James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the gentleman's amendment. It's a thoughtful, useful, important tool. The committee has always insisted on transparency and accountability, and we welcome this recommendation of a study and a review and recommendations from OMB. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). The gentleman's amendment directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') to conduct a study of the programs authorized by this Act using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (``PART''), or a successor performance assessment tool that may be developed by OMB in the future. I welcome the independent review of Federal programs to make sure that they are meeting the goals and purposes for which they were created. This independent review of agency actions and programs provides policymakers with valuable insight into agency performance, as well as the opportunity to make changes to improve the overall operation of Federal programs. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a long history of ensuring proper oversight of Federal programs and activities. For example, in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the Committee established an independent review process for the development of project studies performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Independent review of projects should ensure the development projects that are justified both on the basis of costs and benefits, but also on the best scientific and engineering analyses currently available. We should all welcome the opportunity for such scrutiny. Mr. Chairman, I am heartened by President Obama's commitment to transparency, accountability, and oversight, and I am hopeful that this review will demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the Clean Water authorities contained in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We accept the amendment on this side. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1262 offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper). This amendment requires a certification be completed that Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan recipients conduct energy- and water- efficiency reviews and implement conservation measures that are forthcoming. It is only fitting that the Member who represents Titusville, Pennsylvania, would offer this amendment. It was in Titusville, in 1859, that oil was first successfully drilled in the United States. It is fair to say, then, that energy has been a central part of the life, history, and culture of the residents of Pennsylvania's Third District. In offering this amendment, Mrs. Dahlkemper has demonstrated the importance of energy to all facets of modern life, including the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. These operations are typically among municipalities' largest users of energy. Requiring that wastewater treatment facilities undertake a robust assessment of their energy usage and operations can ultimately result in less energy being expended, decreased energy bills for local governments, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment will apply 21st century energy solutions to 20th century technologies. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We support the gentleman's amendment. It is vitally important to deal with combined storm and sanitary sewer overflows. Seven hundred million dollars is peanuts compared to a whole lot of other expenditures that have been made in the TARP and the rest. So this is a real investment whose benefits we and future generations will see.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, before proceeding with the vote, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes, equally divided, between the Democratic side and the Republican side, for the purpose of offering a technical amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have discovered during the consideration of the gentleman's amendment that there is a technical phrasing of language in the gentleman's amendment that could affect the underlying bill, and we have consulted with the Parliamentarian about the proper phrasing of the language which is now being drafted. While that language is being written, I would assure the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Broun, that we will work together in the appropriations process. We worked together in our committee on both sides of the aisle to incorporate views of both parties in shaping the bill we bring to the House today, and this will be one of many considerations reviewed by the Budget Committee and later, when the real decisions are made by the Appropriations Committee. I share the gentleman's concern. We are spending an enormous amount of money, Madam Chair, on this asset recovery plan that started last August and September of 2008. We have seen money go out the door, and we have no idea where some of that money has gone that is supposed to stabilize the domestic and international financial structure. And maybe it has done that. But the increasing demands to support this bank and that bank and this insurance agency and that, and now to an international global financial meltdown. The gentleman is right, we have to take stock and balance our equities. But we also have to get this economy moving. We have to put people to work. When people have a job and have incomes and we are paying people to work and not paying them for not working with unemployment compensation, then maybe we can get this economy back on track and get people consuming, and we can start the flow of capital. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio. The Driehaus amendment inadvertently struck a subsection of the manager's amendment adopted earlier today. The amendment to accomplish my request is pending at the desk.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 869, a bill to designate the Federal building located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' The bill was introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) and his colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). Scott Reed was born in Lexington, Kentucky in 1921. He attended local schools and graduated from the University of Kentucky College of Law in 1945. While at the University, Reed received many awards and honors, including the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medallion for excellence. The first years of Judge Reed's career were spent in private practice, during which he distinguished himself as a trial lawyer of great integrity. During this time, he also taught at the University of Kentucky College of Law. From 1964 to 1969, he was judge of the First Division of the Fayette Circuit Court. From 1969 until 1976, Judge Reed served on the Court of Appeals, 5th Appellate District. In 1976, he became the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a position which holds equal rank with the Governor. His opinions from the Supreme Court of Kentucky have received national attention for their scholarly content and careful judicial reasoning. In August 1979, Judge Reed was nominated by President Carter to serve as the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He was confirmed in October 1979, and served until his death in 1994. In the 110th Congress, the House passed similar legislation to designate the U.S. Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to act on the bill. Judge Reed enjoyed a rich and rewarding career. His contributions to the American judicial system are exceptional. It is fitting that the courthouse in Lexington bear his name to honor his distinguished career and enduring legacy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 869.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 813, a bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ``J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. Judge Small has been a life-long resident of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and has dedicated 52 years to civil service. He served in the United States Navy for three years during World War II and, after leaving the service, received a law degree from the University of North Carolina Law School at Chapel Hill. In 1949, he began his legal career as a Special Counsel to the Congressional Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and later served for eight years as a county attorney for Pasquotank County. In 1979, he was elected Superior Court Judge of the First Judicial District of North Carolina, and served in that position for 17 years. Throughout his life, Judge Small has been an active volunteer, serving on the Board of Directors of the Albemarle Hospital, and the American Red Cross. He has received numerous awards and honors from the Jaycees, the Boy Scouts, Volunteer Fireman, Chamber of Commerce, and the Rotary and Elks clubs. In the 110th Congress, the House passed a similar bill but, unfortunately, the Senate was unable act on the legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for reintroducing this bill. Judge Small is an outstanding mentor and volunteer. For over five decades, he has been an exceptional jurist and civic leader. It is fitting and proper to honor his outstanding contributions with this designation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 813.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 837, a bill to designate the United States Mission to the United Nations Building located at 799 First Avenue, New York, New York, as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building''. Enactment of this legislation is long overdue. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his steadfastness in supporting this bill. Congressman Rangel introduced similar bills in the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. Last Congress, the House passed H.R. 735, to designate the United States Mission to the United Nations in honor of Ron Brown. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to act on the bill. I am pleased that today we will again pass this bill and pay a fitting tribute to the life and achievements of this extraordinary American. Ron Brown was a man who served his country in many capacities: lawyer, pragmatic bridge builder, statesman, mentor, and trusted friend. He may be best known for his service as the first African-American Secretary of Commerce. In that position, he became a powerful and influential voice for promoting American products and trade abroad. He championed expanding markets for U.S. goods and services, in order to increase job opportunities and foster job creation here at home. He also served President Clinton on the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, and the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee. Secretary Brown served on the Board of Trustees for Middlebury College and received his law degree from St. John's University in New York City. Prior to entering public service, he worked as a welfare caseworker in New York City. In addition to his many talents and strengths, Secretary Brown was a passionate civil rights activist with a distinguished record of service to his community. His commitment to this nation and its citizens provides a model for us all. Secretary Brown's life tragically ended in April 1996, when he was killed in a plane crash in Croatia while on an official Department of Commerce trade mission. The Department of State requested that Secretary Brown personally undertake the trade mission to highlight and find opportunities for U.S. businesses to boost economic reconstruction of the war torn region of former Yugoslavia. Congress has previously designated four Federal buildings that serve as Department of State facilities. In 2000, Congress designated the Department of State headquarters as the ``Harry S Truman Federal Building'' (P.L. 106-218). In 2004, Congress designated the Foreign Service Institute as the ``George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center'' (P.L. 108-136). In 2005, Congress designated the United States Embassy Annex in Rome, Italy, as the ``Mel Sembler Building'' (P.L. 108-447) and designated the Federal building in Kingston, Jamaica, as the ``Colin L. Powell Residential Plaza'' (P.L. 109-89). Secretary Brown died in service to his country. It is fitting and proper to honor this Federal building as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 837.