James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill, H.R. 5706, as amended, which designates the building occupied by Government Printing Office in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building''. Frank Evans, who passed away on June 8, 2010, was a seven-term congressman from the third district of Colorado, serving in the House from 1965 through 1979. He attended Pomona College in Claremont, California, interrupting his education to serve in the United States Navy as a patrol pilot during World War II. He returned to formal schooling to earn both a bachelor of arts and a law degree from the University of Denver. He was a member of the Colorado State House of Representatives from 1961-1964. Among his achievements while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Evans is credited with bringing the Federal Citizen Information Center to Pueblo in 1970. The information center is operated by the Government Printing Office, GPO, and prints and mails free consumer publications. The GPO has been in continuous occupancy of the building to be named by this bill for 40 years. It is a leased building, but the ownership entity has expressed its full assent to naming the building for Congressman Evans for as long as the GPO occupies the premises. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5706.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5282, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow). This legislation makes permanent an innovative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' program begun under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Recovery Act, P.L. 111-5. Under the Recovery Act, the Corps allocated $3.5 million to open three Veterans Curation Project, VCP, laboratories throughout the nation. This legislation is important because it provides funding for hiring and training our veterans, while helping the Corps meet its cultural responsibilities. At a time when Americans need jobs more than ever, we should do all we can to increase training and employment, especially for returning veterans. One of the Army Corps' responsibilities is its role in providing curation support for its projects. Accordingly, the Corps identifies, evaluates, and manages cultural resources that are eligible for listing in, or are listed in, the National Register of Historic Places. The Corps is responsible for ensuring that cultural resource management activities are consistent with Federal laws and regulations pertaining to Native American rights, curation and collections management, and the protection of resources from looting and vandalism. To that end, the Corps used Recovery Act dollars to open three VCP laboratories in Augusta, Georgia; Washington, DC; and St. Louis, Missouri. These laboratories are tasked with carrying out the Corps' curation responsibilities, including cataloging, scanning, and photographing records and artifacts. At the same time, these laboratories use and train a workforce of disabled, wounded veterans, as well as veterans who have recently returned from overseas. The VCP program is a very important program for our veterans because it teaches them skills in computer databases, digital scanning, digital image capture, and writing. Veterans who participate in this program can use these technical skills in jobs outside the VCP laboratories, including as forensic technicians and records managers. This bill provides a statutory, five-year authorization of the Corps' Veterans Curation Project. The bill allows the Corps to meet its dual mission of hiring and training the Nation's veterans, while also carrying out its responsibilities to preserve and protect the Nation's cultural heritage. We owe our veterans all the training and support we can provide them when they return home from serving our country. I would also like to point out that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure received letters of support for this legislation from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and the Society for American Archaeology. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5282.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(C) of H. Res. 1493, Providing for Budget Enforcement for Fiscal Year 2011, I submit the following findings that identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may authorize. Introduction The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is committed to improving efficiency in the Federal Government and providing cost savings to accomplish the joint goals of reducing expenditures and ensuring maximum value to the taxpayer in Federal programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Beginning in the 110th Congress, the Committee has aggressively reviewed program implementation to ensure that Federal agencies, and their state and local partners, were appropriately implementing laws consistent with statutory intent and the best needs of the public. The commitment is not to programs, but to the goals and objectives that best serve the needs of the American people in an efficient, fiscally responsible way. To that end, the Committee has developed and will continue to develop multiple proposals to improve the operation of government, including opportunities to reduce expenditures and the deficit. Because many of the programs within the Committee's jurisdiction are implemented in partnership with state and local governments, the Committee continues to pursue improvements at all levels of government. Today's report describes a list of activities and proposals that include reductions in and elimination of mandatory spending, reductions in and elimination of authorizations for discretionary spending, investments that would be expected to achieve quantifiable future savings, and revenues that more equitably distribute the cost of government services among the beneficiaries of those services and reduce demands on the General Fund. These