James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is great bicycling out there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Transportation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have bicycled over those levies and talked to the orchardmen on the other side, who can testify to the seepage under those levies, and that is a matter that we need to address and the Corps should be working on. And I concur in the gentleman's concern and look forward to working with him on this matter.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I concur in the gentleman's concern. I make many visits to the Sacramento area to see my family there, my son and daughter-in-law.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my great appreciation to the very diligent, thoughtful, hard-working, energetic, forward, progressive Member, chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has led that subcommittee through some very, very difficult issues in the past several years, especially in the past 2 years, in Superfund and now on the Water Resources Development Act. The gentleman has been very cooperative. We really appreciate the bipartisanship that he has always demonstrated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 40 seconds to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for the cooperation that we have had and the close working relationship again on this legislation, as on all the other bills that we have moved through this body. It again shows that at a time when there is dispute and rancor in the body politic in the broad public that in this body, where there is respect and mutual understanding and openness, the Congress can work and do the work of the public. This committee has demonstrated time and again that we can do the work of the public because of the mutual respect, the understanding, cooperation and the consensus that the work that we do is for the greater good of the country. And that is what this Water Resources Development Act is all about. It is among the best things we do in our committee and in this Congress: invest in the well-being of our fellow citizens and future growth and development of this country. Since the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the former Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now renamed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has worked to maintain a 2-year authorization schedule for the Corps. In fact, that has been the history since the reorganization of the Congress in 1946, to maintain a 2-year cycle, to provide continuity for the program and certainty to the non-Federal and local sponsors for these Corps projects. It also gives us in the Congress the opportunity to conduct oversight over the Corps programs, to make fine-tuning adjustments as necessary on individual projects, and to revisit major issues in a periodic fashion. This bill authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps' civil works program: navigation, flood control, shoreline protection, environmental restoration and protection, and authorizations to restore the Nation's environmental infrastructure, especially for smaller and, in many cases, economically disadvantaged communities. It builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It allows us to expand international trade through projects to improve our coastal ports and our inland river navigation system. Through flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction measures, this legislation and the general work of the Corps will again help to meet critical needs to protect lives and property. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the able gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has my great admiration for the splendid, scholarly way in which he approaches these issues, thorough grasp of the subject matter, and painstaking work to bring us to this point.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure might also have a subtitle, the Committee on Commendation of Great Americans. There are few opportunities for us in this body to memorialize Americans who have made great contributions to their country, sacrifice in many ways including, as in this case, sacrifice of their very lives. It is our good fortune to have jurisdiction over Federal buildings to the extent even of naming those Federal buildings; and we have on this committee, on a bipartisan basis, reserved that responsibility for very special cases. We carefully review the many bills introduced to name structures for figures important locally or statewide or nationally; and in the end, our judgment on a bipartisan basis has been to reserve the naming of a building for someone who has truly made an extraordinary contribution. This afternoon we have had at least one example of that with the naming of the George Brown building. Here, with the naming of the William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse in Seattle, we have an opportunity to acknowledge, pay tribute to and memorialize for time everlasting, or at least as long as this structure will last, a true American hero, William Kenzo Nakamura. One of our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who came to Congress with me in the same class, the 94th Congress, and later was chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, as it was known then, Mr. Minetta, was, like Private Nakamura, with his family, taken off to an internment camp in the American desert, simply because he was Japanese and because of the very powerful outpouring of feeling after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But Mr. Nakamura and his brothers, and while, of course, I cannot speak for their sentiments, but I know from Mr. Minetta, they were bewildered, they were resentful, they could not understand why their loyalty was being questioned. Americans of German ancestry were not hustled off to camps and sequestered from the rest of the country. Mr. Nakamura and his brothers felt that they were unquestionably loyal to the United States, and they enlisted in the United States Army. The story of Mr. Nakamura's service in World War II with the 442nd Regimental Combat Team has already been told by the chairman and by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows). What an extraordinary account. What an extraordinary life. To not hold it against your country or your fellow countrymen for discriminating against you or your family, but, indeed, to offer your service, including your very life, for your country, one of the greatest acts of patriotism, meriting the Congressional Medal of Honor, along with other honors. But today we take an opportunity to stop, reflect and make things right in the long run for Private Nakamura, for his family, and for all Americans of Japanese ancestry who were so unfairly treated in World War II, but, in this case, who rose above discrimination to become a true American patriot.