James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1665, the ``Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009'', as amended. This legislation, authored by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, is a thorough, comprehensive response to the challenges that have confronted the Coast Guard as it has worked to manage large-scale acquisition efforts. I also applaud the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Congressman Mica, and the Ranking Member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Congressman LoBiondo, for their diligent work on this legislation. H.R. 1665 incorporates the lessons that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has drawn from its extensive oversight of the Coast Guard's acquisition programs. Much of that oversight has focused on the Coast Guard's Deepwater program, a 25-year program to repair or replace the service's surface and air assets that is now projected to cost nearly $27 billion--a figure that is more than a $2 billion increase over the cost projections developed just two years ago. These oversight efforts have included a nearly 11-hour full Committee hearing that I convened in April 2007 to examine the results of an extensive Committee investigation that evaluated the multiple factors that contributed to the failure of the effort to lengthen 110-foot patrol boats to 123 feet. The oversight efforts have also included four separate Coast Guard Subcommittee hearings that have examined different aspects of the Coast Guard's acquisition programs. Through these tireless efforts, the Committee has developed a comprehensive picture of the challenges that have plagued the Coast Guard's acquisition efforts, including the use of personnel who had little experience managing a major systems acquisition, continued alteration of performance requirements even after major engineering milestones were passed, and failure to apply cost and performance measures to individual asset acquisitions within the Deepwater program. The Coast Guard has responded to these criticisms. The service has moved to take control of the lead systems integration function that had been contracted to the Lockheed Martin-Northrop Grumman team. The service has established an Acquisition Directorate and assigned individuals with the highest available professional qualifications in acquisition management to oversee the service's largest acquisition efforts. Further, the Coast Guard has expanded the role of the American Bureau of Shipping, and other qualified third parties, to ensure that procured assets meet the highest quality standards. However, more remains to be done, and H.R. 1665 takes the steps necessary to institutionalize within the Coast Guard the kind of effective management practices that should, if fully implemented, enable the service to avoid the procurement failures it has had in the past. Specifically, H.R. 1665 requires that all flag-level officers serving in the Acquisition Directorate have a Level III Program Management certification and 10 years of acquisition experience. Despite the service's new emphasis on placing in management positions those individuals who have professional acquisition management qualifications, a Captain selected for promotion to Rear Admiral was recently named to be the Program Executive Officer for Deepwater even though he lacked a Level III program manager certification at the time of his selection. This choice is even more surprising given that, as of February 2009, the Coast Guard had 27 military officers who had achieved a Level III program manager certification, including 12 Captains. H.R. 1665 requires the Coast Guard to develop life-cycle cost estimates for projects expected to cost more than $10 million. Independent life-cycle cost estimates will be required for major acquisitions. With these estimates in place, we will know what it will cost to operate and maintain new assets before we commit to acquiring them. H.R. 1665 mandates that the Coast Guard firmly establish operational requirements before awarding production contracts--so that cost thresholds and testing and evaluation standards can, in turn, be firmly established. Further, H.R. 1665 imposes a breach ceiling on Coast Guard acquisitions--something that has long been imposed on Department of Defense acquisitions and that is overdue in the Coast Guard. Specifically, H.R. 1665 specifies that for any major acquisition, the Coast Guard must report to Congress when a cost overrun of greater than 10 percent is likely to occur, a delay of more than 180 days is likely to occur, or a failure for a new asset or class of assets is anticipated. More stringent standards are required whenever higher cost over-runs or more extensive delays are anticipated. I note that H.R. 1665 is based, in part, on legislation considered and passed twice by this House in the 110th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1665.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H. Res. 508, introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the general aviation (GA) industry, which includes all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airlines activity, should be recognized for its contributions to the United States. I thank Representative Fortenberry for his leadership on this measure. The United States has the most robust GA industry in the world. GA transports 170 million passengers annually, on over 230,000 aircraft. GA stimulates local and regional economies--it comprises over $150 billion in direct and indirect economic output and supports almost 1.3 million jobs. Many of these jobs are high-skill jobs in manufacturing, avionics and technology development as well as flight training, maintenance, modification, and technical support. In addition, GA provides communities with essential services, and affords large and small businesses the flexibility and mobility that they need to be successful in both large communities as well as small, rural ones. Many industries and public services depend on GA, including emergency medicine, firefighting, surveying wildlife, law enforcement, news services, energy exploration, and farming. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 508.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to compliment Ms. Johnson on her superb chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment where she has diligently pursued the work of the committee with numerous hearings-- in-depth, thorough work on the precious resources we have of fresh water. All the water we have ever had and will have is with us today, and it's our responsibility to care for it. Her vigilance in holding these hearings over the last Congress and in this Congress have been superb. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) has been a splendid partner and a diligent worker on the issues of water resources. He understands the needs that come from his State of Arkansas, which is a Mississippi River State, which is a water-dependent State, and he has devoted great initiative to this work. Also, we have had success. The old saying is ``success has a thousand fathers.'' Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New Jersey; Mr. Bishop and Mr. Hall--both members of our committee--have been strong supporters of this legislation. I do have to give special recognition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who, over several Congresses, has championed this legislation, including the initial BEACH Act. The persistence with which Mr. Bilbray pursues matters is remarkable, to say the least, and he has been single-minded in his pursuit of this particular issue. We have here a very splendid bipartisan bill that improves on the previous legislation, that improves on the practices of the previous administration, which, frankly, neglected the needs of beaches. We provide State and local governments greater authority to use a portion of their beach grant funds to identify sources of beach water quality impairments, to track ongoing sources of pollution to coastal recreation waters and to establish the validation of a rapid testing method, which all Members of this body who represent coastal areas, whether they're the freshwater coast or the saltwater coast, have strongly urged. This legislation will define ``rapid testing'' as a method that can produce results as soon as practicable but not more than 6 hours after the commencement of the test. All of the supporters, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is just arriving, have urged action on this particular rapid testing issue, so we give it definition, and we give it urgency and fiscal support. This is a very good bill, a product of a great deal of experience and interest and support from Members on both sides of the aisle--on the east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast, and the fourth coastline, which is the Great Lakes coast. I urge support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2093, the ``Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009'', as amended. This legislation, and the underlying sections of the Clean Water Act that focus on coastal recreation water quality monitoring and public notification, are vital to protect the public from unwanted contact with potentially-harmful pollutants and contaminants in our coastal recreational waters. I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Hall, for shepherding this important legislation through the hearing process, through Committee markup, and to the Floor of the House today. I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to the President's desk. The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30 million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards that were considered ``safe''. In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last nine years include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, and increased monitoring and notification of contamination of such waters. However, in as much as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing more information to the public, the previous Administration's track record on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to protect human health was far less successful. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given authority to promulgate standards for States that did not have sufficient standards, as compared to those in the 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was given further direction to continue to study the impacts of waterborne pollutants and bacteria to human health, and to revise the criteria every five years as needed. Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches. Similarly, the last Administration failed to utilize the authorities and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public has the best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of their favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for the creation of a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the public with information on which beaches had in place monitoring and notification programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction to periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new information. I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the nation's beaches. It is regrettable that the last Administration was unwilling to utilize the tools provided by Congress to ensure the protection of human health and safety. I am hopeful that the Obama Administration will seize the opportunity to enhance the protection of human health and safety, and I expect that passage of the H.R. 2093 will aid in this effort. H.R. 2093 increases by $10 million annually the authorization of appropriations for EPA to issue grants to State and local governments for the implementation of coastal recreation water monitoring and notification programs. In addition, the bill provides State and local governments the authority to use a portion of their BEACH grant to identify potential sources of beach water quality impairments. This authority will help State and local governments track ongoing sources of pollution to coastal recreation waters, and allow these entities to take the necessary next steps to control or eliminate these sources of pollution. The bill also directs EPA to complete its review and publication of revised water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters by October 15, 2012, and to include with this publication, the validation of a ``rapid testing method'' for coastal recreation waters. H.R. 2093 defines a rapid testing method as one that can produce results ``as soon as practicable'' but not more than six hours after commencement of the test. Today, the majority of States are utilizing culture-based testing methodologies for determining the presence of pathogens in coastal waters. This testing methodology typically requires 24 hours before results can be obtained, which can mean that one or two days may pass before the public is made aware of the presence of potentially harmful contaminants. H.R. 2093 directs EPA to reduce the testing time from the current 24 hours to less than six hours, with the hope that communities can provide same day results on the condition of their local waters. To be clear, this legislation does not require that an approvable test actually take six hours, but establishes six hours as the absolute maximum time allowed for an approvable rapid testing method. If science dictates that the amount of testing time can be less than six hours, this bill allows EPA to approve a ``more rapid'' testing methodology. It is my understanding that the scientific community believes that current technology is capable of producing a reliable rapid testing methodology that can produce results in two to three hours. This technology could be readily adopted by EPA under the revised definition, and the Agency is encouraged to adopt the shortest, reliable testing methodology possible. Mr. Speaker, simply put, this reauthorization of the BEACH Act focuses on providing State and local governments with the tools they need to protect public health and reduce the incidence of water-borne illness. As we are in the midst of the summer vacation season, let us make sure that a family trip to the beach will not also result in a trip to the doctor's office. I urge my colleague to support H.R. 2093.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, to compliment the gentleman on his statement. I fully subscribe to the wise words that he has expressed and to the history he's unveiled of the evolution of passenger rail in this country. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), my partner on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--

