James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of a bill to name the Federal building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse in Duluth, Minnesota, in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney. Judge Heaney was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on November 3, 1966. After 40 years of distinguished judicial service, Judge Heaney retired on August 31, 2006. Judge Heaney was born on January 29, 1918, in Goodhue, a rural community in the southeastern part of Minnesota. As a child growing up in a farming community, Judge Heaney learned the value of a close family, honesty, and hard work. These qualities have marked not only his personal life but also his life as a public servant. He was educated at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and received his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941. Gerry Heaney is a decorated World War II veteran. He was a member of the distinguished Army Ranger Battalion and participated in the historic D-Day landing at Normandy. He was awarded the Silver Star for extraordinary bravery in the battle of La Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, France. He also received a Bronze Star and five battle stars. At the end of the war, Judge Heaney returned home and entered private practice in Duluth. During that time he was instrumental in improving the state education system, and served on the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota. He was instrumental in helping the Duluth school system develop a payroll system that equalized the pay for both men and women. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Heaney to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that capacity, Judge Heaney has been a champion of protecting the rights of the disadvantaged. He is devoted to making sure that every person has an equal opportunity for an education, a job, and a home. He firmly believes the poor, the less educated, and less advantaged deserve the protections provided by the United States Constitution. As a hard working, well-prepared, and fair-minded jurist, Judge Heaney left his legal imprimatur on school desegregation cases, bankruptcy law, prisoner treatment, and social security law. His public service is discerned by industry, brilliance, and scholarly excellence. His compassion and dedication to our most disadvantaged are unparalleled. It is fitting and proper for Congress to designate the Duluth, Minnesota Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the structural integrity of dams throughout the United States has been a concern of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its predecessors going back to the Rivers and Harbors Committee in the very beginning of this Nation. We have repeatedly visited the issue of dam safety and enacted dam safety programs in years past, reauthorizing in 1996, and this legislation is an update of the 1996 legislation. The Corps of Engineers, at the direction of our committee and through the reauthorization we provided, working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has identified 79,777 public and private dams in the United States of which 11,811 are high-hazard dams. What is troubling to us on the committee is that the number of high-hazard dams has increased by over 20 percent in the last 6 years. Clearly action has to be taken. We have had 125 failures between 1999 and 2004. This legislation will put FEMA on alert, put the Corps of Engineers on alert, raise visibility of these issues and provide the tools necessary to take action to protect citizens living below these structures from catastrophic failure that can wipe out whole communities. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2735, the National Dam Safety Program Act, which reauthorizes and amends the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership of the States, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders to encourage individual and community responsibility for dam safety. The purpose of the National Dam Safety Program is to ``reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective national dam safety program to bring together the expertise and resources of the Federal and non- Federal communities in achieving national dam safety hazard reduction.'' S. 2735 reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program through fiscal year 2011. The dam safety program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides grants to state regulatory agencies, funds research projects aimed at improving dam safety, and trains safety officials and dam operators. Of the 79,777 public and private dams in the United States, there are currently 11,811 High Hazard dams across the country. If one of these dams fails, it could cost lives and damage the economy and the environment. From 2000 to 2006, the number of hazard dams increased by almost 20 percent. These dams can pose a significant threat. Between 1999 and 2004, States reported 1,090 dam safety incidents including 125 failures. Deficient or unsafe dams mean that these dams have been identified as having hydrologic or structural deficiencies that make them susceptible to a failure triggered by a large storm event, an earthquake, progressive deterioration, or inadequate maintenance. Currently, States have identified approximately 3,400 dams as being deficient or unsafe-- an increase of 33 percent since 1998. Since the creation of the National Dam Safety Program in 1996, dam safety inspections have increased significantly. In addition, the Program has provided funding to increase the amount and the quality of dam safety research and has increased the amount of direct assistance for training state officials and providing technical seminars and workshops. Presently, many states lack the financial resources to effectively carry out the program and many State regulatory programs lack the support they require at a time when these critical program funds are truly needed. Clearly, there is a need for this program, the funds it provides, and the technical support it offers States. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge its approval. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that I have toured St. Bernard Parish with my wife who is from New Orleans, and we have seen the extraordinary destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina to the residents and the absolute abject devastation of an area that hasn't experienced anything of this nature in 138 years. This legislation is vitally important to correct the failures of the past and prevent them from happening in the future. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), both members of our committee, have been strong advocates for this project. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska, our committee chairman, for agreeing to bring this bill up in the interest of the Louisiana delegation, all of whom are concerned about moving this project ahead so it can be in line to receive funding to start work on this project before the next hurricane storm season reaches the gulf. This project involves multiple features: 72 miles of levees south of Houma, Louisiana; pumping station protection; road closure floodgates and ramps; channel closure floodgates; and a lock structure where the project crosses the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. It is unfortunate we have to take this piece out of the bill that we passed twice in this body under the leadership of the distinguished chairman. The House has done its work and done its work well. We have done it over three Congresses, and the other body has failed to act. That is why we are here tonight to try to address a matter of significant importance to the people in the gulf region. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6428, a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain portions of the hurricane and storm damage reduction project for the Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana. The Morganza to the Gulf project is vital for meeting the hurricane and storm damage protection needs of coastal Louisiana, especially its citizens in Houma, and the surrounding communities that were devastated by Hurricane Rita last year. This project is comprised of multiple project features, including approximately 72 miles of levees south of Houma, Louisiana, pumping station protection, road closure floodgates and ramps, channel closure floodgates, and a lock structure where the project crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Morganza to the Gulf project was included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as a conditional authorization. However, the Corps of Engineers failed to complete a favorable report of the Chief of Engineers for the project before the December 2000 deadline. Since that time, the Congress has failed to enact any further water resources development acts. Unfortunately, tonight, we will adjourn another Congress without enacting a water resources bill. The language in this legislation is modeled after the language contained in H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, which passed this House on July 14, 2005 by an overwhelming vote of 406-14. While my preference would be to authorize this project through regular order in the passage of the broader Water Resources Development Act, at this late hour in the session, work will not be completed on the larger bill. This is unfortunate because it only further delays the opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to provide essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects to our Nation, and vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents. We are now just a few days shy of six years since the last water resources bill was enacted. This is far too long. I am certain that there will be questions as to why Congress was unable to enact a water resources bill in the 109th Congress, especially since this is the first time since 2000 that both the House and the Senate chambers were each able to approve legislation for the other body to consider. A chief reason is that the current administration has no commitment to the Nation's premier water-related infrastructure agency. The administration fails to understand the importance of the Corps of Engineers and the vital work that this agency does for the American people. The administration's lack of support for a comprehensive water resources development act has only made Congress's work more difficult. During consideration in both the House and Senate, the administration released two statements of administration policy that were highly critical of the Congress's efforts, especially over the administration's concern with the overall costs of the two bills. However, what this administration fails to recognize is that the roughly $10 billion in project authorizations contained in the House- passed version, and the $12 billion in the Senate-passed version reflect 6 years of requests since the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. With Congress's failure to approve the water resources development act this year, we should expect next year's bill to cost more than either the House or Senate-passed versions--perhaps as much as $15 billion. These numbers are consistent with the historical costs of past water resources bills, and further delay only results in making these vital projects more expensive over time. Congress must also share the blame for its failure to deliver a comprehensive water resources bill this year. With both the House and Senate, and the White House, under Republican control, it would seem that passage of this legislation should have been achievable. In spite of the significant efforts of both the chairman of the conference committee and my Chairman, Mr. Young, the House and the Senate have been unable to reach agreement on a final package. I am confident that our Committee will make the passage and enactment of a water resources development act a number-one priority in 2007. Mr. Speaker, by passing this legislation tonight, the House is agreeing to allow the Morganza to the Gulf project to move forward based on its individual merit, and the need to increase the level of flood protection for coastal Louisiana. The House has resisted the temptation to add other meritorious Corps of Engineers project authorizations to the schedule this evening. I would advise the other body to resist this temptation and not turn this authorization into an attempt to move a miniature water resources bill before the end of the session. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6428. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the staff members of the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) who were named recipients of the Governor's Minnesota Government Reaching Environmental Achievements Together (MnGREAT) Award for superior environmental achievement by Minnesota's public agencies. The award represents the highest level of environmental achievement within the State of Minnesota. The five UMD staff members who received the environmental achievement award are Erik Larson (UMD Facilities Management, Engineer/Project Manager), Wade Lawrence (Director of Glensheen), and Peggy Dahlberg, Sheryl Lind, and Dan McClelland (UMD Facilities Management Grounds Department). The award recognizes the low impact development and shoreline bank stabilization projects constructed at the Glensheen Historic Estate in Duluth. The goals of the projects were: to improve water quality of storm water from Glensheen's parking lots into Lake Superior; to stabilize the clay bank in order to reduce wave, rain, and surface flow erosion during large storms; and to provide a location where the general public can see low impact development practices in place and functioning. The Glensheen projects are important because shoreline conditions are rapidly changing along Lake Superior's North Shore due to increased tourism, business, and private development taking place. Innovative methods of treating the runoff from these changed conditions are imperative to maintaining the health of the lake. The project was done as a joint effort with Southern St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water, Wisconsin Sea Grant and the Carlton, Cook, Lake North and South St. Louis Joint Powers Board of Soil and Waters Conservation Districts. I am proud and honored to share with my colleagues this well-deserved tribute for the hardworking staff of the University of Minnesota Duluth and their innovative efforts to improve the environment in the Duluth area.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed SAFETEA-LU--the legislation that reauthorizes the Federal surface transportation programs--in 2005, it recognized the need to significantly increase Federal investment for highway, highway safety, and transit programs. In fact, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, increased the overall investment in surface transportation programs by more than 40 percent, with a significant part of that increase guaranteed to take effect in fiscal year 2007. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 5576, the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, TTHUD, appropriations bill, which meets SAFETEA-LU's funding guarantees. It provides an increase of $3.4 billion for the Federal-aid highway programs and an additional $474 million for the transit programs over the fiscal year 2006 SAFETEA-LU funding levels. It is now more than 2 months since the start of fiscal year 2007, and the Republican-led Congress has not enacted the TTHUD appropriations bill. Instead, H.J. Res. 102 provides funding for the highway, highway safety, and transit programs through February 15, 2007. The resolution funds these programs at the fiscal year 2006 level. Thus, all of the highway and transit investment increases guaranteed by SAFETEA-LU are put on hold. If this approach is continued and the continuing resolution is extended through fiscal year 2007, SAFETEA-LU's guaranteed highway funding will be cut by $3.4 billion and its transit investment slashed by $474 million. Under a long-term continuing resolution, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, safety programs will be funded at substantially lower levels than guaranteed in SAFETEA-LU. NHTSA stands to lose up to $21.7 million. At a time when more than 43,000 people are dying in roadway crashes each year, we simply cannot afford to shortchange an agency tasked with making our roadways safer. Likewise, FMCSA could lose almost $27 million that would be spent on motor carrier safety programs and grants. It is essential that we properly fund these critical programs. The highway, highway safety, and transit programs differ from most other Federal programs in that they are supported by user fees. Motorists who drive on our highways pay the fees when they pump gas. They willingly pay the fees because they rely on a commitment by the Federal Government to use the money so collected to finance our highway and transit programs. In other words, users have already paid for the investments authorized in SAFETEA-LU and funded in the House-passed TTHUD appropriations bill. However, the Republican-led Congress's failure to enact this legislation in a timely manner will shortchange funding for critical transportation projects. Transportation projects are usually high-cost undertakings that take several years to complete. Certainty in funding--especially Federal funding--is critical to their success. Relying on short-term, stopgap measures, such as continuing resolutions, does not provide the certainty that State departments of transportation need to plan for their construction projects in the upcoming season. And for northern- tier States, where construction seasons are short, delays in providing adequate Federal funding can severely disrupt their process for contract bidding, directly affecting next year's construction season. Continuing resolutions also provide great uncertainty for transit programs. The Federal Transit Administration, FTA, has delayed the release of transit formula apportionments and other new grants until a final TTHUD appropriations act is enacted. The continuing resolution, coupled with FTA's policy, is resulting in many transit agencies being unable to advance badly needed transit projects. According to the Federal Reserve, housing construction is currently very weak throughout the country. Congress should do everything within its power to ensure that transportation infrastructure investment is not disrupted through congressional inaction, placing an additional burden on this sector of the economy. Hundreds of our small businesses and thousands of our workers could be put at risk as a result. I urge Congress to fulfill its responsibilities in passing appropriations acts and to honor the funding guarantees established in SAFETEA-LU.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William (Bill) Block of Morrison County, Minnesota, who recently retired after serving 24 years as a Morrison County Commissioner representing District 5. Bill has rendered long, distinguished, and dedicated service for his community and the State of Minnesota. First elected as a Morrison County Commissioner in 1983, Bill's list of accomplishments is both lengthy and varied. Under his stewardship, Morrison County expanded its airport, built a new Government Center, implemented a county-wide 9-1-1 system, promoted economic development, developed the Belle Prairie Park as a premier visitors destination, resolved a recurring flooding problem from Fletcher Creek, converted an abandoned railway into a recreational trail, and improved highway safety. As County Commissioner, he brought together individuals with diverse and sometimes contentious positions through his dedication, hard work, and diplomacy. Admired by his fellow Commissioners, department heads, and county employees, I know that Bill will be sorely missed. I wish Bill and his lovely wife Barb well as they move onto other life pursuits. Because of the many contributions he made to his community, Bill deserves to hang out his ``Gone Fishing'' sign. I am proud and honored to share with my colleagues this well-deserved tribute to Bill Block, who has given so much of himself to enrich the lives of others and to serve his community.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, just about everything that needs to be said about the pipeline safety bill has been said, so I will not repeat the details, the specifics of the legislation. It is a good bill. We have spent a lot of time in subcommittee, in full committee, and in conferring between our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Energy and Commerce Committee and with the responsible committee in the other body, and we have finally ironed out the details and have a very sound framework for the future. The Office of Pipeline Safety has had a very checkered history. It has not worked effectively for a very long time, and then it had an awakening and it got on the right track again. We got the number of inspectors increased, funding for the system increased, we straightened out the cooperation, the coordination between the Federal office and the State offices. Then there was a period of decline. Now this administration, to their great credit, has designated the best person in the history of this program to head up the Office of Pipeline Safety, though it has a longer title now, and that is Admiral Tom Barrett, who brings Coast Guard discipline and a Coast Guard organization structure and a Coast Guard safety mindset into the work of this agency, which is its principal mission, safety. Admiral Barrett, from the time he walked on to the property, had conversations with me, as I am sure he did with Chairman Young, and instilled great confidence in his ability to lead the agency, implement the law, to give us suggestions on how we can improve the legislative product and give him the tools that the agency needs to carry out its mission effectively. And that has certainly been undertaken, and to his great credit, Admiral Barrett has done a superb job of leadership for the Office of Pipeline Safety. The first hearing I held as chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee in 1987 was following a pipeline break and an extraordinary explosion that killed two people in Moundsview, just outside my congressional district, when a gasoline pipeline leaked for days; and at 2 o'clock in the morning a car passing through with a loose tailpipe hit the pavement, caused a spark, ignited the whole street, and a mother and her daughter were incinerated in the process. Why? Because the Office of Pipeline Safety and the pipeline operator were not doing their jobs. That is not going to happen casually at least in the future. There may be some catastrophic failure of some kind, but in place now and with this legislation, and thanks to Admiral Barrett's oversight, there is a system of safety in place in this agency. For that, I thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Petri, the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, our committee staff on both sides, and Chairman Young. This may be our last opportunity on the House floor during this session of Congress for me to pay tribute to the leadership the gentleman from Alaska has given to our committee over these 6 years. Forever etched in title 49 of the U.S. Code will be the biggest transportation investment in a single bill in the history of our country, and that will be SAFETEA-LU, $286.5 billion, a work product through which our chairman led us in subcommittee, in full committee, and in a long and difficult conference with the other body. I will always remember Chairman Young's courage, Mr. Speaker, standing before his President, advocating for a robust investment of $375 billion, as recommended by the Department of Transportation, in the future of highway and transit needs in America, improved pavement condition, reduced congestion and improved safety, and standing before his own Republican Conference and advocating, and staying the course, not wilting along the wayside when we had to scale that figure back to the ultimate $286.5 billion, maintaining intact within that legislation good public policy that will be an enduring legacy for our chairman and for our committee and for our country. We go now into the implementation of SAFETEA-LU, awaiting the interim report of the commission that our committee authorized on the future of transportation needs in the country and how to finance it. But we will do so with the blueprint in our hand and lying ahead of us, which was crafted by this committee under the chairman's leadership. That and many other items of significant achievement, including the great investments that our committee has authorized and that are now being carried out in the U.S. Coast Guard, for which I know the chairman has a great affinity and which service is so important to his State of Alaska, but to the thousands of miles of coastline on the salt water coast and the inland waterways on the Great Lakes of our country. For his leadership, for his skill, for his courage and standing by principle, I salute our chairman, and thank him for his service and for the privilege of the partnership that we have enjoyed during these 6 years.