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2412, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. S. 2412 reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for three years to ensure that it continues to play a critical role in maintaining and improving the safety of the United States transportation system. This agency's roots stem from as far back as 1926 when the Air Commerce Act vested the Department of Commerce with the authority to investigate aircraft accidents. During the 1966 consolidation of various transportation agencies into the Department of Transportation (DOT), the NTSB was created as an independent agency within DOT to investigate accidents in all transportation modes. In 1974, in further resolve to ensure that NTSB retain its independence, Congress re- established the Board as a totally separate entity distinct from DOT. Since that time, the NTSB has investigated more than 100,000 aviation accidents, and more than 10,000 surface transportation accidents. The American traveling public is much safer today due to the hard work of the NTSB staff in conducting investigations and pursuing safety recommendations. In the last three years alone, the Board has investigated more than 7,000 accidents and issued more than 60 major reports covering all transportation modes (aviation, highway, transit, maritime, railroad, and pipeline/hazardous materials). The Board has also issued more than 1,100 safety recommendations--many of which have been adopted by Congress, federal, state and local governments, and the affected industries. The NTSB's tireless efforts in investigating accidents and issuing recommendations have led to innovative safety enhancements, such as manual cutoff switches for airbags, measures to prevent runway incursions, and countermeasures against operator fatigue in all modes of transportation. The NTSB has promoted the installation of more sophisticated voice recorders to enhance its ability to investigate aircraft accidents. In addition, the NTSB recently held a General Aviation Accident Prevention Symposium, which brought together all sectors of the growing general aviation community to proactively address safety issues gleaned from GA accident investigations. In 1999 alone, there were 691 aviation-related fatalities--628 of which occurred in general aviation. Last night's news of the tragic crash that took the life of Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, his son, and a campaign aide underscores the importance of the NTSB's work, both in investigating and preventing accidents. Despite a small workforce of approximately 400 full-time employees, the NTSB has provided its investigative expertise in thousands of complex aviation accidents--including its painstaking review of the TWA 800 crash. The NTSB is also frequently called upon to assist in aviation accident investigations of foreign flag carriers--such as Egypt Air Flight 990, and in accident investigations in foreign countries. The demands upon this small agency, with its highly trained, professional staff, will only grow with the aviation market's ever- increasing globalization. To maintain its position as the world's preeminent investigative agency, it is imperative that the NTSB has the resources necessary to handle the increasingly complex accident investigations. S. 2412 ensures that NTSB has the necessary resources by increasing funding steadily and sensibly over the next three years: $57 million in FY 2000; $65 million in FY2001; and $72 million in FY2002. This funding will be used to permit NTSB to hire more technical experts as well as to provide better training for its current workforce, as was recommended in a recent study by the RAND Corporation. Dramatic changes in technology, such as glass cockpits in aviation, demand such an investment. However, with this increase in funding also comes the requirement to strengthen the oversight of financial matters at the agency. S. 2412 requires the NTSB to hire a Chief Financial Officer and to improve its internal audit procedures. In addition, S. 2412 vests the DOT Inspector General with the authority to review the financial management and business operations of the NTSB. This will help ensure that money is well spent and the potential for fraud and abuse is reduced. The DOT Inspector General's authority is specifically limited to financial matters, however, so as not to undermine the NTSB's independence. Equally important, S. 2412 provides the NTSB with the authority to grant appropriate overtime pay to all of its accident investigators while on-scene. These competent individuals are oftentimes called upon to work upwards of 60, 70 or 80 hours per week in extreme conditions-- whether in the swamps of the Florida Everglades or the chilly waters off the Atlantic Ocean--side-by-side with other federal agency investigators who are paid for extra hours worked. Moving to this type of parity is the least that we can do to show our appreciation for the efforts of these dedicated professionals. As we have learned from the tragic TWA 800 crash, accident scenes can often be chaotic with many local, state, and federal investigative agencies on scene. This is especially true where accidents are not only being investigated for probable cause, but also when criminal activity is suspected. Proper coordination between these various investigative agencies performing very important, albeit very different, functions is of paramount importance. S. 2412 reaffirms NTSB's priority over an accident scene unless the Attorney General, in consultation with the NTSB Chairman, determines that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. In that case, the NTSB would relinquish its priority over the scene, but such relinquishment will not, in any way, interfere with the Board's authority to continue its probable cause investigation. Having a well funded, well-trained NTSB workforce to meet the challenges of the 21st Century is of the utmost importance for the American traveling public. I compliment Chairman Shuster, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Lipinski for their efforts on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it says as much about the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) as it does about the gentleman we honor today that this bill comes forward to the House floor. It is an extraordinary reaching across the political aisles