% of the country's GDP. Slovenia's growing number of financial institutions, as well as its beautiful Alpine landscape, justify its nickname, ``the Switzerland of Eastern Europe.'' Compared to many of its neighbors, where red tape can seriously impede foreign direct investment, Slovenia has implemented one of the least restrictive investment climates in Eastern Europe. Foreign investments in any form enjoy full national treatment--that is, they have the same status as Slovene legal entities. All sectors of the economy are open to foreigners operating through joint ventures. Legal entities established and registered in Slovenia, even if they have 100% foreign ownership, may own real estate. The Slovenian Parliament is considering legislation to change real estate and other business-related laws to harmonize them with the EU. With a 30% flat tax on corporate profits, Slovenia has one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe. The tax rate is further reduced to 20% in the case of reinvestment, which actually lowers the tax rate to 24%. All foreign investors are guaranteed free transfer of profits and repatriation of invested capital, while no restrictions are placed on foreign shareholders in Slovene enterprises who want to transfer their profits abroad in foreign currency. Germany, Austria and Italy now account for 65.9% of all Slovenian foreign investment. Businessmen in these countries see great profit potential in Slovenia because of its proximity to major markets, its political stability and the high probability that it will become an early member of both the European Union and NATO. U.S. businesses, which account for less than 1% of FDI in Slovenia, have not yet awakened to these investment opportunities. Even Australia, which contributed 2.3% of the country's foreign direct investment in 1994, invested more in Slovenia--with a population of only 2 million--than in giant but strife-torn Russia. Slovenia's lesson for other developing countries is that political and economic stability can only be attained by a true commitment to democracy and the creation of a free market. As Slovenia rapidly approaches the time when it will be ready for membership in the European Union and NATO, its eastern and western neighbors can point to it as an example of one of the world's great success stories.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, submitted by the administration, to give authority to the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate airports served by commuter airlines. The legislation is part of the FAA's program to ensure that passengers traveling on commuter airlines--operating with aircraft of 30 seats or less--receive the same safety protection as passengers traveling on airlines operating large aircraft. The administration began this program after hearings by the House Aviation Subcommittee in February 1994, the need for a uniform standard for commuter airlines and large aircraft operators. I strongly support a uniform standard and have introduced legislation in the 103d and 104th Congresses to require FAA to establish this standard. I am pleased that FAA has responded by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to raise the commuter standards to the large aircraft level. We will monitor FAA's progress on the rulemaking and ensure that they do everything possible to meet their target of issuing final regulations by December of this year. As commuter airlines have grown in importance the traveling public has come to expect that these airlines will be governed by the same safety standards as large aircraft operators. Approximately 10 percent of all passengers traveling on a scheduled airline now travel on a commuter. Since many commuters operate under the name and colors of major airlines--for example, as United Express--the public has the right to assume that the same standards will govern the commuter and its parent. While FAA can act without legislative authority to raise most of the standards governing commuters, FAA has no authority under existing law to raise the standards governing safety at airports served only by commuters. Under 49 U.S.C. section 44706, FAA has authority to issue operating certificates to airports served by air carriers using aircraft designed to carry 31 or more passengers. Under this authority FAA requires these airports to comply with a number of safety requirements, including requirements for aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, airport guidance signs, airfield inspection procedures, airfield pavement maintenance standards, emergency plans, snow and ice control plans, and runway and taxiway standards. However, under existing law, FAA has no authority to impose these regulatory requirements on airports served only by aircraft of 30 or fewer seats. The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that legislation be enacted to give FAA authority to regulate airports served by commuter airlines. In making this recommendation NTSB stated that it was: * * * concerned that many community airports served by commuter airlines are not certificated in accordance with Part 139 because of the seating capacity of the aircraft serving those airports. Consequently, passengers flying into and out of those airports may not be provided adequate airport safety or emergency response resources. The administration bill which I have introduced implements the NTSB recommendation. I have introduced this bill because I strongly believe that passengers traveling on commuter airlines are entitled to the same level of safety as passengers traveling on major airlines. However, I emphasize that the legislation does not require FAA to impose exactly the same standards for all types of airports. There may