James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Illinois stated the case very clearly and thoughtfully, and the gentleman from New Jersey has further underscored the significance of this bill. This legislation makes clear that no State will be considered to have violated the Federal Highway Administration's competitive bidding requirements solely because the State chose to enact an anti-pay-to-play law. The bill would neither require a State to pass anti-pay-to-play nor prohibit a State from doing so. It would not weigh in on the merits of any existing State law. It simply removes what currently functions as a Federal prohibition on some States' efforts to prohibit pay-to-play. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, it is commonsense legislation, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3427, as amended, the ``State Ethics Law Protection Act of 2010'', introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley). This bill aids State efforts to clean up their procurement processes by removing the threat of the loss of Federal-aid highway funds if a State chooses to enact ``anti-pay-to-play'' reforms. Specifically, H.R. 3427 provides that a State may not be considered to have violated the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) competitive bidding requirements solely because of the enactment of a State or local law prohibiting ``pay-to-play''. In an effort to improve State procurement processes, many States have enacted anti-pay-to-play laws that limit the amount of money that an individual or entity doing business with a State agency may contribute to a political party, campaign, or elected official. Unfortunately, FHWA has interpreted State anti-pay-to-play laws as potentially conflicting with the competitive bidding requirements that apply to the use of Federal-aid highway funds under title 23 of the United States Code. As a result of this statutory requirement, FHWA has twice threatened to withhold Federal highway funds from States that enacted anti-pay-to- play laws that applied to contracts on Federal-aid highway projects. The first instance occurred in 2004 in New Jersey. The second occurred last year in Illinois. The competitive bidding requirements of title 23 are designed to ensure that the lowest qualified bidder is awarded Federal-aid highway contracts. They are not designed to prevent States from conducting procurement under the highest ethical standards. Unfortunately, in some instances, they have had just this effect. H.R. 3427 addresses this situation by making it clear that no State will be considered to have violated FHWA competitive bidding requirements solely because the State chose to enact an anti-pay-to- play law. This bill would neither require any State to pass an ``anti-pay-to- play'' law nor prohibit it from doing so. It would not weigh in on the merits of any existing State law. It would simply remove what currently functions as a Federal prohibition on some States' efforts to prohibit ``pay-to-play''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3427. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3427) to amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in effect laws or orders with respect to pay to play reform, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very special moment for me. It's at least the fourth or fifth National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization bill that I have brought to the floor to manage during the years that I chaired the aviation authorization subcommittee. And during the years when we were in the minority and partnered with our Republican colleagues on the committee to bring NTSB authorizations to the floor, I'm proud to say they have all, under management by either party in our committee, these bills have all come out of committee with a unanimous vote. We have not had recorded votes within committee. Whatever differences of view, we have been able to resolve and acknowledge one another's contributions. And the same with this reauthorization for NTSB. I will just observe that I served in Congress as staff in 1966-67 when the Congress created the Department of Transportation and included within it an independent safety board. But after a few years, it was apparent that the Safety Board could not be independent within the Department. So the Congress, before I was elected, moved to separate the NTSB, separate the safety board from the Department and establish it as an independent agency separate from the Department itself. In the years since then, the NTSB has become the worldwide gold standard for safety standards, for investigation of transportation accidents, and for leading the world to a better safety regime in all modes of transportation. Other nations have come to the U.S. to emulate our NTSB, to see how it works, how it's structured, and how it acts with independence. And we, in this authorization, continue that standard for the NTSB, increasing staff, increasing funding modestly only just to accommodate the needs of NTSB for the additional responsibilities we have shouldered upon the Safety Board. I would like to say that we add two full-time equivalent employees to support the recently enacted Rail Disaster Family Assistance Act, legislation that the former chairman of the committee, Don Young, had introduced in 2006 and which we adopted by voice vote in the committee. I just want to make an acknowledgement of Mr. Young's continued splendid contribution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4714.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4714, as amended, a bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent agency with the vitally important responsibility to improve the safety of our nation's transportation network. Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 132,000 aviation accidents and more than 10,000 surface transportation accidents. During those 43 years, the Safety Board has issued more than 13,000 safety recommendations, with 82 percent of those recommendations accepted by the related agency or organization. In the last three years alone, the Safety Board has investigated more than 64 major accidents, issued 63 major reports covering all transportation modes (aviation, highway, transit, maritime, railroad, and pipeline/hazardous materials), and issued more than 521 safety recommendations. The NTSB is widely acknowledged as the world's premier accident investigation agency. Thanks to the NTSB's diligent work in investigating the causes of past transportation accidents, and in recommending solutions, the traveling public is safer today than ever before. But we must not be content with the progress we have made in improving transportation safety. That is why H.R. 4714, the ``National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2010'', provides the Safety Board with additional tools it needs to accomplish its crucial mission. To maintain its position as the world's preeminent investigative agency, the NTSB must have the resources necessary to handle increasingly complex accident investigations. Accordingly, this bill authorizes increased funding over the next four years: $107.