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, a bill to designate the United States Courthouse to be constructed in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse''. R. Jess Brown was born in Coffeeville, Kansas, on September 2, 1912. He was educated in the Muskogee, Oklahoma public schools, and later received a Bachelor of Education from Illinois State Normal University in 1935, a Master of Education from the University of Indiana in 1943, and a Juris Doctorate from Texas Southern Law School. He was admitted to the bar for the State of Mississippi in 1953 and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In 1955, he co-founded the Magnolia Bar Association, and he later served on the Board of the National Bar Association for nearly 15 years. In 1958, he was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. As associate counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Brown filed the first civil rights suit in Mississippi seeking the enforcement of the right of black citizens to become registered voters. In 1961, Brown represented James H. Meredith in his suit to enter the University of Mississippi, and his victory in this case opened the doors of that University to all of Mississippi's citizens. During his time at the NAACP, Brown also played a major role in fighting discrimination in the areas of transportation and other public accommodations working alongside Thurgood Marshall, who would later become a United States Supreme Court Justice. Brown also served as counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, where he was successful in obtaining reversals of convictions of black defendants because of discrimination in jury selection. He represented numerous black defendants in cases where the State sought the death penalty, and as a result of these appeals, none of these defendants were ever executed. R. Jess Brown died in Jackson, Mississippi, on January 2, 1990. He will be remembered as a brilliant attorney, an accomplished civil rights leader, and as a great American. It is appropriate that the U.S. Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi be designated the ``R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse''. In the 110th Congress, the House passed a similar bill to name the U.S. Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi, after R. Jess Brown. Regrettably, the Senate was unable to act on the legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me once again in supporting this designation and I urge the passage of H.R. 842.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 887, a bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th Street in Davenport, Iowa in honor of former Congressman Jim Leach. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) and the Iowa delegation for reintroducing this bill to honor one of Congress's most well-respected and well-liked Members. The House passed a similar bill, H.R. 1505, in the 110th Congress but unfortunately, the Senate was unable to act on the legislation. Jim Leach was a learned Member of this Body and, to many of us, a trusted friend. James Albert Smith Leach was born in Davenport, Iowa on October 15, 1942. He attended public schools in Davenport, received a Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University, and attended the London School of Economics. In 1965, Congressman Leach began his public service career as a staff person to then-Congressman Donald Rumsfeld. In 1968, he joined the U.S. Department of State as a Foreign Service Officer and subsequently served as special assistant to the director at the Office of Economic Opportunity. In the 1970s, he served in various capacities with the United Nations, the United States Advisory Commission on International Education and Cultural Affairs, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. In 1976, Congressman Leach was elected to the United States House of Representatives; he would represent the 2nd District of Iowa for 30 years (1977-2007). During his time in Congress, he chaired the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He holds eight honorary degrees, has received decorations from two foreign governments, and is the recipient of the Wayne Morse Integrity in Politics Award, the Woodrow Wilson Award from Johns Hopkins University, the Adlai Stevenson Award from the United Nations Association, and the Edger Wayburn Award from the Sierra Club. In February 2007, Congressman Leach joined the faculty of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs as a visiting professor. In all aspects of his public career, he served the citizens of Iowa with distinction, hard work, and honor. This designation properly honors his outstanding public career and it is fitting to designate the Davenport, Iowa courthouse as the ``James A. Leach United States Courthouse.'' I support the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Jim Leach.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 37, to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. I especially want to acknowledge the dedication of our distinguished Majority Leader (Mr. Hoyer), who annually introduces this resolution to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for such a worthwhile event. This year's Greater Washington Soap Box Derby is scheduled to take place on Constitution Avenue between Delaware Avenue and Third Street, N.W., in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2009. This will be the 68th running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. This annual event encourages all boys and girls, ages nine through 16, to construct and operate their own soap box vehicles. The event is supported by hundreds of volunteers and parents. It is an excellent opportunity for parents to have direct involvement in their children's activities. The derby's mission is to provide children with an activity that promotes technical and social skills that will serve them throughout their lives. The derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place during the event. I am confident that this year's event will once again be a huge success. I urge my colleagues to join me in agreeing to H. Con. Res. 37.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 38, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15, 2009. In October 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as ``Police Week''. Each year on this day, our country honors the devotion and service of the peace officers who protect our neighborhoods, our cities, our friends, and our families. This year's Memorial Service will honor the more than 140 Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty during 2008, and will mark the 28th time the Capitol grounds will be used for this noteworthy event. During 2008, 41 officers were killed by gun fire, 71 officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 15 women were killed in the line of duty. Activities on the Capitol Grounds conducted under H. Con. Res. 38 will be coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol, will be free, and open to the public. The selfless work of our police and firemen has always been a model of courage and moral strength. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 38.