well be cases in which small aircraft do not present the same safety hazard as large aircraft, and the law gives FAA discretion to tailor its regulatory requirements to the hazard. FAA has similar discretionary authority under existing law, and has used this authority to impose requirements which vary with the size of aircraft and the number of aircraft serving an airport. FAA has stated that if it is given the authority over commuter airports, it will consider fully whether different requirements are appropriate for these airports. FAA has asked its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to study the problem and to make recommendations on the appropriate standards for commuter airports. I urge ARAC to complete its assignment promptly, so that FAA will be in a position to issue new regulations soon after it receives the necessary legislative authority.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we see, hear, and read seemingly endless reports of young people engaged in crime, drug use, and self-absorption, at a time when the reputation of our military forces has been tainted by events such as the Tailhook scandal, it is uplifting to read of an act of heroism by a young sailor from Wrenshall, MN, in my congressional district. Scott Gardner serves as a machinist and fireman aboard the repair ship USS Yellowstone. Last month, when the ship was docked in Nassau, Bahamas, Gardner and his fellow crewmembers came to the rescue of 50 passengers aboard a sinking ferryboat. Gardner and his buddies pulled 38 people--including two infants--from the water that day. Such rescues are not new to Gardner; last year in Greece he jumped into the water to save a German sailor who had fallen off the dock. I am proud of Scott Gardner and his buddies, Mr. Speaker, and I believe all America should be proud of them as well. Therefore, I commend to your attention and that of my colleagues the story of these events as reported by the Duluth News Tribune. In reading this article, Mr. Speaker, what impressed me the most was Gardner's attitude toward his heroism. To him, these acts were not heroic; they were reflexive, natural. In his view, he could have acted no other way under the circumstances. Scott Gardner and his equally heroic crewmates do not wear stars on their shoulders or ``scrambled eggs'' on their caps. They are not Annapolis graduates or the products of elite special forces training programs. They are ordinary sailors who saw their duty and responded without question or hesitation. These young members of the U.S. Navy acted in the highest traditions of the service, and displayed character. [From the Duluth News-Tribute, Mar. 3, 1995] A Sailor, a Savior--Wrenshall Man, Crew Save 38 (By Jason Skog) When Scott Gardner heard there were babies on board the rapidly sinking water taxi, he jumped from the pier into the swift Bahamian channel's current and began saving lives. After throwing dozens of life jackets into the water and swimming some frightened tourists to safety, Gardner and his fellow U.S. Navy crew members saved 38 people. Gardner, a 24-year-old Wrenshall native serving aboard the USS Yellowstone, was docked in Nassau, Bahamas, on Feb. 22 when the alarms sounded. He humbly retold his story of heroism and bravery from a pay phone in Norfolk, VA., where his ship was docked this week. Gardner's latest rescue came almost a year after he got wet saving a drunken German sailor from drowning off the coast of Corfu, Greece. It was around dinner time and Gardner was washing up when the Yellowstone's alarm sounded, signaling somebody was in danger. He grabbed his gear and ran up top to the deck, where he saw a boat in the channel sinking quickly. Panicked and without life jackets, people on the sinking boat began jumping into the water. ``We were throwing life jackets off the pier, but we couldn't throw them all the way and they were washing against the pier,'' Gardner said. Gardner said he wasn't sacred. ``I saw them and something just clicks and you say, `Hey, idiot. Go in and help.''' When the rescue ended, the Navy crew learned there were nearly 50 people aboard the flooded boat. Gardner's crew alone had saved 38 of them, including two babies. The others were saved by passing boats. The Navy's Yellowstone is a repair ship that fixes other boats. Gardner, who joined the navy in 1992 after graduating from technical college, works as a machinist and fireman on the ship. The captain of the Yellowstone had planned to stop in the Bahamas for a little fun, sun and snorkeling. The crew had just finished training drills in Cuba and the captain felt his crew needed a break before sailing to the Mediterranean Sea. And if the alarm sounds again? ``If they made the call at 2 a.m., we'd be running down the pier,'' Gardner said. ``Because if we were in the water, we'd want somebody running to save us.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Duluth, in my congressional district, I met with a group of people I can only describe as victims of the Republican contract: College students who will lose their financial aid; poor, elderly people who will lose their home heating assistance; elementary school children who will lose their school lunch and school milk programs; and foster grandparents who work with disadvantaged youth. Then at the end of the day, late that evening I got a phone call from my son Ted, A graduate student in theology, saying he would lose his summer job if the Republican cuts are enacted. Let me tell you about Ted. He is a Notre Dame graduate with a double major in theology and great books. Following graduation, he committed a year to volunteer service at a job placement center for the homeless, Saint Joseph the Worker in Phoenix, AZ, living with five other