and across the generations for the gentleman to not only sponsor this legislation but actually vigorously advocate for it and to ensure that it made its way through the committee process and to the House floor, and of course to the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has been very forthright and vigorous in urging us to move this legislation forward. As I look back over the Members of this body that I have known over the years I have served as staff and as a Member, George Brown is one of my favorites. Avuncular comes to mind, a kindly, gentle smile, thoughtful, quizzical look on his face at times; withholding words until just the right ones came forward to fit the situation, whether he was speaking on the floor or in our Democratic Caucus; and principled also comes to mind to characterize George Brown. Whether it was as a young person in the 1930s on housing and fighting segregation or as a Member of Congress supporting the Civil Rights Act, opposing the Vietnam War, standing up for the space flight program, which he thought was important not only for the future of America but for the future of basic science research, he was a true advocate for the science community and for that which is so difficult to do in this body: to invest in basic research, which does not have an immediate outlet. We do not see its results today; but if we do not do the research today, a decade from now we will be in deficit. George understood that and was an advocate for it, and that advocacy characterizes his whole service in this body. He has done all of us a great service. We honor his memory, perpetrate his integrity, his honesty, his vision, his love of public service and his view that public service should do some good for all people when we designate this courthouse. I would also like to take this opportunity, while the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is still on the floor, to offer my tribute and great appreciation for the work that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) has done as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation. When the organizational work was underway for the 104th Congress, and it was clear the majority had shifted, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and I had a very long breakfast session, about 2\1/2\ hours, to discuss aviation. It was his intention to bid for the chairmanship of that subcommittee. I was impressed by the student in the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) asking good questions, taking notes, making mental notes, wanting to do the best thing and the right thing, asking questions, what are the tough policy issues; and he has addressed those issues during his tenure. There are many subcommittees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but I confess to loving aviation a little more than the others. For that, I have true affection, as well as great professional respect and admiration, for the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for keeping the aviation agenda on a very high note of integrity, professionalism, looking to the future, dealing with the present, addressing the fundamental issues of aviation, assuring always that we do the right thing for America's leadership in the world in the field of aviation. The tenure of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) will long stand as a tribute to aviation, a tribute to his judicial bearing, to his equanimity, his fairness and his concern for safety, security, sound investment, airport expansion, international trade in passengers and cargo, and for keeping America the leader that it is in aviation. That will be his mark of service as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has already expressed, this is a very unique initiative we undertake here. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the Chair of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) have joined forces to craft an effective approach combining the best principles of private sector real estate practice with the benefits of public-private partnerships and have, in this fashion, generated bipartisan support with a notion that already has long-standing bipartisan support, that of public-private partnerships. The piece of property in question here is 55 acres of prime land along the Anacostia River, less than a mile from our Nation's Capitol. This property has been undeveloped for the last 3 decades. The Office of Management and Budget has tried various schemes to figure out how to pay for its development. Meanwhile, the area surrounding it has deteriorated. The partnership that has finally been worked out here and, again, great tribute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who really does dig in to the issues of the District and works with neighborhood groups and with the city council and the mayor and with several committees of the Congress concerned with the affairs of the District, has done a superb job in pulling the business community together with the District government, the Federal Government, to bring together a partnership that will combine a government real estate asset with private sector financial assets. In this case, the government indeed does have an asset in land but has limited financial resources to develop that asset. The private sector, on the other hand, is searching for sound investment opportunities. At the end of the term of this agreed-upon arrangement, the government will have an enhanced asset. The private sector will have had an opportunity to achieve some profit. Both will benefit. Several Federal agencies have authority to enter into some form of public-private partnerships. The Veterans Administration, for example, has enhanced leasing authority. The National Park Service can enter into public-private arrangements to construct facilities on park lands. This legislation extends to GSA, the agency that primarily has responsibility for overall Federal real estate management, the same type of authority to develop this Southeast Federal Center property. The goal will be to enhance the Federal inventory, generate revenue from the use of the asset, revenue that will go into the Federal Buildings Fund. This approach is consistent with private sector practices. It encourages GSA to enter into private partnerships to bring this asset into the Federal Government portfolio as a producing facility, rather than one that simply drains revenue from the Federal Buildings Fund. But in the long run, the larger purpose, the larger benefit, I think, will be to the southeast community surrounding this piece of property. I hope that there will be some very significant Federal structures established in this piece of property. I am hoping that we will have at least one major anchor, Federal Government activity, that will serve as a magnet to attract other government, as well as private sector, activities to revitalize the whole surrounding neighborhood, create more jobs, enhance property values, and, in the process, generate revenue into the Federal Buildings Fund. This is a very innovative approach, a constructive approach. It is one that is long overdue, and one that benefits both the Federal Government and the private sector. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 618) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, with great sadness, a sense of personal loss and loss to this House, I take the well to announce that at 11:20 this morning, our colleague, Congressman Bruce Vento, succumbed to mesothelioma, asbestos-induced cancer of the lung and peritoneal cavity. Bruce, in his 12th term, served the people of his district nobly, with dignity, with passion, with purpose. He championed environmental causes. He championed the needs of the homeless, the voiceless, the voteless, those who could not do for themselves. He was an advocate for working people. He voted consistently and worked vigorously and strenuously, to champion the cause of organized labor in this body. He brought a balance to all that he undertook, and with a science teacher- like care for fact and detail, he pursued his causes with only the greatest of dignity and of skill. My prayers go out to his wife Sue, to his children, to his constituents. I thank the Reverend Chaplain for the prayer for Bruce and for his family. I ask all of our colleagues to join their prayers with those of the Vento family.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 8, 1986, a quiet neighborhood in Mounds View, Minnesota, at 4 a.m. was wrenched from its slumber by a shattering explosion. A wall of fire roared through the street, turning the night into an inextinguishable nightmare. The explosion of a pipeline carrying unleaded gasoline killed a mother and her 7-year-old daughter, incinerated them, and severely injured another woman who emerged from her home. Lawns were scorched, mailboxes melted, power lines were down, cars set afire, the road buckled, and trees wilted. A quarter of a million dollars of property damage was caused. The origin of it all: a ruptured hazardous liquid pipeline carrying gasoline between St. Paul and Duluth. It focused the attention of the Congress and of the country and the review of the National Transportation Safety Board and the General Accounting Office on the need to improve the safety of the Nation's pipelines. I was then chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and had been preparing for a hearing on pipeline safety when this tragedy occurred. We held those hearings. Following the hearings, my then partner on that subcommittee, Mr. Clinger from Pennsylvania, and I made recommendations for safety improvements, including a substantial increase in pipeline inspections to detect problems before they lead to tragedy, better information on pipelines for persons who live near them, improvement in the data submitted by the Office of Pipeline Safety, improvements in cathodic protection, automatic shut-off valves to detect problems and prevent them from getting worse in suburbanized areas. The NTSB agreed and issued recommendations that the Office of Pipeline Safety require operators to conduct periodic internal inspection of their lines. But nothing happened because the administration at the time did not want those recommendations to go into effect. My two Senate Republican colleagues from Minnesota introduced legislation that required 3-year inspections, every 3 years. Tough inspections. Mandatory inspections. Established in legislation. That was reflected in our hearings. So in 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring OPS to set requirements for operators to conduct internal inspections by 1995. Today, 14 years after Mounds View, little progress has been made. The accident rate has not improved. In fact, it is increasing by 4 percent a year rate of accidents in pipelines. Twenty-four percent of the gas pipelines in this country are now more than 50 years old. The Office of Pipeline Safety has failed to step up to the plate and deal with the problem. The Office of Pipeline Safety has failed to comply with 22 directives from Congress to adopt regulations and undertake the necessary studies and regulatory action. That office has the lowest rate of any in the Department of Transportation of accepting NTSB recommendations. The bill before us is not as they, the industry, claim, a ``tough'' bill that will promote pipeline safety. The Senate bill mandates nothing beyond the current inadequate program of OPS. It leaves it to the discretion of OPS whether to adopt stronger programs. That approach has not worked. This bill will be requirement 23 on the Office of Pipeline Safety to adopt regulations. They have not done it 22 other times, what makes anyone think they are going to do it now? OPS has not issued a single final regulation requiring inspections. Just a short time ago, in the absence of inspection requirements, we had another tragedy. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, a 50-year-old pipeline exploded, killing 12 people, 5 children. Inspections showed that the pipeline had significant internal corrosion. It had never been properly inspected in 50 years. We cannot wait for OPS to do some more foot dragging in the face of this industry opposition to mandatory actions. There is a whole group of people that do not want this legislation and want this legislation strengthened. We have been told right from the very outset, we were in the process, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), we had reached a staff agreement, we had moved forward with a bill, and then, the Senate, on September 7, passed their bill. All of a sudden, we heard from the other body, you know the process over here in the Senate. There is not enough time left. That was a month ago. We could have had a bill on the floor. We could have been in conference with the Senate. We could even have some discussions with the Senate and do better, do better. I resent the implication and the statements made on the floor of the other body down the hall from here that people in this body, with indirect reference to this Member, are objecting to this bill on political grounds. Bologna. Anyone who knows me knows I stand for principle and for safety, and that is what this debate is all about.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).