proposals will allow the Nation to achieve its investment goals at less cost and allow Federal investment to provide increased benefits. These proposals reflect the Committee's efforts to date. The Committee will continue its efforts to find creative and efficient ways to make government more responsive to the needs of the Nation. Recent Highlights The Committee's oversight efforts recently resulted in exposing unwarranted cost overruns in Federal construction. At the Committee's request, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed courthouse construction since 2000 and determined that expenditures have been unnecessarily increased by nearly $900 million. The Committee is responding through general legislation and authorizations for specific Federal courthouse construction projects to ensure that such unnecessary costs are not repeated. Other positive results of the Committee's efforts have resulted in improvements and corrections to the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Program, the Federal Aviation Administration's regulatory responsibilities and air traffic control modernization, mismanagement at the Federal Maritime Commission, disaster response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, international water quality expenditures, and the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee's efforts associated with the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Program (Deepwater) continue to provide benefits. Deepwater is a series of procurements being undertaken by the Coast Guard to replace or upgrade its major surface and aviation assets. The procurements are expected to cost $25 billion by the time they are complete in 2026. The Committee conducted an investigation that probed deeply into the contract management and decision-making processes within the Coast Guard and its contract partner, Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) (ICGS consisted of Lockheed Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation). The Committee found that the Coast Guard was warned of flaws in the designs for Coast Guard assets long before the designs were finalized. The Committee also found that in some cases, substandard information technology equipment was installed on the patrol boats. Finally, records indicated that there were irregularities in the process for testing and certifying the ships for standards designed to prevent the release of classified information. The Committee's investigation resulted in the Coast Guard removing ICGS as the lead systems integrator for Deepwater, and a reimbursement claim by the Federal government of $96 million from ICGS. The Committee continues to monitor the Deepwater Program, guarding against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and ensuring that taxpayers receive the full value of their investment. While the Committee continues to conduct oversight of agency programs in all areas of its jurisdiction, in this Congress, the Committee is being particularly aggressive in overseeing the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (P.L. 1115). The Recovery Act provided $64.1 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, including $38 billion for highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure formula programs. Since enactment of the Recovery Act, the Committee has performed vigorous oversight, to ensure that the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job- creating purposes of that Act. Just 10 days following enactment of the Recovery Act, the Committee requested monthly reports from States, major public transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations on the use of highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure formula funds provided under the Recovery Act. The Committee continues to receive those reports. The Committee's request goes beyond the transparency and accountability requirements of the Recovery Act, expanding the scope of programs covered by the reporting requirements, and accelerating the deadline by which information is reported. These reports include information on the number of projects that have been put out to bid, are under contract and underway, and have been completed. The information also includes job hours created or saved and payroll figures. The Committee receives monthly reports from Federal agencies implementing Recovery Act programs under the Committee's jurisdiction. Since April 2009, the Committee has published a monthly report reflecting this information. All released information can be found at the Recovery Act section of the Committee's website: http://transportation.house.gov. The Committee requested that these recipients continue to submit monthly reports directly to the Committee for the remainder of 2010. Of the $38 billion available for highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure formula program projects under the Recovery Act, as of June 30, 2010, $35 billion (92 percent) has been put out to bid on 18,718 projects. Within this total, 18,002 projects totaling $33.4 billion (88 percent) are under contract. Across the Nation, work has begun on 17,024 projects totaling $32.7 billion (86 percent)--work producing badly needed jobs today. Work has been completed on 6,920 projects totaling $5.3 billion. From these investments, not only has the economy benefited from the jobs created, the public benefits from the investment itself through improved transportation and quality of the environment. In addition to the monthly reporting, the Committee has held 18 oversight hearings on the Recovery Act since its enactment, with seven of these hearings occurring during 2010. This total includes nine Full Committee hearings and nine subcommittee hearings. These 18 hearings included a total of 123 witnesses and spanned 64 hours. The breadth of witnesses included Ray LaHood, Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other