Notre Dame graduates on $60 a month. And on weekends he volunteered in youth ministry at a neighborhood parish. Ted then spent 2 years in campus ministry at Sacramento State University and is now in his second year of goal is community service. He wants to work to make life better for the less fortunate of our brothers and sisters. The accumulation of material goods has never been an objective for Ted. He worked hard on construction jobs and other jobs to earn his way through college and last year, to help pay his graduate school cost, Ted worked at a summer youth job program funded by one of the programs the Republicans propose to cut or eliminate with their cuts last week and those yet to come. I want to take a close look at this program. He worked with 160 disadvantaged young people, 40 special ed children with learning and developmental disabilities, providing them with academic enrichment and physical development help. He also worked with another group of 120 kids who test below a grade level, are out of school and out of work. His job, teach them how to fill out job applications, how to interview on the phone and in person for jobs, and work with them to improve their basic academic skills. If the Republican cuts prevail, there are going to be 161 losers this summer. The next group of 160 kids and Ted. Society will be victimized because these young people will be denied an opportunity to become productive members of our economy. By the way, Ted's wife Julie, who teaches children with learning disabilities, was planning to do her masters thesis on this project to demonstrate how such a program can be a model curriculum for special ed student's enrichment and move them to jobs and work. I raise this personal story because I think it is important to put flesh and blood on the statistics we deal with, to put a face on the numbers and to translate the issues into tangible reality. And sometimes that reality hurts personally.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, earlier today it was my sad, but high personal privilege to offer a tribute to my dear friend, a great Minnesotan, and great American, the Honorable L.J. ``Lud'' Andolsek, during the Mass of Christian Burial at St. Jane de Chantal Church, Bethesda, MD. Lud served this House of Representatives for over 14 years as administrative assistant to my predecessor, the Honorable John A. Blatnik, and as chief clerk of the House Public Works Committee. It is only fitting and proper, therefore, that his contributions should be acknowledged and appreciated on the floor of this Chamber, which he loved and respected so greatly. Lud passed away last Friday, March 3. L.J. ``Lud'' Andolsek--A Tribute Regina, Kathy, Brendan, Nicholas, Kendall, Don and friends, all. We are gathered in the stark reality that death is not something that happens only in some other family, in some other place. It comes to our families, even to those whom we think indestructible . . . like Lud Andolsek. It is natural--even necessary--to grieve that never in this life will we again see that beloved face, hear that special voice, feel that unique touch. But, we must also remember that Christ, too, wept at the tomb of Lazarus. At the moment of death, what matters is not how long the years, but how great they were, how rich the moments, how generous the contribution to the lives of others. Lud's were great years, as grand, as vital, as vibrant, as expansive as life itself--years lived fully, intensively, joyfully, without looking back over the shoulder, without regrets. Some second thoughts, to be sure, but regrets, never. Meeting Lud was an unshakable, unforgettable experience. He took hold of you like a force . . . and he also took your measure. He enjoyed putting on a gruff exterior, hanging signs behind his desk like: ``If you think work is fun, stick around and have a helluva good time''; or: ``I don't get ulcers, I give them,'' complete with ferocious art work. Those who knew him best, though, knew there was a big marshmallow inside. I remember going home to Chisholm, visiting Grandma Oberstar, My grandmother, who, like Lud's parents, had emmigrated from Slovenia, talking about Lud, remembering him as a boyhood friend of my father and saying, ``He always had such rosy cheeks.'' I thought about telling Grandma of the thick cigar, the clouds of smoke and, at times, the ashen complexion from incredibly long hours of work and decided that I shouldn't undermine her beautiful, almost cherubic image of ``the Commish.'' Lud's life was the stuff that makes up the ``American Dream.'' Born to a family like so many others in Minnesota's Iron Range country--poor, but who didn't consider themselves poor--certainly no poverty of spirit, and rising to high public office. He worked the hard youth of an iron ore miner's family. He was a journalist; goalie and player-coach of his college hockey team--a rarity in those days; National Youth Administration Director for Minnesota; distinguished military service; a brief career with the Veterans Administration; a long stint, through economically tough years with the late Congressman John A. Blatnik and the House Public Works Committee; and then, after decades of serving others, recognition in his own right, for his gifts and Kennedy to the U.S. Civil Service Commission as Vice Chairman--and reappointments and service under five presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Then, retirement. Not content with--and too restless for retirement, Lud went out and organized the retirees, as President of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, adding 100,000 to their numbers and forging NARFE into a political force to be reckoned with. Then, retirement again--but always restless, probing, inquisitive, determined, setting