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5076, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006. This Agency's roots go back to 1926 when the Air Commerce Act vested the Department of Commerce with the authority to investigative aircraft accidents. During the 1966 consolidation of various transportation agencies into the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was created as an independent agency within DOT to investigate accidents in all transportation modes. In 1974, Congress further demonstrated its resolve to ensure that NTSB would retain its independence by re-establishing the Board as a totally separate entity, distinct from DOT. Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 124,000 aviation accidents and over 10,000 surface transportation accidents, making it the world's premier accident investigation agency. In the last six years alone, the NTSB has investigated, or caused to be investigated, over 11,000 aviation accidents, 205 highway accidents, 91 railroad accidents, 33 pipeline accidents, 38 marine accidents; and a total of 1129 safety recommendations have been issued. This is no small feat, given the size of this agency: only 396 employees in 10 regional offices. While the NTSB gets perhaps its greatest visibility when there is an aviation tragedy, that should not overshadow the very significant and important work the agency performs in pipelines, maritime, rail, truck, and automotive transportation. To maintain its position as the world's preeminent investigative agency, it is imperative that the NTSB has the resources necessary to handle increasingly complex accident investigations. The NTSB needs sufficient funding to sustain budget and personnel for both its headquarters operations as well as the Academy. Accordingly, this bill authorizes increased funding over the next two years: $81.6 million in FY2007 and $92.6 million in FY2008. H.R. 5076 provides an extra $1.7 million in FY2007 to hire an additional 11 investigators that the Agency needs to fulfill its critical mission. Moreover, the bill provides funding for an additional 20 full-time equivalent employees in 2008 to enable NTSB to meet its core mission of accident investigation. The bill also clarifies that the Board has jurisdiction to investigate major marine casualties occurring on all bodies of water ``on or under the navigable waters, internal waters, or the territorial sea of the United States, such as the Ethan Allen accident on Lake George, New York, that occurred on October 2, 2005, killing 20 passengers. Further, the bill ensures that each member of the Safety Board, not the Chairman, retains the authority to appoint employees on their own personal staff. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an annual audit of the NTSB's programs and expenditures. Finally, H.R. 5076 permits the agency to use funds that it collects as refunds or reimbursements associated with its direct mission costs even if the funds are collected in a subsequent fiscal year, as well as extends the expedited contracting procedures that were authorized in the Board's 2003 authorization. Having a well-funded, well-trained NTSB workforce is of the utmost importance for the American traveling public, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a bill to name the Federal building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse in Duluth, Minnesota, in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney. Judge Heaney was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on November 3, 1966. After 40 years of distinguished judicial service, Judge Heaney retired on August 31, 2006. Judge Heaney was born on January 29, 1918, in Goodhue, a rural community in the southeastern part of Minnesota. As a child growing up in a farming community, Judge Heaney learned the value of a close family, honesty, and hard work. These qualities have marked not only his personal life but also his life as a public servant. He was educated at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and received his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941. Gerry Heaney is a decorated World War II veteran. He was a member of the distinguished Army Ranger Battalion and participated in the historic D-Day landing at Normandy. He was awarded the Silver Star for extraordinary bravery in the battle of La Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, France. He also received a Bronze Star and five battle stars. At the end of the war, Judge Heaney returned home and entered private practice in Duluth. During that time he was instrumental in improving the state education system, and served on the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota. He was instrumental in helping the Duluth school system develop a payroll system that equalized the pay for both men and women. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Heaney to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that capacity, Judge Heaney has been a champion of protecting the rights of the disadvantaged. He is devoted to making sure that every person has an equal opportunity for an education, a job, and a home. He firmly believes the poor, the less educated, and less advantaged deserve the protections provided by the United States Constitution. As a hard working, well-prepared, and fair-minded jurist, Judge Heaney left his legal imprimatur on school desegregation cases, bankruptcy law, prisoner treatment, and social security law. His public service is discerned by industry, brilliance, and scholarly excellence. His compassion and dedication to our most disadvantaged are unparalleled. It is fitting and proper for Congress to designate the Duluth, Minnesota Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse in honor of Judge Gerald W. Heaney. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am relieved that we are that point in the process on this technical corrections bill. This has had a longer gestation period than the technical corrections bill for the previous reauthorization, TEA-21, when we had well over 1,000 technical corrections. We have many fewer this time, but it seems more contentious, particularly with the other body. It has just taken seemingly endless hours of discussion and meetings among committee staff, and discussions. And I particularly appreciate the patience of the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who, on occasion, his impatience has moved the process along. We should not have to do that. We should have been able to come together, look at the problems, just little oversights, misprintings, misstatements of what Members agreed upon in the conference and in the two versions of the bill that went to conference. We should have been able to do that in a matter of a couple of months. But here we are almost a year later, well over a year later, and we are getting these items ironed out. Meanwhile, of course, a number of Members changed their mind about projects that they had, and circumstances changed in the various districts across the country. So we have come back, and again with great bipartisan cooperation and an enormous effort on the part of the majority and minority staff, who have given tremendous hours of their time, Saturdays and Sundays, working, attempting to work through the