Federal, State, and local government officials, private industry leaders, and workers actively engaged in implementing the Recovery Act. The Committee held its most recent oversight hearing the last week in July, and will continue to hold oversight hearings on the Recovery Act throughout 2010. In addition to overseeing implementation of the Recovery Act, as of the date of this report, the Committee and its subcommittees have conducted 23 separate hearings in 2010 to review the budgets and programs of agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction. Additional hearings are planned. This report includes specific findings and recommendations developed by the Committee related to Federal spending and government operations. As the findings and recommendations demonstrate, the Committee has made and continues to propose many positive changes to improve the efficiency 'of government and deliver the best possible outcomes to our constituents. Specific Findings and Recommendations Reduce Excess Expenditures on New Courthouse Projects This proposal achieves deficit reduction by promoting efficiency and reform of government and reducing waste by ensuring that the number of courtrooms in proposed new courthouse projects constructed by the General Services Administration (GSA) more accurately reflects needs and budgetary realities by aligning the number of courtrooms to reflect courtroom sharing by judges, and realistic projections of additional, future judgeships. Where practicable, the Committee seeks to ensure authorizations directing that courthouses be redesigned to eliminate not only excess courtrooms, but also the additional building volume that would have accommodated those excess courtrooms. In accordance with 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations for specific GSA construction projects may only be made if authorized by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The Government Accountability Office reported (GAO-10-417) that courtroom overbuilding, as a consequence of both inordinately high judgeship projections by the Judiciary and the Judiciary's failure to share courtrooms in a fashion supported by empiric courtroom usage data, resulted in construction of 1.8 million square feet of unnecessary space for 33 courthouses completed since 2000. This excess construction translates into a one-time construction cost waste of $422 million, and an annual waste of $26 million in additional operation and maintenance costs for the unneeded space. The budgetary impact of downsizing proposed courthouses is being realized today. Since June 2009, the Committee has authorized five courthouses with curtailed numbers of courtrooms. According to budget estimates provided by GSA, or derived from information provided by GSA, the Committee has saved more than $87 million to date by limiting the number of courtrooms in new courthouses. The savings are a consequence of lower initial capital costs to build, and less money spent by GSA to lease space because the proposed courtroom space can now be used by Federal agencies that do not need to be located in leased facilities. [In millions] San Diego, California Courthouse:.................................$50.8 Greenbelt, Maryland Courthouse Annex:..............................$5.2 Mobile, Alabama Courthouse:........................................$7.8 Savannah, Georgia Courthouse:......................................$7.8 San Antonio, Texas Courthouse:....................................$15.5

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support H.R. 5651, to name the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Rapid City, South Dakota, after Judge Andrew W. Bogue. Judge Bogue, appointed by President Nixon in 1970, with a strong recommendation from Senator George McGovern, was the first sitting Federal judge in Rapid City. He had been a distinguished State circuit court judge before his appointment to the Federal bench, and was also a veteran of World War II and the Korean conflict. Judge Bogue also oversaw the construction of the building proposed to be named for him by this legislation. In light of Judge Bogue's life-long dedication to public service, I find it fitting and appropriate that we designate this building the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5651.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, in 2006 and again in 2009, I brought to the attention of the House of Representatives law enforcement's new tactic of using billboards to deliver information to the public about wanted fugitives. Today, I will provide an update on progress regarding this effective partnership. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) now has the capability to send alerts nationwide via more than 2,000 high-tech electronic (digital) billboards. The first such nationwide alert posted on digital billboards was activated on August 2, 2010, as part of the FBI's manhunt in a serial bank-robbery case. The results, according to federal officials, were impressive. Soon after the suspect's photo was displayed on digital billboards, an FBI field office in Virginia received information from a tipster identifying the fugitive and providing, among other things, photographs. The suspect, dubbed the ``Granddad Bandit,'' was apprehended on August 11 in Baton Rouge, LA. Authorities had been chasing the ``Granddad Bandit'' for nearly two years. Based on bank videotapes and other evidence, he is suspected of robbing at least 25 banks in 13 states starting in 2008. ``A tip to the FBI made today's arrest possible,'' said US Attorney Neil H. MacBride in the Eastern District of Virginia. ``This is a great example of how the public and law enforcement must work together to keep our communities safe.'' Michael Morehart, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Richmond Division, thanked the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) for coordination of digital billboards, and