Mr. OBERSTAR. And we worked together with the gentleman from Ohio to craft an Amtrak authorization bill that opens the door to private sector investment, that creates a sustainable path for the future of surface high-speed intercity passenger rail in this country, and with the gentleman's leadership now, Mr. Chairman, on the Appropriations Committee, we're going to advance that cause. So I thank him for that forthright statement and am delighted that he's continuing to be such a strong advocate, and I also take this opportunity to thank my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Florida, for the partnership we've had in advancing the cause of high- speed intercity passenger rail.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, and the ranking member, Mrs. Emerson, for acknowledging the merits of this proposal and for including these funds for Greenstone Group. I respect the gentleman from Arizona. He is consistent, persistent and sincere in his opposition to constituent-inspired investments that Members offer on their behalf; but were he to prevail, he would, in fact, be muzzling job-creating opportunities in northeastern Minnesota, an area in my district where unemployment rates are 12.9 percent, 15 percent and 16 percent in one community after another. The term ``Greenstone Group'' is derived from the mineral deposit that underlies much of northeastern Minnesota's iron ore mining country. It is a natural resource-based economy. We've been losing jobs with the downturn in steel and iron ore production. In fact, the iron ore mines are completely shut down, and some 6,000 jobs have been lost. The bright spot is the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, which the gentleman, in fact, cited from the application proposal. The Entrepreneur Fund, which I have supported for over 20 years, has stabilized and has created 1,000 businesses, 2,500 jobs, people who are employed, who are paying Federal, State and local taxes that would not otherwise be paid. The return to the Federal Government on this investment is significant and real and tangible. The Entrepreneur Fund has provided $7 million in loans to 350 businesses. Over 9,000 individuals have been helped by the fund, by the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund. They have established a Women's Business Center. They've been an SBA microlender. They're not doing it all by themselves. The gentleman from Arizona said, well, this can and should be done by the private sector. Well, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Blandin Foundation, Minnesota Power Company, and the Lloyd K. Johnson Foundation all are partners and participants with the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund and with the Greenstone Group. There is a public-private partnership that has been very successful and that has the support of the private sector. How does this translate? Carol Willoughby, whom I know personally, has a very small company, Let the Whole World Know. Without the training, the technical training from the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, I could not have done it. I wouldn't be in business without them, she wrote. Luke Popham and Jeremy Rebrovich, two beginning entrepreneurs, were turned down by nine banks until the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund found them, helped them and guided them. Jeremy says, Without the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, I wouldn't be in business today. They built a fitness center with their carpentry skills, and they have 900 clients. They're producing, and they're creating jobs in an area that is losing jobs. What the Entrepreneur Fund and the Greenstone Group do is simply provide, in participation with the private sector, professional business coaching. People with real world business experience have helped these beginning entrepreneurs do the right thing--develop good business plans, get on their feet, and operate successful businesses. These one-on-one meetings with their coaches help the business owners step back from the day-to-day job of running their businesses and help them to see the possibilities for growth. They develop sound business plans. This is a good investment of Federal dollars. I urge opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. When the private-sector lending enterprises can step up on their own and can support startup enterprises like that, you won't need a helping hand, but when the private sector says, We can't do this alone and we need a helping hand, then I think there is an appropriate role for the Federal sector to be a partner with the private sector.

Mr. OBERSTAR. When the gentleman from Arizona waves his magic wand over the northeastern part of my district and restores economic stability and growth and job creation, then we won't need this helping hand. As I pointed out, there is no crowding out of the private sector. In fact, as I cited, one of the participants was turned down nine times by small banks that don't have the backing of big correspondent banks. They couldn't do it on their own. Then the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund came in and partnered with them, and now we have got jobs created and we have got people working. That is what we're doing. There is no crowding out. There is a partnership, a public-private partnership, that is successful in job creation and in payroll creating, taking people off the unemployment rolls and putting them on payrolls.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Trixie Johnson on her recent retirement and to commemorate her dedicated service to the Southern California and to the nation throughout her distinguished career. Johnson served as the Director of Research for the Mineta Transportation Institute (``MTI'') and where she worked for ten years before retiring this past May. MTI was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and is located at San Jose State University (SJSU). This institution conducts research, education, and information and technology transfers specializing in transportation policy and management. Ms. Johnson led a research program at MTI that brought together faculty and student researchers from SJSU, along with other academic institutions around the country, and the private sector to advance the body of knowledge in transportation policy and management from an intermodal perspective. In addition to publishing innovative reports and research findings, Ms. Johnson was deeply committed to recruiting, engaging, and training the nation's next generation of transportation planners and leaders. Before joining the Mineta Transportation Institute in July 1999, Trixie Johnson served the full limit of two terms on the San Jose City Council--from 1991 through 1998. Due to Ms. Johnson's extensive experience, she has been recognized as a land use and environmental specialist by her peers. Her council service included two years as Vice Mayor and several years as chairperson of the city's Transportation, Development and Environment Committee. Ms. Johnson has a long record of public service that included serving as chair of the Environmental Quality Committee and member of the Board of Directors for the League of California Cities; vice-chair of the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the National League of Cities; and member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board. While her passionate work on transportation issues throughout her career will surely be missed, the many students and colleagues she has inspired will carry on her work as the nation seeks solutions to the transportation challenges of the 21st century. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Trixie Johnson on her retirement, and wish her and her family the best of luck in this next chapter of their lives.