his iron will to overcoming obstacles. He was proud of his Slovenian heritage--loved the music, the food, the language, the people. He loved, revered and reveled in public service--for him, the highest attainment of the human community. In the end--as in the beginning--with Lud, what mattered most was loyalty: to friends, especially his lifelong friend, John Blatnik; to principle: to veterans preference, to the idea that government should serve the least among us, that it should do good for people. For Lud, the highest, most enduring loyalty was to family, to Regina, whom he loved steadfastly and with devotion; to his daughter, Kathy; her husband, Don; to his grandchildren Brendan, Nicholas and Kendall; his sister, Frances, and her family. He loved . . . fiercely, protectively, and--at the last--tenderly. Lud touched our lives indelibly. Caught up with him in life, we are bound to him in death. He has met his test and left us a rich legacy. Our test is to live our lives so that what he meant to us can never pass away.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Prevention Act of 1995, the sequel to what is now section 319 of the Clean Water Act, nonpoint source management programs. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 set the Nation on its current cleanup course. The first line of that landmark legislation, in section 101(a), declares it the objective of the act ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Until now, municipalities and industries have borne the brunt of this commitment. Since 1972 American citizens as Federal and State taxpayers have spent more than $75 billion to clean up municipal point sources. Industry, and citizens as consumers, have spent over $130 billion on cleaning up industrial point sources, including $67 billion in capital expenditures and $63 billion in operating costs. Despite that costly sacrifice, fully one-third of the Nation's rivers, half of our estuaries, and more than half of our lakes are not meeting designated uses. Only about half of our river miles, two-thirds of lake acres, and three-quarters of our estuaries have even been assessed, meaning that a much more significant though unknown number of waterbodies are impaired, and more are threatened. Dredging, to remove sediment from our harbors and navigation channels, costs American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Polluted water from upstream forces communities to add expensive treatment technologies to both their drinking water and wastewater facilities. The outbreak of cryptosporidium in Milwaukee, caused by animal pathogens washed into the drinking water from farms upriver, are an illustration of the costs of nonpoint sources in terms of human health. The major cause of this failure to meet the standards is nonpoint sources of pollution [NPS]--or poison runoff--the unfinished agenda of the 1972 act. The program in my bill builds on established Federal, State, and local programs: the Nonpoint Management Program in the Clean Water Act, the nonpoint source provisions of [CZARA], and USDA's conservation and water quality incentive programs. It focuses on sensitive watersheds, and encourages land users to prevent runoff, such as sediment, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and toxics from city streets, from polluting our lakes, rivers, and streams. It uses watershed implementation plans, designed by the State with input from local landowners and other groups. Landowners would develop site-level plans using site-specific management measures that they themselves have chosen. Assistance would be available from a wide variety of sources, including USDA, the States, and EPA. As CZARA already does for coastal areas, the bill requires States or local governments to be able to take enforcement action against so- called bad actors, those who refuse to comply while their neighbors are being good actors. The bill sets timetables for achieving clean water: 8 years from the beginning of the watershed implementation plans. At that point, the watershed would be assessed and, if clean water had not been achieved, additional measures would be implemented in two 2-year phases. At the end of 12 years, the waters would have to meet water quality standards. The bill also creates a nonpoint program for Federal lands directly under the President. It expands water quality criteria and standards to cover nonpoint pollutants, contains provisions for new sources of nonpoint pollution, and creates a Citizen Monitoring Program to assist States in their monitoring under this and other programs. This bill is fair to those who have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Clean Water Act mandates; fair to municipalities and drinking water suppliers who are faced with added costs; fair to landowners in coastal areas who already are complying with CZARA; and fair to future generations of Americans who will also need clean water.