also publicity on radio and in print. We hear the term ``partnership'' used frequently. I would like to explain to my colleagues what partnership means in this instance. The space and time on digital billboards are donated. The FBI worked closely with the outdoor advertising industry to develop computer software to facilitate the transfer images and text to digital billboards. Specifically, Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO) based in Utah built the computer software. At the FBI, management has shown a willingness to innovate. In 2007, the FBI--working with a fugitive task force--posted images of wanted fugitives in the Philadelphia area. Based on success there, the agency and the outdoor advertising industry expanded this tactic to other areas. On March 20, 2009, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller presented a Director's Community Leadership Award to outdoor advertising companies participating in the partnership. This month, Mr. Mueller presented a Director's Award of Excellence to Harry Coghlan of Clear Channel Outdoor's Spectacolor for his role in assisting the FBI in Times Square. As an example, the FBI announced on September 12, 2010, that an alleged mobster who was featured on a large high-tech billboard in Times Square was arrested in Yonkers, NY. Meanwhile, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, an arm of the Justice Department, has distributed more than 400 AMBER Alerts to digital billboards since June of 2008. I commend the partners in this effective use of technology to deliver information quickly in a mobile society on behalf of public safety.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have worked with the gentleman and our committee staff to craft this language. It's important to note that these are not taxpayer dollars paying for restoration, but rather proceeds from a penalty provided in this provision that is very clearly spelled out, and which revenue goes into the Gulf of Mexico restoration account, and then is further subject to appropriations. So that keeps the Congress in control of the outlay of funds. Rather than just imposing a civil penalty and allowing those funds to go into an agency, there will be very clear control. So the proceeds are used from the penalty for a legitimate public purpose to pay for the projects, programs, and activities out of the restoration fund to clean up the destruction from oil spilled. To paraphrase previous speakers on the other side of the aisle, the explosion and blowout of the BP drilling operation in the Gulf is a ``textbook case'' on killing jobs and wildlife and destruction of the marine environment; putting 300,000 jobs at risk in travel, tourism, fishing, commercial and recreational fishing, catching, harvesting, processing fish and shellfish, jobs destroyed by the uncontrolled oil spill. The safety provisions of our bill will protect those jobs in the future. The liability provisions will assure that there will be compensation for those who lose jobs and livelihood because of an oil spill. The penalties imposed in this Melancon amendment will assure that damage to the natural resources of the Gulf will have the money needed to restore more resources. A penalty whose proceeds will be used for a legitimate public purpose--to pay for projects, programs, and activities out of the GM Restoration Fund.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I, too, have natural resources--national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges. When fire, as it does regularly, strikes the national forest, that land regenerates. The oil destroys. It likely cannot be restored by itself or by human intervention, but replacing it with other land--and the language is tailored very narrowly limited to that purpose of replacing what cannot be replaced.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, the acquisition of replacement land is available and authorized under OPA 90. What this amendment does is clarify that in that replacement you can replace that part of the ecosystem that has been irresponsibly damaged with better land. It doesn't add new acquisition authority.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, it does not add. That is current law. That is available under OPA.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, it is to replace what has been destroyed. It's really just clarifying what is already available under OPA, but making it clear that the funds can be used for those resources that have been damaged so badly they can't be restored.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Washington is mistaken in his understanding or his reading of the amendment that I offer. It's an amendment to OPA. It is not an amendment to the dollar amounts and does not reference dollar amounts. Under OPA, of which I was a coauthor in 1990, quote, the State and local officials designated under this subsection shall develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of the equivalent of the natural resources under their trusteeship. The language of OPA does not clearly enough refer to the level of replacement resources that may be damaged. What we do with this language is clarify the ability to restore those resources that have been damaged with an equivalent resource. That's all it does. It does not have a dollar amount in it. I yield to the gentleman if he has a question.