August recess, when the other body went off and was not willing to cooperate with us. But here we are. The SAFETEA-LU bill has proven to be enormously successful and effective. The policies that we set forth in that bill are being carried out by the States and with the practitioners of transportation across this country, and the bill has been received with great acclaim. The technical corrections that we bring are, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the subcommittee has spelled out some of them, Ranking Member DeFazio has spelled out others. I want to particularly address the recapture of critical research funds for the future strategic highway research program, which is a long-term research initiative addressing the most significant problems of highway safety, reliability, capacity, and renewal. The University Transportation Center Program, which has been very, very successful in offering new initiatives to deal with problems of transportation through the application of technology in education research, and innovative technological approaches to our transportation needs. The development of publication of DOT's Conditions and Performance Report. That is so important. That is a little-understood item that is paid little attention, but it is the basis upon which we will move to the next authorization of transportation which will guide the practitioners, the State Departments of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration in applying SAFETEA-LU. It gives us an objective appraisal of highway conditions, bridge conditions, financing of our transit and highway programs, performance of our highway, bridge and transit systems, and the needs for future investment. This Conditions and Performance Report is a critical matter. I am glad we were able to get it straightened out. The bill also modifies the Repeat Intoxicated Driver Law, to allow for the use of ignition interlock devices. We were making a lot of progress against highway fatalities, but suddenly in the last 2 years the number has been going on up, somewhere around 44-45,000 fatalities a year. Should be going in the other direction. Half of those, nearly half of those, 40 percent of those fatalities are alcohol-related. It is not the bad road conditions. It is not bad bridges. It is alcohol related. The interlock provision was included in both House and Senate bills, but it was not included in the conference report by simply an oversight. So the technical correction incorporates the change of giving States flexibility to continue with the 1-year license suspension requirement, or a 45-day license suspension. That is an important initiative if we are going to continue to save lives. I am talking about just the fatalities. There are 1,300,000 people injured in accidents nationally. The repeat offenders are just a part of the U.S. drunk driving problem. They represent one-third of all DUI, driving under the influence, arrests every year. Fifty to 75 percent of repeat offenders whose licenses have been suspended continue to drive illegally. So an ignition interlock will prevent those offenders who have imbibed too much from operating their vehicle. They will be able to drive to work, drive to school or go to an alcohol treatment program, but we want to keep those bad drivers, repeat bad drivers off the road and save lives, and this initiative will help do that. The technical corrections bill also corrects and states in much clearer language an intention that was written in to permit the construction of a bridge over Interstate 35 near North Branch in the southern tier of my congressional district, and how the State and the Federal Highway Administration could have misunderstood the language we wrote in that bill is beyond me. We authorized $7.5 million for design, engineering and construction of a bridge, and the Federal Highway Administration and the State said, oh, no, the way you wrote it, we interpret it to be only for design and engineering. Well, I tell you, you do not spend $7.5 million to design and engineer a $7.5 million bridge. We have made that very clear in this technical corrections. So with those adjustments, I offer my heartfelt thanks to Chairman Young for his patience, for his perseverance; Chairman Petri, for a partnership that we have continually had and his leadership; and the gentleman from Oregon, who has invested an enormous amount of time; but especially to staff on both sides whose continued creativity has made it possible for us to bring this bill to this point. Now let us hope that the other body passes it with alacrity.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and for the very strong statement he made earlier, the very straightforward and candid assessment of the process to which this legislation has been subjected. While I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York, chairman of the committee of conference, and also Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and the gentleman from Mississippi who have done stellar work on this legislation, I am disappointed with the outcome. There are two issues here. There are substance and process. On the substance, sure, I will vote for the conference report because what is in the bill will improve port security. What is left out is what is troubling and disappointing. When the bill cleared the House, there was the expectation, as there always is when we pass a part in one bill and have a comparable in the other, that the missing links will be addressed in a conference committee, and in this case, the missing links in security will be addressed in conference. That did not happen. This bill does not make improvements in rail and transit security, even though the Senate version had good provisions to address transit and intercity passenger rail security. For reasons I do not understand and no one has explained, the House Republican leadership apparently determined late at night last night that it would not attempt to work out rail and transit security in conference. The committee of conference held a meeting. Conferees elected a chairman and made opening statements, and that was it. The supporters of rail and transit security improvements were never permitted to make proposals or offer amendments to improve rail and transit security. We expected that we were going to be able to do that, but it never happened. The security needs in rail and transit are huge, $700 million for Amtrak, $6 billion for transit. In the wake of the Madrid, London, and Mumbai bombings, the leadership of the other party should not have passed up an opportunity to protect millions who use intercity rail and transit each day. There is much more that we could have and should have done. We should not be kicking it over to the next Congress. That is the disappointment. We have an opportunity to make an improvement. You should seize that opportunity and move ahead. As far as it goes, it is a useful bill. It is not what it should be. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote the original Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). That landmark legislation significantly improved security at our Nation's ports. The conference report before us fine tunes that original security act and gives added direction to the Administration in how to carry out its multiple port security programs. It also provides a statutory framework for many regulatory initiatives established by the Department of Homeland Security, including the Container Security Initiative and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program (CT-PAT). Republicans rejected the Nadler-Oberstar amendment offered during House consideration of the bill. That amendment would have required 100 percent of containers to be scanned for nuclear weapons before a container destined for the United States was loaded in a foreign port. I am pleased that the conference report adopts the Senate provision to authorize a pilot program for 100 percent scanning of containers in three foreign ports. I am also encouraged that the conference report requires the Secretary to scan 100 percent of containers entering the 22 largest container ports in the United States. What I don't understand is if we can scan 100 percent of containers when they are offloaded from a ship in a U.S. port, why can't we scan those same containers before they are loaded on that same ship in the foreign port? Why can't we continue to work to ``push the borders out''? While the conference report goes a long way toward strengthening port security, it does not do a thing for rail and transit security and other issues, which were covered in the Senate bill, and should have been included in this conference report. Last night, the House passed, by a vote of 281-140, a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4954 to adopt the Senate provisions on rail and transit security, as well as other security measures. Less than an hour later, the Conference Committee met and conferees were allowed to make statements, but not amendments to a draft conference report. In fact, the conferees had no legislative text to consider. It was obvious to all that there was no interest among House Republican conferees to have a serious discussion about including rail and transit security in this bill. One by one, Members of the Conference Committee--House and Senate-- asked the Conference Committee Chairman when we were going to be able to review the final conference report and when Members were going to be able to offer amendments to it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King)--and I quote--stated, ``The expectation is we will receive the final documents, go to debate and consider amendments and go forward at that time.'' Two hours later, Mr. King's staff advised members that there would be no further meetings of the conferees. What could have possibly happened in those two hours to create such a great delay that the documents were not available for a meeting today? Why do Republicans consistently prevent Democrats from offering amendments that will make our country safer? In the wake of the Madrid, London, and Mumbai bombings, Congress has a responsibility to the American people to assure the safety and security of our Nation's rail and transit systems. This year, the Federal government will invest $4.7 billion in aviation security improvements, while spending only $150 million on rail and transit security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. Amtrak has requested more than $100 million in security upgrades and nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The American Public Transportation Association, which represents transit agencies and commuter railroads, has well-documented transit security needs that exceed $6 billion (including more than $5.2 billion of capital investment security needs). The Senate-passed port security bill would have helped meet those needs, and the conferees should have been granted the right to vote on them before they were stripped from the final version of the bill. Do we have to wait for an attack before we take action to secure our nation's railroads and transit systems? What is wrong with providing funding for critical rail and transit security needs? What is wrong with hiring more inspectors? There are only 100 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rail inspectors responsible for the security of our Nation's 144,000-mile freight and passenger railroad system. What is wrong with requiring development and implementation of a national rail and transit security plan to clarify the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local agencies in securing rail and transit systems? What is wrong with ensuring that key workers have the necessary support and training required to protect our rail and public transit systems? Nothing, the House Republican Leadership just did not want to do it. Another example of what should have been included in this conference report and wasn't: Removal of the cap of 45,000 on TSA screeners. That cap is both arbitrary and counterintuitive, and it is also impairing security. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks requires 100 percent electronic baggage screening. Yet, there is evidence that staffing shortages are undermining electronic screening efforts. Staffing shortages often require TSA to use alternative screening procedures to screen checked bags, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that TSA's use of alternative screening procedures involves trade-offs in security effectiveness. While the number of airport screeners remains static, passenger traffic grows. Airlines are expected to carry more than one billion passengers by 2015, increasing from approximately 700 million in 2004. TSA currently screens 522 million bags per year. GAO reports that TSA could be screening as many as 96 million more bags than it now screens--an 18 percent increase--by as early as 2010. According to TSA data, the use of alternative screening procedures will increase at some airports because of rising passenger traffic. All of these issues should have been dealt with in this conference report. While I support the port security bill, it has left much work undone.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I had two concerns about the agreement that came from the two cities. The first was safety. Years ago, I held hearings when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee on Safety at Love Field, between Love Field and Dallas. There are only 2 miles of air space in the approach and departure patterns of those two airports. I was concerned that removing the limitations on operations at Love Field would create greater safety concerns than they did at the time. Since then, the FAA has fixed the safety issue with an innovative departure and arrival arrangement that will assure safety, provided there is no increase in operations. That leads us to the second issue, and that is competition. The agreement limits the number of gates to 20. That is something that local citizens are concerned about, noise, safety, congestion. Congress has a right to act on safety and on noise and to limit operations in the interests of safety and of noise, without infringing upon the antitrust issue. In fact, the language that we have before us is an improvement over the agreement of the two cities that in fact would have had antitrust implications. So the antitrust exemption has been removed, but the bill directs action and closing of gates, which is an authority Congress has, in the interest of safety and congestion. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6228, The Wright Amendment Reform Act, which would implement the agreement reached by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to reform the so-called ``Wright Amendment.'' The Wright Amendment was an effort by our former colleague, Jim Wright, then Majority Leader, later, Speaker Wright, to codify an agreement reached in 1979 among the Dallas and Fort Worth business and political communities, and Southwest Airlines, which resisted efforts to move its operations to the newly opened Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Airport. This agreement ensured that DFW would be the primary airport for the DFW metropolitan region, and that Love Field would remain a limited, short haul airport. Recently, the Dallas and Fort Worth communities, along with American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, came forward with a new agreement that would, in their view, make repealing the Wright Amendment acceptable. The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has chosen to deal with the issues surrounding the Wright Amendment legislatively, rather than allow it to erode piecemeal as it has over the years, without a view to the larger national aviation context. The ``stakeholders'' in this process are not just the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, the airlines, nor the airport authorities. The ``stakeholders'' are all Americans. If you approve a law for an additional highway on the East Coast, it does not do much for traffic on the West Coast. However, if you approve a law for additional feet of runway at an airport on the East Coast, it does make traffic from the West Coast more accessible to the East Coast because of the nature of air