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995. There has been a great deal of discussion lately about the future of the Federal Maritime Commission and the Shipping Act of 1984. Some are suggesting that both the Federal Maritime Commission and the Shipping Act of 1984 be scrapped. I do not agree with that approach, but I do recognize that significant changes are needed at the Commission and in the Shipping Act of 1984. The bill I am introducing today accomplishes those changes. The Shipping Act of 1984 sets out the legal framework that governs ocean liner cargo transportation. With a broad grant of antitrust immunity, conferences of oceanliner companies meet to establish common rates for the shipment of freight across the oceans. These rates are filed with the Federal Maritime Commission and made public. While broad grants of antitrust immunity are usually antithetical to the way the United States expects business to operate, I see no consensus within our ocean carrier and shipping industries, nor internationally, that immediate wholesale removal of antitrust immunity will bring the competitive benefits some expect. In fact, there was considerable testimony at the hearing held in the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation on February 2 that U.S. commercial interests could be harmed in doing so. My approach is straightforward. Continue the present system of ocean carrier conferences with immunization from the antitrust laws. Within that framework, give shippers and conference carriers increased flexibility to enter into certain business arrangements not encumbered by conference agreements, procedures, or vetos of other conference carriers. Within the ocean shipping industry there is the concept of service contract which is a contract between a shipper and a carrier or a conference of carriers in which a minimum quantity of cargo over a fixed period of time is shipped at a certain rate and level of service. Typically, this translates into a large volume/long-term arrangement at a reduced rate below the filed tariff. These sorts of contracts are permitted and recognized in the law, but the carrier conferences are permitted and recognized in the law, but the carrier conferences are allowed to restrict and even prohibit their use. This bill would prohibit a conference or a conference carrier from limiting the ability of another member of the conference from entering into or performing under a service contract. This will provide shippers and conference carriers, that elect to, the opportunity to enter into arrangements outside of the conference. Also in the carrier conference system, there is the concept of independent action. Under the Shipping Act of 1984, carriers can charge a rate different than the conference filed tariff, if notice is given to the conference and filed with the Federal Maritime Commission 10 days in advance of that independent action for a different rate. The bill would shorten that 10-day notice to 2 days. Again, this would provide shippers and carriers with a great deal more flexibility to enter into arrangements with much reduced interference by other conference members. By shortening the notice period, a rate different than the conference rate can be made effective before the other conference members have a lengthy period in which they could convince and pursuade the independent action taker to not take the independent action. The bill also provides a new declaration of policy. Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 sets out the purposes of the act. Among the purposes are establishment of a nondiscriminatory regulatory process; provision of an efficient and economic ocean transportation system; and encouragement of the development of an economically sound and efficient U.S.-flag liner fleet. This bill would add a new declaration of policy--promotion of the growth and development of United States exports through competitive, nondiscriminatory, and efficient ocean transportation. There are some who believe that the Shipping Act of 1984 is too oriented toward the interests of the carriers at the expense of the shippers. This provision in the bill would give strong policy guidance to the Federal Maritime Commission that in administering the act that the interests of U.S. exporters should be just as paramount in its mind as the interests of the carriers. The bill also directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a negotiation strategy to persuade foreign governments to divest themselves of ownership and control of ocean common carriers. Government ownership and control of oceanliner companies puts our carriers at a tremendous disadvantage in the international marketplace. While there is little we can do to force foreign governments to get out of the business of oceanliner shipping, it certainly should be the U.S. Government policy to bring that issue to the negotiating table when it is engaged in trade and commercial discussions with our trading partners. Over time, I am confident that progress can be made in this area to the benefit of U.S. carriers and the shipping public. These changes to the Shipping Act of 1984 represent significant steps toward a more competitive and deregulated environment in the ocean transportation business, and I urge people to consider them in that regard. Finally, the bill would make some significant reforms at the Federal Maritime Commission itself. Government agencies are downsizing and rightsizing across the board in the effort to reduce Government spending. The Federal Maritime Commission needs to contribute to this effort just as all other Government agencies are doing. There has been discussion of outright eliminating the Commission all together. This would be unwise since it provides important benefits to the public. This bill would direct the Commission to reduce its employees by 15 percent over the next 2 fiscal years. The Commission is a relatively small agency with a relatively small budget--$19 million, much of it offset with the collection of fees and fines. Despite its small size, it still needs to be a part of the overall effort to reinvent and streamline Government. Simply abolishing the Commission so that an agency's skin can be hung on the wall is not a proper way to carry out the public's need to have a smaller government. Steps need to be taken, but they need to make good public policy sense. The bill also directs the Federal Maritime Commission to devote a greater proportion of its resources to protecting U.S. shippers and carriers against restrictive