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. The amendment addresses two important issues on restoration of natural resources damaged as a result of release or threatened release of oil under OPA, the Oil Pollution Act. The first issue is acquisition of additional natural resources as part of a potential remedy for damages in instances where the existing resource cannot be or is unlikely to be successfully restored. In OPA, section 1006, provides that damages to natural resources can be addressed either through restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of equivalent resources, where other measures are unlikely or impossible to be implemented. The Himes amendment, which I offer on his behalf, emphasizes that acquisition of a natural equivalent resource can be an acceptable alternative to restoration or rehabilitation. Consistent with current law, the acquisition of an equivalent natural resource should be used only when restoration is likely to be unsuccessful or the acquisition provides a substantially greater likelihood of improving resilience of the lost or damaged resource and supports local ecological processes. The second part of the amendment will ensure that natural resource damage assessments and implementation emphasize restoring the entire damaged ecosystem rather than dealing simply with specific, discrete segments thereof. The gulf coast is such a unique resource with countless species of fish, shellfish, marine life, wildlife, all integrated, and it really needs to be treated as an overall cohesive ecosystem. This amendment addresses two important issues related to the restoration of any natural resources damaged as a result of the release or threatened of oil under the Oil Pollution Act, OPA. The first issue deals with the acquisition of additional natural resources as part of a potential remedy for damages, in those instances where the existing resource cannot, or is unlikely to be, successfully restored. Section 1006 of OPA provides that damages to natural resources can be addressed either through restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or the acquisition of the equivalent resources where other measures are unlikely or impossible to be successfully implemented. The Himes amendment emphasizes that acquisition of an equivalent natural resource can be an acceptable alternative to restoration or rehabilitation; however, consistent with current law, the acquisition of an equivalent natural resource should be utilized only when restoration or rehabilitation of the existing, damaged resource is likely to be unsuccessful, and the acquisition provides a ``substantially greater likelihood of improving the resilience of the lost or damaged resource and supports local ecological processes.'' The second portion of the Himes amendment will ensure that natural resource damage assessments and implementation emphasize restoring the entire damage ecosystem, rather than dealing with individual, specific locations. The Gulf of Mexico is unique in that it serves as a focal point for countless species of fish, shellfish, marine life, and wildlife. The Gulf of Mexico coastal area contains more than half of the coastal wetlands within the lower 48 states, as well as numerous recreational opportunities in the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 97 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish landings come from the Gulf, and depend on the estuaries and their wetlands at some point in their life cycle. The Gulf also serves as vital habitat to many species of breeding, wintering, and migrating waterfowl, songbirds, and other marine mammals and reptiles. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Gulf supports a ``disproportionately high number of beach-nesting bird species'' that relay on the beaches, barrier islands, and similar habitats as part of their annual breeding cycle. I applaud the gentleman's amendment because it stresses the importance of addressing damaged natural resources in a holistic ecosystem approach. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), I offer amendment No. 6.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise in strong support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010, and I want to congratulate my good friend and Transportation Committee colleague, Mr. Rahall, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, for the splendid work that his committee has done, for the bill that he, personally, has championed, and the hours of work put into this legislation in crafting a true comprehensive response to the oil spill in the gulf, the causes of that failure and the cleanup that is necessary. I was going to be rather brief; but after listening to the gentleman from Washington, I didn't recognize the bill that is before us. I have never considered cleanup responsibilities to be a tax. I don't know where that confection has been created, but it is certainly not in my vocabulary. The blowout from the mobile offshore drilling unit, the Deepwater Horizon, killed 11 people on the crew--at least none of them have been found. They are all presumed dead. There were 116 people injured in one way or another. Millions of gallons, millions of barrels of oil spilling from a source that is unknowable, a resource whose volume is unknown, and it continued relentlessly until just a few days ago. Our committee held three hearings to investigate the causes of this disaster, and I particularly appreciate the splendid work done by subcommittee Chairman Elijah Cummings, the chair of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee. While the causes of that disaster are still under investigation, there are some elements that are clearly known and that we must and can deal with and that we do deal with in this legislation that emerge also from our hearings. We received extensive testimony on how the Deepwater Horizon was built in South Korea, registered in that great maritime nation of the Republican of the Marshall Islands, and the registry is held by a foreign entity maintained in Reston, Virginia. No accountability, no oversight, no responsibility, and no rigorous laws of the country of registry to govern the MODU, the drilling unit. And the vessel itself, because it was registered in the Marshall Islands, was not subject to the rigorous safety inspection standards of the U.S. Coast Guard that a U.S. flagged vessel would be subject to. We also learned that shortcuts were taken in