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 39, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. The District of Columbia Special Olympics is the premier event in this region that highlights the athletic accomplishments of children and young adults with disabilities. I'd like to recognize and give special thanks to the tenacity to Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her family for exceptional work on behalf of persons with disabilities. Each year, law enforcement officers around the world participate in local Torch Run events to raise money and awareness for the Special Olympics. In 2008, the Law Enforcement Torch Runs raised over $34 million for the Special Olympics. In the Washington D.C. area, law enforcement officers, who are part of the extensive volunteer network that support the games, carry the ``Flame of Hope'' across the Capitol Grounds through the District of Columbia to Catholic University. This event, scheduled to occur on June 5, 2009, will be open to the public and free of charge. The sponsors will work with the Capitol Police Board to ensure that all rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Capitol Grounds are followed. These games are a wonderful expression of inclusiveness and a confirmation of individual contribution. I enthusiastically support this resolution and the very worthwhile endeavor of the Special Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in agreeing to H. Con. Res. 39.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I am proud today to introduce H.R. 1174, the ``FEMA Independence Act of 2009'', a bill to re-establish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (``FEMA'') as an independent, cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the President. This bill restores FEMA's ability to be a nimble and effective response agency, re-instates FEMA's role in building basic emergency management capability around the country, and removes FEMA from the large bureaucracy within the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') that has hindered the agency's disaster response and recovery efforts for six years. On March 1, 2003, President Bush delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the responsibility for administering the Federal Government's assistance to States and local governments whose citizens and communities are affected by disasters, and subsumed the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the newly-created Department of Homeland Security. Since 2003, FEMA has failed the American people. Hurricane Katrina remains foremost in our minds. It is shameful that, to this day, many citizens and communities in Louisiana have still not recovered from the disaster. Beyond Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's performance has continued to be deficient, such as in the agency's inadequate response to the discovery of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers, a serious threat to public health. More recently, residents in Texas experienced significant shortcomings in the delivery of recovery assistance, including debris removal and housing, in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Today, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Emergency Management, and Public Buildings is holding yet another hearing on the status of recovery efforts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas from these hurricanes. The fact that there are still individuals and communities in need demonstrates that dramatic improvements that can and must be made to the Federal government's provision of disaster assistance and leadership in emergency management. Oversight hearings since 2003 held by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have shown a clear correlation between the absorption of FEMA into DHS and the deterioration of FEMA's effectiveness. One reason for this trend it that since becoming a part of DHS, FEMA's emergency management mission has been distorted by a focus on terrorism. Key Federal grant programs that previously helped build basic emergency management and fire fighting capability in communities around the country are now made available only if applicants can show a nexus to terrorism. In the last six years, the Federal Government has spent ten times more on terrorism preparedness (nearly $15 billion) than on core emergency management preparedness ($1.5 billion). Yet since 2000, the President has declared only two disasters because of terrorist attacks, but nearly 500 disasters due to natural hazards. Further, quick decision-making and the flexibility to shift course as events change are two fundamental hallmarks of successful emergency management. Within DHS, FEMA officials have had to run all decisions through the Secretary of Homeland Security. FEMA has also had to work through the Secretary to access non-FEMA Federal resources in a response effort. These additional layers, which did not exist when FEMA was an independent agency, cause delays, impact the speed and flexibility of services that are provided to citizens and communities, and add unnecessary obstacles following a disaster. Being subsumed in a DHS bureaucracy has impaired FEMA's ability to carry out its mission quickly and effectively. Since 2003, DHS has centralized disaster response and recovery capabilities at the Federal level, which has shut out FEMA's partnerships with State and local governments, and undermined the emergency management system. DHS has also created separate functions under the direct control of the Secretary to perform functions that by law are the sole responsibility of FEMA, such as pre-designation of individuals to serve as Principal Federal Officials (``PFOs'') for disasters during the 2008 Hurricane season. Since its incorporation into DHS, FEMA has also had to rely increasingly on support from contractors, due to a loss of experienced FEMA personnel and a reduction of emergency management capacity at the State and local level as the focus of emergency management grant funding has shifted to terrorism-preparedness programs. For these reasons, I have long opposed the incorporation of FEMA into DHS. During House consideration of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, I said: This is July 2002. Let us fast forward to July 2003. The majority has prevailed. FEMA is a box in the mammoth bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. Flood waters are swirling around your city. You call for help. You get the Department of Homeland Security. The switchboard sends your call to the Under Secretary's office which looks up ``disaster'' on their organizational chart and sends you to the Congressional Liaison Office, which then promises to get a message back to you in 24 hours. Eventually, they find FEMA, by which time you are stranded on the roof of your house waving a white handkerchief and screaming for help. FEMA, the word comes back, sorry, is looking for suspected terrorists some place and will get back to you as soon as we can. Unfortunately, we have seen these predictions come true. Unless FEMA is re-established as an independent, cabinet-level agency, I expect this history to repeat itself. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted changes to try to fix the problems plaguing FEMA by enhancing the agency's authority within the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, these changes have done little to restore the type of robust emergency management agency that is needed at the Federal level. Tinkering around the edges will not work; fixing this flawed system requires fundamental change. This bill takes the most important and necessary first step to fix the problem--re-instating FEMA as an independent agency. Specifically, H.R. 1174 affirms FEMA's mission to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the United States from all hazards, by leading and supporting a comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. As prescribed by the bill, an independent FEMA will be led by an Administrator and a Deputy Administrator with extensive experience in emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation from hazards. The bill maintains and strengthens FEMA's regional structure of ten regional offices and three area offices. Each regional office will be lead by a Regional Administrator with a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management. The bill provides for the transfer of core emergency management programs and functions to the newly independent FEMA, including: FEMA's disaster assistance programs authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; the National Flood Insurance Program; the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; the National Dam Safety Program; the U.S. Fire Administration; the Emergency Food and Shelter Program; and FEMA's programs for Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government. The bill does not transfer any grant programs, currently administered by FEMA, that are specific to terrorism, such as the Urban Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. This will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security will continue to lead our Nation's efforts to prevent and protect against terrorist incidents and attacks. The bill further requires the FEMA Administrator to maintain the National Advisory Council and to retain a Disability Coordinator within the newly-established entity; continues the authorization of the National Integration Center within FEMA; and ensures that FEMA will proceed on the development of standards for credentialing and typing in collaboration with the administrators of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and other State, local, and tribal entities. Each of these activities is currently authorized and being implemented by FEMA. The transfer of all functions relegated to FEMA by the bill must be completed within 120 days of enactment of the bill. This matter is far too important, and impacts directly the lives of too many of our nation's citizens, to delay any further. We must act quickly to restore FEMA's autonomy and effectiveness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1174, the ``FEMA Independence Act of 2009''.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 183, which expresses sympathy to those who lost family, friends, and loved ones in the tragic crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. The lives of all 49 passengers and crew on the flight were lost on February 12, 2009, when Flight 3407 crashed in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 miles outside of Buffalo. The plane crashed into a house on the ground, killing one person inside as well. The Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 was en route from Newark liberty International Airport and it had begun its descent into Buffalo Niagara International Airport. The flight was operated by Colgan Air. The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder that were recovered from the crash reveal that the plane underwent severe changes in pitch at about 1,600 feet above ground level before it crashed. Emergency personnel responded to the scene immediately after the crash to quell the fire and contain the accident scene. The National Transportation Safety Board also responded, sending investigators to the site to conduct an in-depth investigation. Not much is known for sure at this point. It is known that the plane was flying in icing conditions, on autopilot with the de-icing system activated. The NTSB investigation will likely explore many issues, such as icing, pilot training and procedures, and aircraft design. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will watch the investigation as it unfolds with keen interest. This accident, along with other recent aviation safety events, underscores the importance of not lowering our guard on aviation safety. It is unfortunate that this tragic event occurred. I hope that the findings of the investigation will lead to further improvements in aviation safety that will prevent this type of disaster from occurring again. I thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lee, for bringing H. Res. 183 to the floor, and my sympathies go out to the people of your district. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. This bill provides $64.1 billion for transportation and infrastructure investments under the jurisdiction of our committee. What is included in this bill from the jurisdiction of our committee will create and sustain 1.8 million jobs, real jobs, construction jobs, professional journeymen, career apprentice, brick layers, cement finishers, backhoe operators. Real jobs in the U.S. economy for people who will be paying taxes, not being paid unemployment compensation for not working. They will get a working day's wage, and they will pay taxes on it and their companies will pay taxes on it. We'll generate $322 billion of total economic activity over the next 2 years. And we are going to ensure that the States, departments of transportation, the municipal metropolitan planning organizations, the individual city and regional and metropolitan area planning organizations, and the transit organizations, and the airport authorities do what they have told this committee they will do: deliver jobs, half of that funding in the first 90 days. And we will hold hearings every 30 days with reports, according to a schedule we've laid out for the State agencies, on delivery of those jobs putting the money under contract. The Portland Cement Association testified before our committee in January saying 45 companies had 130 million metric tons of Portland cement produced and invested in the marketplace in 2007. Last year it was 95 million metric tons. For this year they project 9 million metric tons. They can ramp up to over 90 million metric tons of cement produced for ready-mix concrete to put people to work in the marketplace. In the transit sector, over 5,500 options are now on call for the producers who can go from their now 5,000 to over 7,000 transit vehicles ramping up in 30 days. I've been to one of the transit producers in this country, they are ready to move. And 82 percent of their purchases are U.S. suppliers, all final manufacturers in the United States, and all steel. All cement in our surface transportation program will be made in America, produced in America, invested in America. We can do this. We will put people to work. We will oversee the implementation of this program, and we will put that on our Web site so the American people will know that this program is working. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''. According to the employment statistics released by the Department of Labor last week, as of January 2009, there are 11.6 million unemployed persons in the U.S., for all sectors of the economy combined. In addition, when part-time and discouraged workers who want full-time jobs are included, the number of unemployed/under-employed workers increases to 22.3 million. The construction sector has been particularly hard-hit--it has the highest unemployment rate (18.2 percent) of any industrial sector. As of January 2009, there were 1,744,000 unemployed construction workers in the nation. This bill is urgently needed to put Americans back to work. The infrastructure investments funded by this bill will create good, family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country, because the work must be done here in the U.S. on our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, wastewater treatment facilities, and Federal buildings. For more than a year now, I have worked to ensure that infrastructure investment plays a key role in our nation's economic recovery. I thank Chairman Obey for working so closely with me in this effort. We consulted extensively on the transportation and infrastructure provisions in the bill. Through his efforts and those of his staff, we were able to retain many of the good provisions in the House bill that were not in the Senate bill, and to develop good compromises where the bills differed. I particularly appreciate the hard work of Beverly Pheto, Staff Director, and Kate Hallahan and David Napoliello of the Transportation Subcommittee. The legislation before us today does not include everything I had proposed. While I would have preferred increased funding levels, and tighter use-it-or-lose-it deadlines, I do not intend to let ``perfect'' become the enemy of ``good''. This is a ``good'' bill. It is desperately needed by the American people, and it deserves our support. This bill provides $64.1 billion for Transportation and Infrastructure Committee infrastructure investments. This funding will create or sustain 1.8 million jobs and generate $322 billion of economic activity. It will get construction workers off the bench and back on the job. To ensure that the purpose of this legislation is achieved, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will exercise vigorous oversight over the economic recovery funds within its jurisdiction. Federal agencies and grant recipients within our Committee's jurisdiction must understand that ``business as usual'' is not good enough anymore, and they will be held accountable to a high standard. We will insist that States, cities, and transit agencies live up to their assurances that they will be able to have contracts in place in 90 days for a substantial portion of the funding authorized by this bill. We will insist that projects under this bill be new projects, not simply replacements for projects which States were planning to carry out under existing programs. We will insist that Federal agencies expedite the process of approving projects and awarding grants. With aggressive action by Federal agencies and grant recipients, the infrastructure funds provided by this bill can produce a substantial number of jobs by June, while also improving our deteriorating infrastructure and laying the foundation for our future economic growth. I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, and our colleagues for working with me and other Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure throughout the development of this legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference Report on H.R. 1, a true investment in America's future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and clause (b) of Rule I of the Rules of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I submit the Rules of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the 111th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. On January 15, 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session and adopted these Committee Rules by voice vote with a quorum present. Rules of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress (Adopted January 15, 2009)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, in the past year, our attention in aviation policy has been trained on the survival of the U.S. airline industry, battered by reduced demand, and volatile fuel prices. This emphasis has been entirely appropriate. But we must not lose sight of the longer term issue of ensuring that when the airlines return to financial viability there will be enough competition to offer consumers good service at reasonable prices. I have become increasingly concerned with the decline of competition in international markets, particularly between the United States and Europe. These markets used to be served by independent carriers from most European countries, and by a number of U.S. carriers. Increasingly, the market has come under control of three alliances composed of one or more U.S. carriers and several European carriers. The alliances began with ``code sharing'' in which one airline would sell tickets on the flights of another airline as though the flight was its flight. These arrangements have been defended as providing better and more convenient service for consumers. In recent years, the airlines in alliances have worked to take the process to the next level, asking the Department of Transportation, DOT, and the Department of Justice, DOJ, to grant the members of the alliance antitrust immunity to jointly plan services and fares over international markets served by the alliance. When immunity is granted, there will not be competition between the immunized carriers in the markets involved. Antitrust immunity has been granted for a number of alliance operations, and