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 2011, $115.3 million in FY 2012, $122.2 million in FY 2013, and $124.2 million in FY 2014. These funding levels will allow the NTSB to hire an additional 66 full- time equivalent (FTE) positions, increasing its staffing to 477 FTEs. According to the NTSB's 2009 human capital forecast, 477 FTEs represent the Safety Board's optimal staffing level and enables the agency to take on more investigations and accomplish detailed examinations of transportation safety issues. These funding levels are consistent with the previous NTSB authorization bill. In 2006, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorized $100 million for the Safety Board to support 475 FTEs in FY 2008 and FY 2009. That is the same number we are discussing today, plus two additional FTEs to support the recently- enacted Rail Disaster Family Assistance Act. My good friend from Alaska, and former Chairman of the Committee, Don Young, introduced that legislation in 2006, which was adopted by a voice vote in Committee. Unfortunately, appropriations have not kept pace with the Safety Board's needs. NTSB believes that it is imperative to increase its staffing to 477 FTEs to ensure that it has the investigative staff it needs to conduct effective investigations. Importantly, H.R. 4714 also contains an explicit authorization for the NTSB to do what it has done historically: investigate incidents as well as accidents. The Safety Board's work in response to incidents is no less important and has produced a body of work that, without question, has prevented future accidents and loss of life. The NTSB's work in investigating past incidents has taught us that incidents are often precursors to major accidents that involve fatalities and serious damage. I recall the Safety Board's work on near-collisions and runway incursions in the 1980s, when I chaired our Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. In response to a spate of runway incursions--including one incident in which two DC-10s with a combined 501 passengers on board nearly collided at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport--the Safety Board issued detailed recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration and operators on how to prevent similar near-disasters. In the years since, the Safety Board has continued its work in analyzing runway incursions. Enhancing runway safety remains a priority on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of aviation safety improvements. In addition, H.R. 4714 should resolve, once and for all, any ambiguity in the NTSB's authority to issue subpoenas in all investigations. In a few cases, NTSB investigations have been hindered or delayed when the recipients of subpoenas have not complied, arguing that the NTSB's authority to issue subpoenas only extends to the conduct of public hearings. H.R. 4714 makes it clear that the NTSB's subpoena authority extends equally to all investigations: those that require public hearings, as well as those that do not. The bill also clarifies that the NTSB is not required to determine a single cause or probable cause of a transportation accident, but may determine that there was more than one probable cause. The bill keeps pace with advances in accident investigation, which recognize that a particular accident is rarely attributable to a single cause or probable cause, and that most accidents happen as the result of cumulative factors. The bill also holds the NTSB accountable, by requiring the Safety Board to develop a list of criteria that it will use to determine whether to hold a public hearing in any particular investigation. Furthermore, H.R. 4714 permits the NTSB to delegate its full authority to investigate major marine casualties to the Coast Guard if the NTSB determines that Coast Guard personnel assigned to investigate marine casualties possess the training, experience, and qualifications necessary to employ best practices in use by marine casualty investigators. In addition, the bill ensures coordination and cooperation between the NTSB and the Coast Guard in investigations of major marine casualties. H.R. 4714 also permits the NTSB, upon coordination with the State Department, to investigate a transportation accident that occurred overseas, and to use appropriated funds to complete that investigation. The NTSB accepted such a delegation of responsibility by the government of Afghanistan to investigate the 2004 crash of Blackwater 61, in which six Americans lost their lives. H.R. 4714 provides the NTSB with the necessary funding and authority to accomplish its critical mission of ensuring the safety of the traveling public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4714. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, March 4, 2010. Hon. James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oberstar: This is to advise you that, as a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 4714, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2010, that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agree to discharging our committee from further consideration of the bill without seeking formal referral, in order that it may proceed without delay to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4714 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward, so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, and for the cooperative relationship between our two committees. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side. I submit for the Record a more detailed explanation of the provisions of the reauthorization.