the development, approval, and implementation of the oil spill response plans for the Deepwater Horizon drilling operation. Those response plans were totally inadequate to address the worst-case scenario. We also learned that in May of 2008, the Minerals Management Service of the previous administration exempted BP from filing an oil spill response plan-- exempted because they're a big worldwide multibillion-dollar corporation with experience in deep-water drilling. In their permit, they filed a 52-page document that said: In the unlikely event of a surface or subsurface spill, we are capable of handling with existing industry technology up to 175,000 barrels a day. They couldn't handle what came out of that, and they couldn't measure what came out of that oil reservoir. That gulf has been seriously injured and damaged for generations because of that failure. It also demonstrated the inadequacy of the limits of liability, including financial responsibility for the responsible parties, inadequate, insufficient to address a worst-case scenario for a release of oil in an offshore operation. The expected cost will be in the tens of billions. And even though BP agreed to set aside $20 billion in an agreement with President Obama as an escrow to cover potential costs, the $75 million cap that exists in current law is grossly, grossly inadequate and must be repealed; and it is repealed in our version of this legislation. We also investigated the unprecedented use of 1.5 million gallons of chemical dispersants. Our witnesses called into question the potential short-term and long-term impacts that increased use of these dispersants, such as COREXIT, would have on the waters, the water column and the aquatic creatures and the plants in the Gulf of Mexico. Dr. Sylvia Earle, a world-renowned ocean biologist who spent 50 years of her career studying and evaluating and understanding the Gulf of Mexico, said, There never was any testing of COREXIT on underwater creatures in the water column, that COREXIT itself was determined to be toxic to the human respiratory system. It had adverse effects on the kidney and lungs and heart, and yet it was used extensively, well over a million gallons of it, as a dispersant in the response to the oil spill. We will have the burden of decades to understand what the effect of this chemical is on the water column and on the creatures whose livelihood depends on this water. Our bill has several provisions to address liability, financial responsibility, improvements in safety, increased oversight of oil spill responses, improvements in environmental protection. We repeal or adjust existing liability limitations for offshore facilities to ensure that the responsible party or parties will be responsible for 100 percent of the cleanup costs and damage to third parties and will extend the provisions of OPA '90, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which has very rigorous provisions in it, to protect even the migratory waterfowl which come from northern regions, from Canada and from northern Minnesota and other northern-tier States and winter in the gulf.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce a new initiative to promote transparency and accountability with regard to Member-designated projects within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: a searchable database of all Member- designated projects included in Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bills. On the first day of the new Democratic majority of the 110th Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives adopted Rules to institute specific requirements with regard to Member-designated projects: congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits. See clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress. For each Member-designated project, a Member of Congress must certify that neither the Member nor his or her spouse has a financial interest in the project. See clause 17 of rule XXIII. In addition, each committee report on a bill must identify any congressional earmarks included in the bill. These transparency and accountability requirements also apply to manager's amendments and Conference Reports. As Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have vigorously enforced these rules. In addition, in the interests of full disclosure, transparency, and accountability, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, at my direction, requires Members of Congress to comply with all of the requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and clause 17 of rule XXIII, even if the earmark rules do not apply, if the Member of Congress requests that the Committee take legislative action targeted to a specific State, locality, or Congressional district. For instance, the Committee requires Members to certify requests for corrections to descriptions of previously designated projects, such as corrections to high-priority projects that were included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users--Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-244), even though the corrections do not involve any new funding. See Committee Print 110-175. The Committee also requires Members to certify requests for General Services Administration, GSA, Capital Investment and Leasing Program Resolutions, GSA Public Building Project Survey Resolutions, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Survey Resolutions, even though congressional earmark rules do not apply to these Committee actions. In the 111th Congress, we have built upon these efforts. Member- designated projects can play an important role in certain programs, such as the Federal-aid highway program. They provide constituents with a chance to weigh in directly with their elected officials on their community priorities, and allow Members an opportunity to advocate for surface transportation and mobility improvements that may be overlooked