requests are pending for antitrust immunity for most other significant alliance operations. If these requests are granted, competition in the U.S. to Europe markets will be largely reduced to competition among three alliances. I believe that the time has come to reassess the wisdom of allowing the continuation of the reduced level of competition, which results from antitrust immunity for alliances. I am introducing legislation to require a major study of whether the benefits to consumers of alliances with antitrust immunity outweigh the adverse effects of the resulting loss of competition. Following this study, DOT will be required to review its policies and make any needed changes. There may also be a need for further legislation. After any new laws and policies are in place, all grants of antitrust immunity for alliances will be reviewed for conformity with those laws or policies. This review is now permitted under the terms on which immunity was granted. When DOT granted immunity for alliances, it wisely reserved the power to amend, modify, or revoke the immunity at any time. My legislation provides that no antitrust immunity for alliances may continue beyond three years from date of enactment of the legislation, unless DOT affirmatively decides that the immunity should continue under any new laws and policies. A more detailed consideration of U.S.-European aviation trade shows that this market is now dominated by three major alliances: Star (United/Lufthansa), SkyTeam (Delta-Northwest/Air France/KLM) and oneworld (American/British Airways). These alliances have strong market power. Combined, the Star, SkyTeam and oneworld alliances account for almost 80 percent of the total world airline capacity, 78 percent of world revenue passenger kilometers, and 73 percent of passengers carried. These three alliances control over 87 percent of the traffic between the United States and Europe. The DOT has the primary responsibility to review proposed airline alliance agreements and antitrust immunity applications for international operations. The DOT typically grants immunity if the parties to the agreement would not otherwise go forward without it and it finds that the immunity is in the public interest. One other major factor that also drives DOT's analysis is whether an Open Skies agreement exists between the United States and the country of the foreign air carrier. The DOJ, though a party in the antitrust immunity process, does not have a primary role in reviewing alliance/antitrust applications. However, the DOJ does make recommendations, and supplies data and policy input to DOT on these issues. In 2008, the DOT granted the SkyTeam alliance antitrust immunity to coordinate schedules and prices, and operate as though they were one carrier. Since the granting of the SkyTeam application, Continental Airlines has filed an application to join the already antitrust- immunized Star alliance, and American Airlines and British Airways filed an antitrust immunity application for the oneworld alliance. Once antitrust immunity is granted, the airlines involved are removed as competitors in highly traveled international markets. As DOT noted in the SkyTeam decision: Upon implementation, the 4-way JV [joint venture] will bring all transatlantic services offered by the venture participants under the control of the venture. Committee and working groups, composed of senior representatives from each airline will jointly plan and manage capacity, pricing and financial settlement. The 4-way JV attempts to align the economic incentives of the participants to create what is known in the airline industry as ``metal neutrality.'' Instead of competing among themselves for a greater share of revenue by trying to carry passengers on their own metal (aircraft), the participants agree to pool revenues and costs so that they become indifferent as to which carrier operates the service. In essence, the granting of antitrust immunity is a de facto merger of these airlines over the routes involved. Evidence also suggests that when immunity is granted to an alliance, there is a decline in competition from carriers not in the alliance. Case in point: in 1990, the New York JFK-Paris market had six competing airlines, today there are only three. Of the three remaining carriers in the market--Air France and Delta, which are part of the immunized SkyTeam alliance-- have approximately 75 percent of the market share. Another major market, Chicago to Frankfurt, is dominated by Star members United and Lufthansa, which control an 85 percent share; the Amsterdam- Atlanta market will now be controlled by newly immunized SkyTeam members Delta and KLM. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure received testimony in May 2008, which indicated that domestic competition could be hampered by immunized alliances. Concerns were expressed that U.S. members of immunized alliances could use the profits realized as a result of anticompetitive behavior to subsidize domestic flying. In addition, fares in markets dominated by alliances have increased. In a summary of its 2005 study on immunized alliances, the Brattle Group noted that ``there is evidence that immunized alliances have undertaken actions that raise their rivals' costs of interlining at certain alliance-dominated hubs. The decline in competition at these hubs is further evidence of market power: immunized alliances have gained market share at their respective European hubs even as their fares have risen.'' The Brattle Group also expressed concern that even if ``inter-alliance competition is sufficient to discipline fares to destinations that can be served through more than one hub, it cannot do the same for destinations better served through a particular hub. Passengers to those destinations may be `captive' to the dominant alliance at the hub, in the absence of non-alliance competition.'' As early as 1999, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), in its study Entry and Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry, expressed concern about the impact that global alliances with antitrust immunity may have on competition. The TRB stated that ``although some travelers in connecting markets might benefit from these alliances, the potential gains to travelers in mainline markets--gateway to gateway routes where allied airlines were once main competitors--are not evident, and it is possible that these travelers are losing out.'' The TRB also expressed concern about the long-term impact of alliances on unaffiliated U.S. carriers, noting that the effect of such alliances could be exclusionary and ``ultimately forcing some unaffiliated U.S. airlines out of international markets by