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4714) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6008, as amended, the ``Corporate Liability and Emergency Accident Notification Act,'' introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer). Last week, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the rupture of Enbridge's Line 6B pipeline, which released more than one million gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River just one mile south of Marshall, Michigan. The Kalamazoo River flows into Lake Michigan. The spill devastated the local environment and wildlife, uprooted homeowners that live near the creek and river, and exposed local communities to noxious and toxic substances before Enbridge even raised alarm. I recall vividly in 1986, as Congress prepared for reauthorization of the pipeline safety program, a massive rupture that occurred on the Williams Pipe Line in Mounds View, Minnesota. Corrosion was the culprit. Unleaded gasoline spilled from a 7.5-foot long opening along the longitudinal seam of the pipe. Gasoline vapors combined with air and liquid gasoline flowed along neighborhood streets for about an hour and a half--until the manually operated gate valve was shut off. About 30 minutes into the release, the gasoline vapor was ignited when a car entered the area, its loose tailpipe struck the pavement, sparked and ignited the vapor. An inferno engulfed three full blocks of the neighborhood: a woman and her daughter were burned severely when the fireball rolled over them, later taking their lives. Another person suffered serious burns. I have talked about that incident during debate on every pipeline safety bill that has come before this House because I will never forget where I was and what I was doing when I heard about the devastation that rupture had caused; it will be with me for the rest of my life. Congressman Schauer, I assure you, will never forget where he was when he learned of the Enbridge spill in Marshall, Michigan. Nor will Congressman Rick Larsen ever blot out the memory of the gasoline spill in a creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham, Washington, that claimed the lives of two 10-year-old boys and a young man of 18 celebrating high school graduation by fishing in that creek. While we do not yet know the cause of the Michigan incident, we do know that the spill likely occurred sometime the day before Enbridge reported it to the National Response Center. We know that, contrary to Enbridge's claims at our hearing, the Enbridge control center did not even realize that a massive rupture had occurred on the pipeline until a utility worker from an unrelated company, Consumers Energy, called Enbridge to report that oil was spilling into Talmadge Creek. We know that Enbridge personnel at the control center experienced an abrupt pressure drop on the line, that they experienced multiple volume balance alarms over the course of 13 hours before sending a technician to the pump station, located just three-quarters of a mile from the rupture. We know that Enbridge reported that the technician did not see any problems or smell any odors at the pump station, even though numerous residents in the immediate vicinity of the pump station (and others living nine miles away) reported to Committee staff that they smelled strong odors the day before. We also know that Enbridge knew about hundreds of defects in the line, and we know that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was made aware of them and failed to do anything to address Enbridge's inaction. The bill before you today holds pipeline operators accountable to a maximum of one hour to telephonically report a release of hazardous liquid or gas resulting in an incident. As the Enbridge oil disaster in Marshall, Michigan, underscores--every minute that passes following a release of hazardous liquid or gas from a pipeline is one less minute that responders have to protect the community and the surrounding environment. The bill also increases the maximum civil penalty for each pipeline safety violation from $100,000 to $250,000 and the maximum civil penalty per incident from $1 million to $2.5 million, the same amounts proposed by the Obama administration in its pipeline safety reauthorization bill. The maximum penalties for violations of pipeline safety regulations under current law have not been increased in almost a decade. Adequate levels of penalties are necessary to deter unsafe operating practices by the pipeline industry, particularly in serious cases involving injuries, fatalities, and significant environmental damage. The bill further clarifies that civil penalties are applicable to obstruction of an investigation. The bill includes a requirement that the Secretary of Transportation maintain a Web site that depicts all reportable incidents involving hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and allows the public to search the database for incidents by the owner or operator of a pipeline facility. Over the coming weeks, I intend to work in a bipartisan manner to develop a comprehensive pipeline safety reauthorization bill. In the interim, I feel that this bill strengthens the accountability of pipeline operators. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6008.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5591, as amended, introduced by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), which designates the airport traffic control tower located at Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, as the ``Ray Daves Air Traffic Control Tower''. The air traffic controllers in Spokane, Washington, were so inspired by the biography of Ray Daves, a World War II radioman and civilian air traffic controller, that they began urging to have the airport traffic control tower where he had worked named after him. Ray Daves was a radioman for the U.S. Navy during World War II. He survived the bombing of Pearl Harbor. During the attack, he carried ammunition to a machine gun on the second-story roof of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Headquarters on Oahu, Hawaii. Later, Daves volunteered for service aboard the USS Yorktown aircraft carrier, where he was assigned to the emergency radio room. He was present during the Battle of the Coral Sea and the sinking of Yorktown during the Battle of Midway in 1942. During the rest of World War II, Daves served his country in Alaska as a radioman at Cold Bay, Alaska, for the U.S. Navy's air fields in the Aleutian Islands and flew ``second seat'' as gunner for aerial search-and-destroy missions against Japanese submarines in Alaskan waters. He also served as a liaison for the Soviet Air Force pilots who acquired U.S. bombers and fighter planes for the war in Europe. Daves taught at the Navy's school for radiomen in Gulfport, Mississippi, from 1945 until the end of the war. When the war was over, Daves became a civilian air traffic controller at Geiger Field, later known as the Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington. He worked as an air traffic controller there for almost 30 years (from 1946 to 1974). Currently, Daves volunteers by educating other veterans about the Honor Flight program, which helps World War II veterans visit the memorial in their honor located in Washington, DC. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5591.