and unfair practices of foreign governments and foreign-flag carriers. U.S. interests are under a constant barrage by foreign interests trying to hinder their ability to do business. The Commission has done a good job of policing these practices, but I believe that the waterfront of abuses is so vast that if more resources were directed to this area, further progress could be realized in leveling the trade playing field. The bill directs that the Commission submit a plan to Congress to reorient its resources in this regard within 90 days of enactment of this legislation. This proposed bill is just that--a proposal. There are issues that are not addressed in this bill, that may well need to be addressed. There are issues even within the context of the specific proposals upon which the bill is silent or needs further thought and deliberation before a more refined position is developed. An example would be in the service contract area. Should the terms of service contracts continue to be made public? In my bill as drafted they would be, but this is not a closed issue in my mind. Similarly, is there a need for phase-in of changes to the Shipping Act? Also, I do not address tariff filing in the bill, so as drafted, the current system would continue. But again, I believe there may well be ways that the public can learn about what is happening in the marketplace without a government based tariff filing system. I am open on this issue and others. There may also be other ways to craft the legislative language to accomplish the purposes of this bill, and I am open to suggestions here as well. I very much look forward to working with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Shuster and Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Coble, ranking Democratic Members Norman Y. Mineta and James A. Traficant, and other members of the committee to develop legislation on the Shipping Act and the Federal Maritime Commission.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, to legislate a regulatory moratorium upon the Federal Aviation Administration, which has vital safety responsibilities that affect the lives of everyone in this room and in this country, is not only dangerous, it is irresponsible. My many years of experience in the safety arena caution me not to accept the argument that aviation safety would not be jeopardized because of the exception to the moratorium for regulations directed at an ``imminent threat to health or safety.'' That language is much too vague to stand the test of lawsuits that will inevitably be filed by airlines, who will, as they have in the past, contest such regulations on economic grounds. To qualify for the exception in this bill, the FAA would have to establish that, absent the regulation or directive, it would be reasonable to expect death, or a serious illness, or severe injury to humans, or substantial endangerment to private property during the moratorium period. Aviation safety is not that precise, and let me explain. Look at the past year in aviation. There were several major accidents, after 3 years relatively free of major fatal accidents. One of those accidents caused the FAA to temporarily place restrictions on the use of ATR aircraft, due to the preliminary results of an accident investigation which indicated that the de-icing equipment on the aircraft was inadequate to permit operation in known or predicted icing conditions. Following further investigation, the FAA ordered operational restrictions and testing, on ATR flights under certain weather conditions to permit greater use of the aircraft until such time as the aircraft could be retrofitted with altered de- icing equipment, also to be required by an FAA airworthiness directive. The FAA acted promptly to address a known safety deficiency that had most likely caused one accident and killed many people. They also acted very quickly to relax the restrictions as soon as information became available to indicate that the aircraft could be flown safely in icing conditions when certain precautions were taken. It is unclear to me how the FAA could have established, in the case of the ATR, that its actions were necessary to prevent severe injury, death, or the substantial destruction of property during a specified period, namely the period of the moratorium. The FAA would be derelict in its duty if it failed to act with all due speed to address a known safety deficiency. The FAA is not in the business of foreseeing into the future to anticipate whether a safety deficiency will result in a crash tomorrow, next week, or 10 years from now. Such a standard is completely inappropriate in the area of aviation safety. For several years, I have been advocating a single standard of safety for commercial air carriers, regardless of the size of the aircraft. Currently, an arbitrary distinction with regard to the number of seats in an aircraft determines which safety standards are applicable to that flight. The importance of this issue has been underscored by the recent rash of commuter accidents. I have been working with Secretary Pena and FAA Administrator Hinson to achieve a single standard of safety, and they have assured me that final regulations to achieve this goal will be published by the end of March. The flying public deserves no less. In fact, the public is usually shocked to learn that there is not a single standard of safety for commercial operations. The proposed moratorium would further delay, if not prevent, implementing the regulations necessary to achieve a single safety standard. In order for this important safety initiative to be finalized, the FAA would have to take time away from its safety mission and somehow convincingly predict, not only when the next commuter accident