by a State Department of Transportation. Yet, it is also necessary to use a commonsense approach to dealing with projects that are complete or no longer viable. Earlier this week, on July 27, 2010, the House passed, by a vote of 394-23, H.R. 5730, the ``Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act'', introduced by the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Markey, to clear the books of projects that will not go forward and save taxpayer money. The bill eliminates a total of $713 million in unobligated funding for 309 Member-designated projects contained in four previous surface transportation acts enacted over the past two decades. Similarly, during consideration of H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010'', in the House in April of this year, I offered an amendment, which the House adopted, to strike the statutory earmarks included in the National Estuary Program under current law. In addition, the Committee has adopted a series of Member-designated project reform principles to further promote transparency and accountability. The Committee requires Members of Congress to: Provide specific information on the type, location, total cost, percentage of total cost of the project, that the request would finance, and benefits of the project; Provide at least one letter of support for the project from state or local government agencies; certify that neither the Member nor his or her spouse has any financial interest in a project requested; and Post requests for projects on the Member's website. Today, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure takes another step in its continuing effort to provide unparalleled transparency and accountability of Member-designated projects. We launch a searchable database of all Member-designated projects included in Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bills in the 110th and 111th Congresses. The Member-designated projects database, located on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure website, includes the ability to search Member-designated projects by Member of Congress, State, Congressional district, bill, bill title, and amount. Each Member- designated project includes an electronic copy of the individual ``no financial interest'' certification of the Member of Congress and, beginning with H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'', a copy of a letter from the state or local government expressing support for the project. Finally, the Committee makes copies of all Member-designated project requests available in the Committee office. As Chairman, I am deeply committed to transparency and accountability in all of the activities of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I look forward to working with public interest groups to endeavor to find even more ways to shine a light on the actions of our Committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, which makes $200 million in livable community grants provided by this Act contingent on an authorization by Congress. While I support the vast majority of the bill before us today, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, for providing substantial and much-needed investment in our Federal transportation programs, I do have concerns with the impact aspects of this Act will have on surface transportation programs. Unfortunately, certain aspects of H.R. 5850 would enable the Administration to continue to avoid engaging with Congress to enact comprehensive surface transportation authorization legislation. H.R. 5850 includes some good initiatives in the areas of livable communities, distracted driving, and funding for transit operating expenses. These initiatives, however, should be considered in the context of a comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill. For the past three years, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, led by Mr. DeFazio, has conducted a thorough review of the needs of the nation's surface transportation network. Throughout this process, it has become clear that there is a broad consensus on the need to fundamentally transform highway, highway safety, and public transportation programs to meet the needs of the 21st century surface transportation network. But changes to these programs must be considered as part of a holistic rewrite of the entire surface transportation program, not piecemeal in an annual appropriations bill. I understand that the Administration has requested the Livable Communities Initiative be included in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Transportation. What I do not understand is why Congress should agree to this request, thereby allowing the Administration to obtain the policy changes it desires without ever having to do the hard work that will be required to enact the next surface transportation authorization bill. In effect, H.R. 5850 would let the Administration ``eat its dessert first'' and then leave the table without ever getting to the meat and potatoes of what needs to be done to fix our nation's transportation systems. Therefore, this amendment would prohibit the use of FHWA's formula funds under the fiscal year 2011 THUD Act from being used to carry out FHWA's livable communities initiative until legislation is enacted to authorize such a program. Our objection is not to providing grant funding for livable communities, but rather to the attempt to provide this funding prior to Congressional authorization. I am hopeful that the Administration will soon engage in a serious effort to enact surface transportation authorization legislation. Enactment of such legislation will be critical to moving forward on new initiatives such as those proposed by H.R. 5850 to develop the surface transportation system to meet the needs of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. DeFazio's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) which lowers or eliminates