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2454, the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009''. This bill seeks to promote clean energy use and reduce carbon emissions in the United States. The legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs, enhance America's energy independence, and protect the environment. Additionally, this bill recognizes the important role that transportation plays in addressing global climate change, and I am pleased that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has worked in concert with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in crafting key provisions of this bill. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nearly 30 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced by the United States comes from the transportation sector, second only to electricity generation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports that the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector grew 25.4 percent between 1990 and 2006, an average of 1.4 percent each year. The most recent DOE data show that transportation produces more metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide than the residential and commercial sectors, and almost as much as the industrial sector. Nearly all of these transportation-related emissions come from the use of petroleum products. The transportation sector accounts for 68 percent of the total U.S. petroleum consumption; Americans used almost 14 million barrels of oil each day for transportation purposes in 2006. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the amount of miles Americans drive each year has grown three times faster than the U.S. population, and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations. Private vehicles are now the largest contributor to household ``carbon footprints''--accounting for 55 percent of carbon emissions from U.S. households. Federal policies over the last 50 years, however, have done little to address the growing problem of greenhouse gas emissions. A February 2008 report by ICF International released by the American Public Transportation Association found that a person who switches a 20-mile round trip commute alone from car to existing public transportation, can reduce his or her annual carbon dioxide emissions by 4,800 pounds per year. This dramatic energy savings is equal to a 10 percent reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions produced by a typical two-adult, two-car household. Furthermore, if Americans used public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each year. To reduce America's carbon footprint and to encourage the development and expansion of sustainable transportation options, the American Clean Energy and Security Act will implement a number of initiatives to significantly reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. These provisions represent the next steps to mitigate the negative impact the transportation sector has on climate protection, while increasing the livability of our communities nationwide. Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act, States will receive allowances for clean energy and energy efficiency investments, and are authorized to use up to 10 percent of these allowances for certain transportation projects. States may use allowances to fulfill the local matching requirement to receive Federal funds for projects like public transportation system improvements, clean fuel buses, or construction of bicycle facilities. While this provision offers only a small portion of the funds needed to address surface transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, it is a very good first step. Additional provisions of the legislation expand the scope of current surface transportation planning to include emissions reduction requirements administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Act requires EPA, in consultation with DOT, to set national emission reduction goals, but requires DOT to set transportation- related emissions reduction performance measures for each State and large metropolitan areas. States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must meet individualized transportation-related emissions reductions targets, and the Act requires public notice of those targets, including an assessment of how well States and MPOs are meeting emission reduction goals. These important transportation planning provisions are also included in the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, legislation that the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit passed unanimously this week by voice vote, and which I plan to bring before the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House soon after the fourth of July recess. These transformational changes to our surface transportation planning requirements, especially when coupled with dedicated funding for clean energy transportation projects, will save fuel, reduce emissions, and advance America's long-sought goal of energy independence. In addition to these important transportation provisions, I am very pleased that agreement has been reached to clarify the definition of renewable biomass. I want to commend the leadership of my Minnesota colleague, Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, for his superb advocacy for rural America and the wood product industry. The new biomass definition and provisions that provide credit for forestry and wood products for carbon sequestration are essential to ensure that our vital wood product sector is not disadvantaged in the climate change legislation. I am also very pleased that additional language has been added to ensure that the iron ore sector will receive emission allowances, and I greatly appreciate Chairman Waxman's willingness to work with my colleague Bart Stupak and me on this important iron ore mining clarification. While I am prepared to support this legislation today, I continue to have concerns with the climate change bill regarding the border adjustment mechanism. It is imperative that the final climate change legislation contain strong safeguards to ensure that our manufacturing sector is not disadvantaged by imports from nations that have not implemented carbon reduction technologies. Without further improvements, it is likely that the steel, wood product, and other energy-intensive sectors of our economy would face unfair competition from nations with insufficient environmental safeguards. I am encouraged by the important contributions that my colleagues Mike Doyle, Jay Inslee, Charlie Rangel, and Sandy Levin have made in this area, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to make additional improvements. We must also ensure that the final climate change bill addresses regional concerns regarding the allocation of emissions allowances to utilities in the Midwest. While I am pleased that improvements were made to assist rural electrical cooperatives, I remain concerned that the current formula, which would allocate emissions allowances to utilities based on a combination of sales and emissions, would unfairly impact Midwestern power producers, and I am hopeful that further refinements can be made to ensure regional equity. For these reasons and more, I support H.R. 2454, the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, my good friend and colleague of 34 years ago. We entered Congress together. I do not propose to read this entire document, but it is the report of the hearings, the committee report conducted by my predecessor in Congress, John Blatnik, in 1957 on false and misleading advertising among a number of products and the failure of the Federal Trade Commission to intervene on behalf of the public. The leading testimony on false and misleading advertising on filter- tipped cigarettes was a statement of Dr. Kyler Hammond, Director of Statistical Research for the American Cancer Society: We found lung cancer death rates