would occur, but what the cause of that accident would be, and whether the accident could have been prevented by the regulation in question. The proposed requirement for an exception from the moratorium would seemingly necessitate the agency to make arbitrary speculations or resort to predicting the future. I do not think it is in the best interest of the public to have either option result in postponing important safety initiatives that have already gone through extensive public comment and cost benefit analysis. I urge my colleagues to approve the Wise amendment and not tie the hands of an agency whose responsibility is regulating and controlling an anticipated 40 million flights this year alone. Vote ``yes'' on the Wise amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise more in sorrow than in anger, because it pains me to oppose my good friend, not to oppose him, but to oppose this language. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I worked side by side for many, many years on aviation safety. I have genuine concerns about this language. I honestly think it is poorly drafted. I do not think that this is a matter of can an agency interpret it or not. This legislation will open the way for lawsuits to hamstring the FAA, which issues two airworthiness directives a day on average, over 400 last year, as many headed for rulemaking this year. Dozens of safety rules, flight and duty time for pilots in the works right now, something that we have worked on for many years, crew pairing, to avoid the problem of having inexperienced crew up front in aircraft. The 16(g) seat retrofit rule to require strengthening of seats. All of us will recall the terrible crash at Sioux City of a DC-10. Some 110 lives were saved because those seats were strengthened. That rule is now being extended. The aging-aircraft rule on which the gentleman and I worked for quite some time, we passed legislation to implement that legislation. FAA has a number of rulemakings concerning the aging aircraft. The ATR rulemaking process is not complete. Now, I just want to ask my friend if at the conclusion of this he will entertain specific language to exclude aviation safety?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, for our national broadcasting communications system, which operates on the public airwaves, to serve our diverse population, ownership of broadcast stations must reflect that diversity. The purpose of the minority tax certificate program is to offer minorities a means to own broadcasting facilities. This is not a quota system and it is not a setaside. It is the use of tax law to achieve a desirable social goal--opportunity for minorities to buy and operate broadcasting stations. One such minority-owned station, KBJR-TV in Duluth, MN, in my district, is owned by Granite Broadcasting Corp. KBJR-TV has long offered thoughtful, informative coverage of native Americans in northeastern Minnesota. If there are abuses with the program, they ought to be assessed, addressed, and repaired. They should not be an excuse to eliminate this program, which the committee bill would do. The Gibbons-McDermott substitute will retain and reform the existing tax preference for sales of broadcast companies to minority-owned firms. I fully support the health insurance deduction provisions of the bill and especially support the McDermott substitute.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1995, to prohibit smoking on international flights to and from the United States. Congress banned smoking on all domestic flights of 6 hours or less in 1990. However, smoking is still legal on U.S. carriers on international flights. Most foreign carriers serving the U.S. permit smoking as well. To protect flight attendants and passengers, I introduced similar legislation last year--H.R. 4495. The bill passed the House on October 4, under Suspension of the Rules. The bill I introduce today is identical in intent to the one passed by the House last fall. Briefly, the bill requires the Department of Transportation to issue regulations requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to prohibit smoking in passenger cabins and lavatories on flights between points in the United States and foreign points, that is, the last point of departure prior to landing in the U.S., and the first bill would prohibit smoking in the cockpits of U.S. airliners. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely timely. International flights between the United States and Canada are already smoke-free. Three U.S. carriers, Delta, American and Northwest, offer nonsmoking flights on some international routes. Our Government is negotiating with others to arrange bilateral or multilateral smoking bans. The latest sign of progress came last month, when the Department of Transportation gave the green light to eight airlines--six U.S. carriers and two foreign--to discuss a mutual ban on smoking on transatlantic flights without fear of antitrust action being taken against them. Those airlines are American, Continental, Northwest, Trans World, and United Airlines, USAir, British Airways and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. Finally, the nations belonging to the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], which includes most countries, have agreed to end smoking on airlines by July 1996. With all these moves to ban smoking, why is my bill needed? Simply, because relief can not come too fast for flight attendants and passengers who without my bill will have to fly for another year and a half in those cabins where smoking is still permitted. Flight attendants assigned to long international smoking flights are forced to spend their working lives in smoke-filled galleys at the back of aircraft. At