travel. Similarly, dealing with DFW and Love Field is a national matter. H.R. 6228, would implement three core provisions of the parties' contract: to repeal the Wright Amendment 8 years after enactment of this Act; eliminate the restrictions on through-ticketing from Love Field; and to cap the Love Field gates at 20 in perpetuity. Importantly, the bill addresses two very significant issues that I raised in Committee: safety and new entrant access. Love Field is approximately 8 miles from DFW. In 1991, when I served as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I held a hearing during which significant safety concerns were raised regarding the potential expansion of flights at Love Field. Many witnesses attending that hearing expressed concern that the proximity of approach and departure procedures to and from both DFW and Love Field, along with conflicting flight patterns, could decrease the margin of safety. While I have the utmost confidence in our nation's air traffic controllers, I want to ensure that by adding more flights at Love Field, we are not reducing the cushion of safety. Controllers should not need to slow air traffic to accommodate the safety margin, nor should they be compelled to operate at the outside of the power curve to avoid delays in and around the Dallas-Fort Worth area. H.R. 6228 addresses this very significant issue by including a provision that prohibits the legislation from taking effect until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notifies Congress that additional aviation operations in the airspace serving Love Field and the Dallas- Fort Worth area, which are likely to be conducted after the enactment of this Act, can be accommodated in full compliance with FAA safety standards, in accordance with the FAA's mandate to maintain safety at the highest possible level, and without adverse effect on airspace use in the area. The second issue is competition. The agreement would change the gate availability at Love Field to greatly increase the difficulty of any carrier other than Southwest or American to serve Love Field. Currently, there are 32 gates at Love Field, with 19 in use, and 13 available for new entrants. The agreement would reduce the gates to 20, and allocate all of these gates to American, Southwest, and Continental. To ensure that a prospective new carrier would have reasonable access to these 20 gates at Love Field, H.R. 6228 preserves the FAA's authority to enforce grant assurances that obligate Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and non- discriminatory basis. Further, Love Field continues to be subject to all federal requirements relating to safety, security, labor, environmental, civil rights, small business concerns, veteran's preference, disability access and revenue diversion that are applicable to all airports. As to antitrust issues, this legislation does not implicitly or explicitly provide antitrust immunity to the parties. However, the legislation directs the City of Dallas to reduce the number of operational gates to no more than 20, which includes the removal of the 6 so-called Lemmon Avenue gates, and allows the City to allocate the use of the remaining gates based on existing leases and obligations. These directives could be advanced as a defense in an antitrust case. Accordingly, I want to thank the Chairman Young and the Texas delegation for working with me on this legislation to ensure that my concerns on safety and new entrant access are addressed and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6228. wright amendment reform act antitrust bullets The Judiciary Committee opposed the original bill reported by the Transportation Committee because our bill included an exemption from the antitrust laws. To meet this concern the bill has been modified to remove the exemption. This change met the antitrust concerns of the Chairman of Senate Judiciary who now supports the bill. The House Judiciary Committee Chair argues that even though the antitrust exemption has been removed, the bill still directs actions, such as the closing of gates, which would violate the antitrust laws if done by agreement of private parties. This is not a valid argument. Congress has the authority to direct the closing of gates for safety, environmental or economic reasons, even if private parties would not be allowed to do this under the anti-trust laws. The antitrust laws are only Congressional legislation, and Congress can pass subsequent legislation creating exceptions.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006. The bill provides authorization of $8 billion for Coast Guard programs for the coming fiscal year, 2007, including $5.6 billion for Coast Guard operations; $2 billion for Coast Guard acquisition and construction, of which amount $1.4 billion is for the Integrated Deepwater System; $24 billion for research and development; $1 billion for retired pay; $17 million for the Truman Hobbs Bridge Alteration Program; and $12 million for environmental compliance at Coast Guard facilities. For the past 3 years, Chairman Young and the very dedicated subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and I and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) have been concerned about the diversion of Coast Guard resources from their historic missions, search and rescue, marine safety, being diverted to homeland security missions. Those are important, but no more important than those historic missions of the Coast Guard about which we were concerned when the Department of Homeland Security was created and the Coast Guard was moved into it. The maritime safety laws of this country were written in understanding and appreciation of the peril which mariners face when they get on a ship, go out to sea, whether on the saltwater or the fourth coastline of this country, the Great Lakes. Americans put their trust every day in the Coast Guard to regulate safety on ferry boats and other types of vessels conveying passengers, or on liquefied natural gas tankers that come into our ports. We have to ensure that the Coast Guard will get their full funding needed to carry out those responsibilities. So in this legislation for the first time we set a floor on the amount of funding available for Coast Guard search and rescue and maritime safety programs. We restore the funding for those programs that was cut in the President's proposed budget. We also restore funding for the Truman Hobbs Bridge Alteration Program to remove bridges that are obstructions to navigation. We ensure funding for the Coast Guard's research and development program will go directly to the Coast Guard and will not be filtered through the Department of Homeland Security. As I warned when we brought that homeland security bill to the House floor that you put the Coast Guard in there, those dollars will be siphoned off to other functions within homeland security. Now we found a way to protect that that will not happen; the money will go directly to the Coast Guard. In addition, we make a number of changes that will help the men and women of the Coast Guard of whom Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Young and I and others have so frequently spoken with great admiration for their service. First, we help pay for Coast Guard travel expenses for medical costs, if they are assigned to an isolated place that has no public access roads to the mainland, for example, allowing Coast Guard enlisted personnel to participate in the Armed Forces Retirement Home System; requiring that newly built fishing vessels built as replacement vessels under the American Fisheries Act be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping and have loadlines assigned if they are over 79 feet in length; and increasing the civil penalties for vessels that violate the anchorage regulations. We also require that each facility security plan provide a method for seamen and representatives of seamen's welfare and labor organizations be able to board and depart the vessel through the facility in a timely fashion at no cost to the individual. Those are just some of the highlights of this very, very important, comprehensive bill. It achieves that extraordinary goal that we on this committee in a bipartisan manner have had of setting a floor on the Coast Guard funding for search and rescue and for maritime safety programs. This is a great accomplishment. We ought to pass this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman's integrity and his pursuit of a personal and institutional objective. However, this is not an earmark for a project. It is not a designation of a specific venue for an activity. It is an authorization for the Department to make a decision which was done pursuant to the 2004 law, and in this legislation we simply extend what is already in existence as designated by the Secretary. Now, we are very careful in this committee. I will not stand for, in any aviation authorization bill, any specific designations or earmarks. People always want to have an air traffic control tower or center or something else designated in that bill. We keep it out. And we do not have any of those designations in this bill for specific districts for specific Members.