to be extremely low among nonsmokers and high among heavy cigarette smokers; 2,665 excess deaths, and this was 1957, among smokers. The conclusion of Dr. Hammond: The sum total of scientific evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that cigarette smoking is a causative factor in the rapidly increasing incidence of human epidermoid carcinoma of the lung. Fifty-two years ago and we still have people in this Chamber and in the other body saying it's not a problem. The report of the committee goes on to say, Benzpyrene is one of the substances containing carcinogenic agents. A known cancer-producing agent has been found in the smoke from cigarette paper and an amount from the tobacco itself. This component is known as 3,4-benzpyrene. The report of the committee concludes: The cigarette manufacturers have deceived the American public through their advertising of filter-tip cigarettes. Ironically, while denying the alleged health hazards of cigarette smoking, the industry has, in its advertising, made these charges appear true. Filter gives you more of what a filter is for, clean smoking; snowy white; pure; miracle tip; 20,000 filter traps, gives you more of what you changed to a filter for. The committee concludes: The Federal Trade Commission has failed to approach the problem of false and misleading advertising. They failed then, 52 years ago. They failed us today. It is way long past time, many millions of deaths later, for this Congress to act decisively in the public interest. And also as a tribute to my predecessor, John Blatnik, who led this charge 52 years ago and who was rewarded with dissolution of his subcommittee for having rung the bell on false and misleading advertising by the cigarette companies.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Hostelling International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural understanding and youth travel. Hostelling International USA is a nonprofit organization founded in 1934 to promote hostels and hostel related programs in the United States, especially for young travelers. It has grown nationally and currently hosts nearly one million overnight stays by both domestic and foreign travelers. In doing so, it promotes cultural exchange through travel and supports tourism for local economies. The Minnesota Council of Hostelling International USA operates the Mississippi Headwaters Hostel in Itasca State Park. Since 1992, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, this hostel offers budget accommodations for families, schools, and youth groups. In addition, the Council promotes global travel to and cultivates cultural understanding in Minnesotans through educational programs in the Twin Cities. I congratulate Hostelling International USA for its 75 years of service.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H. Res. 472, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), which congratulates and salutes the 70th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and its dedication to general aviation (GA), safety, and the important contribution that GA provides to the United States. The resolution also commends AOPA for: creating the Air Safety Foundation, leading the recovery of the GA light aircraft manufacturing industry, and setting the stage for the development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System by being an early proponent of the civilian use of the Global Positioning System. I thank Representative Dent for his leadership on this measure. AOPA was incorporated on May 15, 1939, as a non-profit organization dedicated to GA. Since then, the organization has been a leading advocate for GA pilots and now represents about 415,000 members. AOPA has also provided GA pilots with valuable safety education and training through the Air Safety Foundation, which was created in 1950. The Air Safety Foundation is the largest non-profit organization dedicated solely to GA safety. AOPA was a primary supporter of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994. The GA industry boomed following the passage of GARA, which placed fair and reasonable limitations on the time period during which a manufacturer would be legally liable for aircraft defects. I congratulate AOPA for working to support GA over the past 70 years. GA stimulates local and regional economies--it comprises over one percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and supports almost 1.2 million jobs. In addition, GA provides communities with essential services, and affords businesses the flexibility and mobility that they require. Many industries and public services depend on GA to be successful and efficient, including emergency medicine, firefighting, news services, energy exploration, and farming. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 472.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1687, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), designates the building located at McKinley Avenue and Third Streets, SW. in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. The bill has broad bipartisan support. The designation honors the exemplary public service of our former colleague from Canton, Ohio, Ralph Regula. Ralph represented the 16th district of Ohio for 36 years, from January 3, 1973 to January 3, 2009. Former President Gerald Ford, while serving as the House leader, recommended Ralph Regula for an appointment to the Committee on Appropriations. He served with distinction on the Subcommittee on the Interior and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. Ralph Strauss Regula was born in Beach City, Ohio, on December 3, 1924. During World War II, Congressman Regula served in the United States Navy. He later went on to earn a B.A. from Mount Union College in 1948, and then graduated from the William McKinley School of Law in Canton, Ohio, in 1952. Congressman Regula served in many different capacities in his long tenure in public service. He was a member of the Ohio State Board of Education from 1960-1964. Regula was then elected to the Ohio State House of Representatives from 1965-1967, and subsequently served in the Ohio State Senate in 1967-1972. He then went on to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 93rd Congress, and served for 36 years. Congressman Regula last served as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and was one of the longest serving Republican Members of Congress. Congressman Regula retired at the end of the 110th Congress after a career of nearly 50 years of public service. Congressman Regula is married to Mary Regula and has three children and four grandchildren. It is most fitting and proper to honor Congressman Regula with this designation. I support H.R. 1687, as amended, and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484, introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), which expresses support for designating June 10th as ``National Pipeline Safety Day''. Pipelines have a critical place in our national infrastructure. The national pipeline network of over 2.2 million miles efficiently delivers gasoline, natural gas, oil, and other essential energy products across the country each day. However, because of the volatile nature of the products they deliver, if pipelines are not properly cared for, or they are carelessly tampered with, there can be serious consequences. That is what occurred in 1986 in Mounds View, Minnesota, when a Williams pipeline ruptured. Vaporized gasoline combined with air and liquid gasoline flowed along neighborhood streets. About 20 minutes after the accident occurred, the gasoline vapor was ignited when an automobile entered the area. Fire spread rapidly along the path of the liquid gasoline, killing a woman and her daughter and severely burning another victim. According to accident investigators, there were known deficiencies in the cathodic protection applied to the first 10 miles of the pipeline and Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484, introduced by the corrosion to the weld seams. Employees also had failed to shut-off the manually operated gate valve until one and half hours into the spill. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), had the valve been remotely operable or had remote-operated valves been installed on the line at the time of the accident, the pipeline could have been shut down by the dispatcher soon after the failure was detected, thereby decreasing substantially the amount of product released into the neighborhood. Ignition of the fuel may not have been prevented; however, the extent and severity of the damage could have been reduced. The NTSB first identified the need for rapid shutdown of failed pipelines to limit the release of product following a pipeline rupture in a 1970 study, entitled ``Effects of Delay in Shutting Down Failed Pipeline Systems and Methods of Providing Rapid Shutdown''. Since then, a number of accidents that highlight the need to reduce the release of hazardous gases or liquids have occurred. In 1995, the NTSB recommended that the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) expedite requirements for rapid shutdown of failed pipeline segments on high-pressure pipelines in high-consequence areas. However, RSPA failed to act on the NTSB's recommendations, opting instead to further study the issue. That prompted Congress to pass the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-304), which required the Secretary of Transportation to assess the effectiveness of remotely operated valves and to prescribe standards, within two years of enactment, for installation of the valves based on that assessment. The regulations were not issued until 2001--too late for the victims of the 1999 hazardous liquid pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington. The June 10, 1999, explosion caused the release of about 237,000 gallons of gasoline into a creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham, Washington. The gasoline ignited, sending a fireball about 1.5 miles down the creek, which took the lives of two 10-year-old boys, Stephen Tsiorvas and Wade King, and an 18-year-old young man, Liam Wood. Eight additional inhalation injuries occurred, a single- family residence and the city of Bellingham's water treatment plant were severely damaged, and the wildlife in Whatcom Creek was completely destroyed. Investigators found, among other things, that Olympic Pipe Line had no remote-operated shut off valves on the line, which could have prevented the release of hundreds of thousands of gasoline and the loss of three young lives. Following the Bellingham accident, RSPA ordered the pipeline company to install an automatic check valve just downstream of the rupture location so that the volume of product released would be limited in the event of a future pipeline rupture in that area. Again, a case of too little, too late. Pipeline accidents, such as the ones in Mounds View and Bellingham, are not isolated incidents. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which now oversees the safety of our nation's pipeline infrastructure, 2,888 significant pipeline incidents occurred between 1999-2008, resulting in 173 fatalities, 632 injuries, and $2.7 billion in property damage. In response to these incidents, Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-355), which increased penalties for violations of safety standards; developed qualification programs for employees who perform sensitive tasks; strengthened pipeline testing requirements; required government mapping of the pipeline system; established a public education program for communities that live around pipelines; and enhanced whistleblower protections. In 2006, Congress furthered these pipeline safety efforts by passing the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act (P.L. 109-468), which required development of an integrity management program for distribution pipelines; implemented long-standing NTSB safety recommendations on the installation of excess flow valves, development of hours-of-service standards for pipeline employees, and adoption of safety standards for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems; and increased pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel. Despite these significant measures, much work remains to be done. PHMSA has not implemented many of the mandates from the 2006 Act. Over the next several months, as we look to reauthorization of the pipeline safety program in fiscal year 2011, we will work with PHMSA to ensure full implementation of the Act Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 484.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 2200, the ``Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2009'', offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. The manager's amendment modifies section 212 of the reported bill and directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to carry out a program to ensure fair treatment in the screening of passengers with metal implants while traveling in air transportation. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that, consistent with security regulations, such individuals can travel by air with greater ease and be treated with dignity and respect. According to the Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation, there are approximately 500,000 total hip and knee replacements performed in the United States each year. An estimated 11 million people in the United States currently have a medical implant, and this number will grow as the population with implants increases. In a 2007 study, researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that 100 percent of hip replacements and 90 percent of knee replacements cause commercial airport metal detectors to alert. Whenever a passenger triggers the walk-through metal detector, additional screening must be conducted to locate and resolve the source of the alarm. A Transportation Security Officer (TSO) checks the passenger with a hand- held metal detector and conducts a pat-down inspection of any area that alarms; the TSO then conducts a whole-body pat-down. This additional screening consumes an average five minutes more of a passenger's time at security checkpoints. This excess screening of individuals with metal implants is also an inefficient use of a TSO's time. This provision is based on H.R. 2335, a bill that I introduced to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a travel credential that incorporates biometric or other applicable technologies to verify the identity of an individual with a metal implant. The manager's amendment requires TSA to submit a plan to Congress, within six months of the date of enactment, on ways to improve security screening procedures for individuals with metal implants. Within 12 months, TSA must implement the program, including the establishment of a biometric credential to limit disruptions for such travelers. I thank Chairman Thompson for working with me on this provision, which is of great importance to me and millions of travelers with metal implants. While I support the manager's amendment, I have significant concerns with Subtitle B of Title IV of the underlying bill, entitled the ``Safe Truckers Act of 2009''. The Safe Trucker provisions, offered