funding for many important transportation grants provided by this Act. The amendment would lower the amount provided for transit Capital Investment Grants, known as New Starts, which fund much needed rail and bus rapid transit systems. New Start grants create public transportation systems that transform our communities by improving the mobility of a region, reducing congestion on the roadways, decreasing our dependence on oil, and increasing accessibility to work, schools, hospitals, and home. If Americans rode public transit at the rate of 10 percent of daily travel, the U.S. would reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent--equivalent to all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf. This funding for new transit systems should be increased, rather than decreased, and I oppose this amendment. Moreover the amendment would eliminate $400 million from the high- speed and intercity passenger rail investment program. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Public Law 110-432, Division B) created two new Federal-State matching grant programs to provide capital assistance to States and Amtrak for development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail. PRIIA also created a congestion grant program, which authorized $325 million over four years for grants to States for eliminating chokepoints on the freight rail network to help reduce congestion and facilitate ridership growth on intercity passenger rail. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (Public Law 111-1) built upon the three programs created by Congress in the 2008 law, and provided $9.3 billion in capital grants for investment in high-speed and intercity passenger rail. The Department of Transportation is now in its second round of soliciting grant proposals. For the first round of grants, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received 259 grant applications from 37 States and the District of Columbia requesting nearly $57 billion in funding--far exceeding the initial $8 billion available under the Recovery Act. In total, 79 applications from 31 States were selected for funding. In fact, the gentleman's (Mr. Latham) home State of Iowa received funding from FRA to conduct Alternatives Analysis and an Environmental Assessment, and to finalize a service development plan for passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois to Omaha, Nebraska. In addition, Amtrak is using its Recovery Act grants to invest in much needed Americans with Disabilities Act improvements to make stations in Preston, Ft. Madison, Mt. Pleasant, Osceola, Burlington, and Ottumwa, Iowa, accessible to persons with disabilities. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Missouri, a strong advocate of general aviation, a great member of our committee, has expressed a very genuine concern and has introduced legislation; a bill that was introduced in March of this year, referred to our committee. We have asked for comments from the administration; that is, from DOT and FAA. Meanwhile, the FAA in January of this year initiated a process to address the issues created by the so-called ``through-the-fence'' agreements. They formed a policy review team to gather information, evaluate the concerns, decide what kind of action could be taken to address the concerns. And what are these concerns? Well, I know the former president of the Airport Owners and Pilots Association, Phil Boyer, retired, I think, to Florida, to a place where he has an airplane literally in his garage. He can roll it out onto a runway and fly wherever he needs to go. That's the kind of thing we're talking about here. Under these agreements, people have total access to runways, taxiways, sensitive operational parts of the airport. But people and pets have ventured onto airport property. Homeowners have hunted. They've thrown parties. They have buried pets on airport grounds. These are the reports we got from the FAA. These agreements have hamstrung airports in planning for the future, planning for safety and improving safety. With airport land encumbered by such agreements, airports may not be free to make the necessary safety improvements they require. I would propose to the gentleman that we allow the FAA to continue its policy review team, bring forth recommendations; I would schedule a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), schedule a hearing in committee, and air the issues. The provisions that the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, has included in the bill he has introduced are very beneficial suggestions. They don't deal specifically with the issues that I just cited but those will be the subject of this review by the FAA. We'll give them a deadline of reporting to us in mid September, schedule a hearing and fashion a legislative proposal which we could then bring to the floor on suspension of the rules pending an agreement. But I think the gentleman's introduced bill is a much more thoughtful approach to the issue than just a bludgeoning of the FAA, cutting off and saying they can't take action.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just conclude that it's inappropriate for us to impose this penalty on the FAA through the appropriation process. A much more appropriate way would be to deal with it through our committee. I commit to the gentleman that we will work through to hopefully a legislative solution. Certainly, the FAA's committed to do that, and I will talk to the Administrator of the FAA, tell him we expect to hold a hearing on this issue mid-September, that they will be prepared to report to us whatever findings they have from the policy review team at that point. I am prepared to do that if the gentleman would consider withdrawing his amendment or at least not pressing it to a recorded vote. If the gentleman presses to a recorded vote, I'd be constrained to oppose it. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.