diverting their feed traffic and weakening their overall route structure to the detriment of domestic competition.'' We cannot afford to be complacent about the threat to competition posed by these immunized airline alliances. To begin the discussion, I am introducing legislation that calls upon the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to study: (1) The legal requirements and policies followed by the DOT in deciding whether to approve alliances and grant exemptions from the antitrust laws under 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 41308 and 41309; (2) Whether there should be any changes to those policies or the legislative authority under which DOT determines whether to grant antitrust immunity; and (3) Whether the DOT should exercise the right it has reserved to amend, modify or revoke any antitrust immunity previously granted. Importantly, this legislation would sunset all immunity grants three years after the date of enactment. This is necessary to ensure that if the GAO finds that policy changes are needed, DOT will have the time to examine and implement them. U.S. and foreign air carriers can then reapply for antitrust immunity under any new policies adopted. The GAO study will focus on the impact of immunized alliances on competition and customer service. It is important to assess whether these immunized alliances have resulted in a reduction of competition, increase in prices or other adverse effects or have used their market power to foreclose rival airlines from competing at alliance dominated hubs. Moreover, the GAO will be tasked with analyzing whether network size plays a role in adversely affecting competition and whether there is sufficient competition among immunized alliances to ensure consumers will receive benefits similar to those conferred by non-immunized alliances. In addition, the bill directs the GAO to determine whether DOT's and DOJ's different regulatory and antitrust responsibilities for international alliances have created any significant conflicting agency recommendations and whether, from an antitrust standpoint, requests for antitrust immunity should be treated as mergers, and subject to a traditional merger analysis by the DOJ. As the Brattle Group noted, the ``move towards alliances has brought increased concentration to the transatlantic market, which highlights the importance of competition among alliances. This argues for caution on the part of regulatory officials in evaluating proposals likely to result in further increases in concentration. At a minimum, any substantial expansion in the scope of antitrust immunity offered to particular alliances (or combinations of alliances) should require compelling evidence that there are economic efficiencies that would justify the expanded immunity and that could not be achieved absent the immunity.'' This bill is an important step forward in determining whether DOT's antitrust policies are sound and whether the DOT gives appropriate consideration to the impact that the granting of antitrust immunity might have on competition here and abroad. As the evidence indicates, these immunized alliances hold great market power and have the potential for exercising that power to the exclusion of non-immunized carriers, thereby reducing competition in the international marketplace, as well as disrupting domestic competition. If these immunized mega-alliances are allowed to proceed unchecked, the end result may be trading government control in the public interest for private monopoly control in the interests of the industry.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. This amendment will shorten the time that States, cities, transit agencies, and aviation authorities have to obligate 50 percent of the highway transit and aviation funds provided under this Recovery Act to 90 days from the proposed 180 days. I have had extensive consultations over the past 5 months with State and local officials about creating jobs by June to show that we can deliver economic recovery to this country. Transit agencies and State Departments of Transportation have for years said, Give us the money. We have the jobs. We need to get things going. So here is your opportunity. They have said, We can deliver. There are 1,400,000 construction workers out of work. And I will say that when Bud Shuster--and he was chairman of the committee at the time in 1998--we moved the T-21 bill and we had 3 million new construction jobs as a result of that legislation. We can do that again. There's 15 percent unemployment in the construction trades across the country. At a recent hearing, Carole Brown, Chair of the Chicago Transit Authority, testified that they have an unfunded deferred maintenance backlog of $5 billion, $500 million of which can be obligated within 90 days. She said, ``If you write me a check today, I will be spending the check tomorrow.'' Governor Doyle of Wisconsin said, ``There is not going to be any barrier on getting this thing done immediately. I think any Governor would have a pretty hard explanation about why the State next door or the other State is actually using the money while they are losing the money.'' He said further, ``We are looking at what we can put out to bid before the actual grant is in hand.'' California. The Commissioner of California, Will Kempton, on the conference call and again today in our committee hearing on rail issues, said, Not only do we have contractor capacity, we have well over 100,000 building trades craftsmen out of work. We are getting eight to nine bids per contract, and they are coming in at 25 percent below engineering estimates. We're getting a good deal. We can deliver. The contractors are ready, he said. The contractor community is prepared. Transit options. Transit systems have options to buy 10,000 buses, $5 billion worth. Options for more than 1,000 rail vehicles, valued at $2 billion. They can be exercised in weeks, not months. Weeks. We heard today from the Rail Car Institute that they are down 50 percent in orders. Even of those that were on backlog, they are down 50 percent because of the recession in the rail sector. We need this stimulus. We can put these to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 10 seconds, and thank the gentleman from Florida for his thoughtful remarks and for the participation and cooperation we have had. In our committee, there are no Republican roads or Democratic bridges; they are all American roads and all American bridges. And we work together. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Chair of the Surface Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. May I inquire if the gentleman from California has other speakers?