as an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) during Committee consideration of the bill, eliminate background checks for most commercial drivers who haul hazardous materials. Currently, drivers who haul hazardous materials in a commercial motor vehicle in quantities requiring vehicle placards under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations must have a hazardous materials endorsement (HME). In 2001, Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56), which prohibited states from issuing a license to transport hazardous materials in commerce to any individual without a determination by DHS that the individual does not pose a security risk. Drivers seeking to apply for, renew, or transfer an HME on their state- issued Commercial Driver's License (CDL) must undergo a security threat assessment by TSA. H.R. 2200 significantly narrows the scope of this requirement. The bill requires background checks only for a small subset of drivers--as few as five percent--who haul ``security sensitive materials''. Limiting background checks to only those drivers who haul extremely dangerous materials stands to weaken security on our roadways. It will be extremely difficult to enforce a requirement that only some drivers carrying hazardous materials undergo background checks. If a driver is able to carry these security sensitive materials without special credential on his or her CDL that requires successful completion of a background check, we will have to rely on roadside inspectors to find drivers hauling these materials and verify that the driver has passed a background check. Only a small group of drivers undergo inspections, conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and its state partners. Moreover, it will be difficult for inspectors to determine whether a driver is carrying a class of hazmat requiring special verification. To make this system work, it would be necessary to develop a special identification for trucks carrying hazmat for which a driver must have undergone a background check. The bill repeals the hazardous materials law that sets forth the existing process of conditioning the issuance of a commercial license on the successful completion of a background check. Instead, the bill institutes a vague enforcement requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``shall prohibit an individual from operating a motor vehicle in commerce while transporting a security sensitive material'' unless the individual holds a Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC). Commercial drivers are not like port or airport workers who enter a defined, secure area on a regular basis for their employment, and where verification that they have undergone a background check by TSA inspectors or TWIC card readers can routinely occur. Roadside inspections target particular carriers with a record of safety problems, not compliance with TSA regulations. Current resources do not result in adequate oversight of this geographically broad industry: in 2008, less than two percent of motor carriers underwent compliance reviews, and 3.5 million roadside inspections were conducted on an industry of 7 million drivers and over 700,000 motor carriers. Under this system, unfortunately, carriers and drivers that are not in compliance with regulations commonly go undetected. DHS and DOT may recognize these enforcement problems and choose to implement the Safe Trucker requirements by requiring state Departments of Motor Vehicles to have separate processes for granting HMEs to drivers who haul hazardous materials and security sensitive materials. This approach would create a significant administrative burden for states. The associated costs will be shouldered by states, supplemented by Federal motor carrier safety grants funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. The resources diverted to meet this mandate will take away badly- needed funds from critical commercial driver safety activities. Finally, the Safe Trucker provisions require operators hauling security sensitive materials licensed in Canada or Mexico to undergo a similar background check to U.S. drivers. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure included this requirement, applicable to all drivers hauling hazardous materials, in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59). TSA has failed to properly implement this requirement. Instead, TSA currently grants commercial drivers from Mexico authority to transport hazardous materials in the United States (currently limited to commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border) without conducting a check of their criminal history in Mexico. Our Committee will seek to address this in our broader efforts to ensure the safety of Mexico-domiciled carriers on U.S. roads. I understand the arguments that the background checks associated with the HME and the TWIG are not well coordinated by TSA and the associated problems, including duplicate charges for drivers. I support finding a solution to these implementation issues. However, the solutions included in H.R. 2200 far exceed this problem and stand to strain insufficient motor carrier oversight and enforcement resources while potentially weakening security. I support Chairman Thompson's efforts to move this bill expeditiously through the House, and have made every effort to facilitate the consideration of this legislation. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Mississippi on issues of mutual interest to our Committees as this bill moves ahead.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 915 and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We bring to the House, once again, to the Committee of the Whole, the authorization for FAA for the next 4 years. We're getting very good at this. We did it 2 years ago. It passed the House overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, the other body did not act on it. So we held further hearings and reshaped the bill. Essentially we have 95 percent of what we had in 2007 in this bill. It was worked out then in cooperation with the Republican members of the committee and with the ranking Republican, Mr. Mica, and again this year with Mr. Mica, Mr. Petri and the Aviation Subcommittee under the extraordinarily gifted leadership of Mr. Costello, who held numerous hearings to air the various aspects of this bill and other aviation issues. So that we bring a bill for which there is broad bipartisan support except perhaps for four areas in which there are differences and on which my good friend, Mr. Mica, will elaborate in his own good time. We bring a bill of $70 billion investment in aviation over the next 4 years; $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program to build runways, taxiways, air traffic on the aviation hard side, as I call it, of airports; $13.4 billion for facilities and equipment account over 4 years. That's for the continuing modernization of the air traffic control system. Air traffic control is not a snapshot in time. It's a continuously evolving technology that keeps pace with the growth of aviation and with the need for greater safety at altitude, on approach, on departure, on the ground, in the airport runway safety areas. We provide substantial funding not only for the present but for the future investment and modernization of the air traffic control system going on to the next-generation technology that will be satellite-based. Higher reliability, greater accuracy, shorten the flight time, shorten fuel burned in the air and vastly improve safety. On the capacity side, we provide authority for airport