hearings the Subcommittee on Aviation held last year, flight attendant representatives detailed ailments which they and their colleagues incur in the small, enclosed, smoke-filled cabin environment. They described health problems ranging from eye, nose and throat irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, shortness of breath, and heart palpitations to permanent disability and even death for the occupational hazards of their jobs in airplanes. Nonsmoking flight attendants are suffering and dying from diseases common to smokers--the penalty of an honest day's work. Equally unacceptable is the plight of children stuck in the smoking section with their parents. And businessmen who must be at their peak when they arrive at their destination, but stagger off, jet-lagged and debilitated by smoke-caused allergies and sensitivities. And pleasure travelers whose vacations are ruined by smoke-induced illnesses. And the millions of nonsmoking passengers who cannot really get away from the smoke, no matter where they sit in the airplane. This bill is also needed from a safety standpoint. At our hearing, flight attendant witnesses showed us photographs of cigarette butts all over the floor of the airplane. They testified to passengers falling asleep in their seats, dropping lighted cigarettes on the floor. More than one attendant has thrown coffee on a smoldering butt to escape the horror of an in-flight fire. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that airlines have decided to take dramatic action on their own. In banning smoking they have shown great courage, and I believe will be rewarded with increased passengers. And I commend the Department of Transportation for granting them antitrust immunity to discuss the issue. I believe these airlines, and others, would like to go farther than ban smoking on all routes and flights. They cannot, in some cases, for competitive reasons. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ban smoking on all flights, now, to protect the health of flight attendants and passengers alike. Another year and a half can make a lot of difference in the lives of many, many, people. I believe that airlines, as well as the vast majority of their employees and passengers, will welcome enactment of this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure this language does not preclude the possibility of a country like Slovenia, which is independent, has a privatized economy, had had successful free democratic elections, from joining, having the same status as the already named countries in the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the positive response of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], as well as the concurrence and affirmation by the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Gilman, that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia and the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], clearly open the door for admission of Slovenia to NATO membership without specifically mentioning that country by name. Slovenia clearly deserves equal standing with the other countries already named in the pending bill and merits membership on a full equality basis in NATO, because Slovenia obviously has taken its place in the family of nations as a democratic, free market-based, privatized economy. In a December 1990 plebiscite, Slovenes voted 96 percent for independence from what was then Yugoslavia. That plebiscite directed the Slovene Parliament to craft a constitution, based on democratic, representative, government principles and set June 26, 1991, as the date on which independence from Yugoslavia should be formally declared. Those directives were carried out by the Slovene Parliament, independence was declared; the Yugoslav army invade Slovenia to stifle independence, but, after a 9-day military confrontation with minimal loss of life, the Yugoslav army retreated and the Slovene people prevailed. The United States formally recognized the Republic of Slovenia on April 7, 1992. Immediately upon the successful establishment of its independence, the Slovene Government began a very intensive privatization of its national economy, much of which already was operating on a market basis. In January 1993, an international trade journal, International Trade Reporter, said this about Slovenia: ``Of all the countries of eastern Europe, Slovenia has the best preconditions for the transition to a market economy and a fast start toward dynamic economic development.'' Now, a fully privatized economy, Slovenia is the 20th largest exporter in the world, exporting over $7 billion in goods each year, which accounts for 60 percent of Slovenia's GNP. Slovenia now enjoys a lively trade with the United States, shipping $229 million worth of goods to the United States each year and importing some $180 in United States goods annually. However, for Slovenes, these are not surprising numbers. Prior to separation from the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia, with a population of 2.4 million, just over 8 percent of the total population of the former Yugoslavia, represented 40 percent of former Yugoslavia's overall GNP and 36 percent of its total tax base. Slovenes are industrious, hard working, committed to democratic principles and a vigorous market economy. They deserve to have their rightful place in the family of nations and, should they choose to do so, a seat in NATO and in the Western European Alliance. Not only would such status be emphatically embraced by the Slovene Government and its people, but it would also fill with pride the three- quarter million or so of Americans of Slovene descent, including me, who are scattered throughout nearly every one of these United States.