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, the gentleman refers to a press release. We don't legislate by press releases here. Secondly, that statement was issued after the Secretary made a designation. After the Secretary made a designation. And participating in the Institute are the University of Toledo; the University of Wisconsin at Madison; the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, which is in Michigan; the University of Michigan; Michigan Tech University; and University of Minnesota-Duluth. This is a consortium of universities. But the legislation didn't designate where it should be located. That designation was left to the Secretary.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, I just want to say that the law directed the Secretary of Transportation to designate. The press release didn't. The legislation didn't. Appropriations didn't. If you are looking for transparency, it is very transparent what we have here in this bill. Additional years of authorization, the specific dollar amounts in an authorization, not an appropriation bill and not directed to a specific place.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I think we have essentially resolved the issue of the gentleman from Arizona. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, that is an issue the gentleman I suggest should take up with his leadership. I do not have much of a say in that matter Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He has been a vigorous advocate for openness about designation and earmarking in appropriation bills and has been vigorous in his pursuit in that objective. I would point out, this is not an earmark for a project. For example, when the Food and Drug Administration was established, it was established to be located at the place of the designation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Similarly with the National Institutes of Health. The legislation didn't say that they should be in Maryland; they just happened to be located in Maryland. This is not a project that fits a particular Member's district. This is an institute that was authorized in the Coast Guard bill of 2004 that became Public Law in August of that year with this language: ``The Secretary of Transportation may designate a National Maritime Enhancement Institute for the Great Lakes region.'' It didn't say where. It didn't direct the Secretary to put it in any Members' district, just the Great Lakes. I know the gentleman represents a water-challenged State. We have one-fifth of all of the fresh water on the face of the Earth in the five Great Lakes that cover eight States and two provinces of Canada. The purpose of this institute is to develop marketing opportunities, shipping opportunities, and to look at the corrosive effects of water that are happening in the Great Lakes on our port facilities. Steel suddenly in the last 5 years has begun to corrode. Something is happening in those waters. It was our purpose, the Great Lakes States members, to create an institute that would bring together a wide range of academic and Federal Government agencies. I will just list for the gentleman, the Coast Guard, the Lake Carriers Association, Association of Great Lakes Port Authorities, U.S. Maritime Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Commission, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, and various universities are all participants in this Great Lakes Maritime Institute. What we do in this bill is continue the authorization for this program with specific dollar amounts, but we do not designate where it shall be located.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6051, as amended, a bill to designate the federal building located at 2 South Main St. in Akron, OH, as the John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United States Courthouse. Congressman John Seiberling was born in 1918. He attended public school in Akron and Staunton Military Academy in Virginia. After graduating from the military academy, he attended Harvard and received his law degree from Columbia Law School. In the 1950s, Congressman Seiberling engaged in private practice and also volunteered with the New York Legal Aid Society. He was elected to the 92nd Congress and served for seven succeeding Congresses from 1971 to 1987. He was an ardent environmentalist long before it was a trendy word. He comes from a long line of conservationists. His grandfather donated land in Akron for the city's first metropolitan park. As a junior Member of Congress, Seiberling authored legislation to establish the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. He then went on to shepherd through Congress an additional 62 park related bills, including legislation that tripled the size of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congressman Seiberling also sponsored legislation to establish an American Conservation Corps. Although the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan, the ideals and concepts outlined in the bill were later adopted as part of the AmeriCorps authorization legislation signed by President Clinton. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6051. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1556, a bill to designate the land located on the site of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, MO, as the Clyde S. Cahill Memorial Park. This parcel of land is bounded by South 10th Street, Clark Avenue, South 9th Street, and Walnut Avenue in St. Louis. Judge Cahill, a native Missourian, was born in St. Louis in April 1923. He attended local elementary schools and Vashon High School. After graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Army Air Corps and served in World War II from 1942 until 1946. When he returned from the war he continued his education at the University of St. Louis. He graduated from St. Louis University Law School in 1951. After graduation, Judge Cahill engaged in private practice until 1954 when he joined the staff of the circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis. From 1958 to 1965, he served as the chief legal advisor to the Missouri NAACP and filed the first lawsuit in Missouri to implement the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. From 1975 until 1980, Judge Cahill served as a circuit judge on the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri in St. Louis. With his appointment to the Federal court by President Carter on May 23, 1980, Judge Cahill became the first African-American to be appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Cahill was known for being both compassionate and courteous. However, he frequently challenged the flaws in the judicial system and was critical of Federal sentencing guidelines, which he believed were sometimes inappropriately severe. He served as a role model for many young lawyers and civil servants. Judge Cahill died peacefully in 2004. Due to his lifetime of judicial excellence, it is both fitting and just that the park area located at the Thomas Eagleton U.S. Courthouse be designated in his honor. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1556.