authorities, at their choice, at their decision, to increase the passenger facility charge that was initiated in 1990, at the time when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee and the first Bush administration, with then- Secretary Sam Skinner advocating for this increase and this authority for airports, to increase this charge on the grounds that they are accountable directly to the people who use their airports. It is a local decision, and we're allowing them to do it. It's not required. Airport authorities can impose or not impose a passenger facility charge. But it's used for all the authority airports are granted under the Airport Improvement Program, to expand capacity, improve the terminals, improve movement of passengers on the airport grounds to and from their parking area, from the drop-off area onto the aircraft itself. It has been a very well-used and useful tool. As part of the increase or the authority to use passenger facility charges in 1990 and with concurrence of the administration, we require that every airport that imposes a PFC will lose 50 cents on each dollar of their AIP entitlement account, and that goes into a special account in the Aviation Trust Fund for the use of small airports that don't have the capacity to level a passenger facility charge. That has resulted in some $800 million a year available for general aviation airports, regional airports, and smaller nonhub airports, and has enabled them to participate in the Nation's aviation system. There is a provision in this bill that we had in the 2007 bill that requires the Federal Aviation Administration to negotiate a new contract with its air traffic controllers. And if they do not reach an agreement 45 days after enactment, the issue will be sent to binding arbitration. The Republican administration objected to that provision. The ranking Republican on our committee, Mr. Mica, stoutly defended his administration's position, and his own view, that we should not have binding arbitration apply to this circumstance. I think it is fair to say he would accept that going forward. Well, the bill never made its way through the Senate of 2007 or 2008. And we are an equal opportunity committee. So what we didn't trust the previous administration to do, we don't trust this administration to do. And we are keeping that language in this bill to keep the heat on them to negotiate this contract, renegotiate in due fairness to the air traffic controllers. Then there is the matter of the foreign repair stations. There are 145 foreign repair stations certificated by the U.S. FAA in other countries where U.S. aircraft are maintained, supposedly to U.S. standards, to the standards of the airline as approved by FAA and to standards that we set for certification of aircraft maintenance personnel and certification of the facility in which the maintenance work is performed. Over time, questions have arisen about the adequacy of standards in other countries. This legislation takes those concerns and wraps them into this language we have in the bill, saying they must meet our standards for criminal background checks, for drug and alcohol testing, for certification of the facility, and certification of the aircraft maintenance specialists. That is in the interests of every American who flies on an aircraft in our country or outside of our country that is maintained in a non-U.S. maintenance facility. And in the time since we passed that bill in 2007, the U.S. and the EU have negotiated an aviation agreement that moves toward harmonization of the aviation maintenance standards of our two countries. That agreement provides, in Article 15, ``nothing in this agreement shall be construed to limit the authority of a party to (A) determine through its legislative, regulatory and administrative procedures the level of protection it considers appropriate for civil aviation safety and environmental testing and approvals, and (B) take all appropriate and immediate measures necessary to eliminate or minimize any derogation of safety.'' That is what we are doing, simply put, in this legislation using our legislative authority, require twice-a-year onsite inspections of facilities in which U.S. aircraft are maintained in facilities overseas. If the Europeans want reciprocity under this agreement, they have that authority. They can inspect U.S. maintenance facilities which are doing work on foreign aircraft, European aircraft, in the United States. Basically, that is what it is. It is comity, fairness, equity, and safety in the best interests of our citizens. There may be other issues. But I will reserve my time. And Mr. Costello will address more details of this legislation subsequently. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters on this particular piece of legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, May 7, 2009. Hon. Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 915, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009''. I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further consideration of H.R. 915, notwithstanding the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and Technology. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this or similar legislation. Further, I will support your request to be represented in a House-Senate conference on those provisions over which the Committee on Science and Technology has jurisdiction in H.R. 915. This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee Report on H.R. 915 and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of this legislation in the House. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, Chairman

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman for his comments and, again, it's been a great pleasure working through this legislation over the past 2 years, trying to bring a bill through the House and to conference and to conclusion, and I want to commend Mr. Mica, our ranking member, for participating in various discussions that we had and negotiations with the Secretary of Transportation, the representative from the Office of Management and Budget, the air traffic controllers, and members of our committee, Mr. Costello in particular, several such negotiations with the previous administration that unfortunately resulted in no agreement. And the gentleman really made a serious effort, and I greatly respect and appreciate his participation, but I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman that the language we have on the arbitration is not unique.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself another 1 minute. Several times, over many years, this committee and its predecessor committee with authority over railroad issues has approved and the House has voted on Presidential Emergency Board to settle railroad labor disputes. And in 1989, we moved legislation to establish an arbitration process to resolve the management labor dispute involving Eastern Airlines. Mr. Gingrich was the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, and he voted in favor of it. Unfortunately, even though it passed the Senate, President Bush, the First, vetoed it. We are simply acting on precedent that has been the case in the House to attempt to resolve matters of this kind. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the chair of a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, for his contribution and for his ever-present Norwegian wisdom that he has brought to the shaping of this legislation. He's been a splendid partner. Now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. OBERSTAR. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.