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4387, a bill to designate the Federal building located at 100 North Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal Building''. Winston Eugene Arnow was an American lawyer and judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. He practiced civil rights law in Gainesville before he was appointed to the Federal bench by President Johnson. His name is now synonymous with the momentous civil rights period from 1969 to 1978 in Northwest Florida when he followed the U.S. Supreme Court mandates to ensure the election of African Americans, public school desegregation, and improved prison conditions in the Escambia County jail. Judge Arnow served as the chief judge of the Northern District of Florida, stretching from Pensacola to Gainesville, from 1969 until 1981. In 1969, Arnow ordered the Escambia County School District desegregated. In 1972, he presided over the trial of the Gainesville Eight, a group of anti-Vietnam War activists who were indicted on charges of conspiracy to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida. All eight were acquitted. Judicial authorities and officials viewed Judge Arnow as ``all integrity,'' ignoring criticism by doing what he thought was the right and proper thing to do to protect civil liberties. He believed firmly in the U.S. Constitution and followed the statutes and higher court decisions to the letter. Judge Arnow was a man of strong moral character, and conducted his court proceedings based on fairness and courtesy. He was a courageous trial judge and dedicated public servant. It is both fitting and proper that we honor his public service with this designation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4387.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, who made a very elaborate statement about the provisions of the bill. I will not elaborate on it, except to concur with him that we are getting the best bargain perhaps in all of government--although he didn't put it this way, I do--in supporting the missions of the Coast Guard. They are extraordinarily frugal and economical in carrying out their missions. When I was elected to Congress in 1974 and started my service on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee as well as the Public Works Committee, the Coast Guard's authorized personnel limit was 39,000. Today, we increase it to 47,000. But in that almost 36 years, we have added 27 new missions to the Coast Guard without commensurately increasing their personnel. The Coast Guard has proudly held itself up as a multimission agency, able to carry out numerous overlapping missions without adding personnel. We recognize, however, that there is a limit to how much you can stretch your existing personnel. By a modest increase in the Coast Guard's personnel limit, we give them the personnel resources they will need to carry out the mission of the future for safety and for security. Mr. Speaker, this also is a very nostalgic moment for me. This year represents 34 years that John Cullather, the chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, has served the House of Representatives. He started with our former colleague Don Pease as a legislative assistant, and then as counsel on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. This will be the last bill that John Cullather will bring to the House floor as counsel of the Coast Guard Subcommittee. He has served enormously well, with a profound grasp of the legislative history of the Coast Guard, of our Merchant Marine forces, of maritime law. He is recognized widely across Washington as the font of knowledge on maritime law of the United States and, of course, specifically the Coast Guard. John has told me just today of his intention to retire at the end of this session. I am personally grateful for the friendship that we have had over these 30-plus years, and more specifically during the years he served on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the role of counsel. When I think back over the long history of this country, in the First Congress, the third act of the first Congress was to establish the Revenue Cutter Service to collect duties from inbound cargos and pay the debts of the Revolutionary War. That Revenue Cutter Service became what we know as the Coast Guard today. John Cullather has served our maritime history, served the Coast Guard, enormously well with his rich knowledge of the practices and the strengths, as well as the weaknesses, the shortcomings of this service, and has constantly worked to improve the quality of service with the resources that the Coast Guard has at its disposal, the training of its personnel, to make it the very best uniformed service of this country and the best of its kind in the world. To John Cullather, I offer my enormous personal gratitude and the gratitude of all of the members of the committee for his superb, stellar service on our committee for three-and-a-half decades. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on our side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I agree that the Coast Guard should not conduct its business in this manner. It should recognize the contributions of the City of Marquette in exercising this conveyance, and we will continue to work with the gentleman throughout the balance of this Congress and, if necessary, into the next Congress. Even though the gentleman is retiring, this issue will not be forgotten. We will find a way to work it out equitably and recognize the good-faith contribution of the City of Marquette that held its part of the bargain but is not being fairly treated.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman has stated the case very well. Summarizing it very simply, the City of Marquette and the Coast Guard entered into an agreement. The City of Marquette kept its part of the agreement, conveyed property to the Coast Guard for $1, and now is going to be stuck with the bill. The problem is that the way the transfer worked out, the statutory PAYGO rules preclude inclusion of past conveyance in calculating the cost of the bill. We simply got hung up with our own legislation, our own PAYGO rules to reduce the cost of government, but now we are in the position of possibly increasing the cost of government to a local unit of government, the City of Marquette. The city's contribution to the Coast Guard cannot therefore be calculated into the cost of this bill. I look forward to the day when we will be able to work this out in a different setting.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 1665.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1639, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the founding of the National Waterways Conference. I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) for introducing this resolution and for his advocating the recognition of this auspicious anniversary of the Conference. Mr. Speaker, the National Waterways Conference was established in 1960 to advocate before Congress for ``common-sense water resources policies that maximize the economic and environmental value'' of the nation's inland, coastal, and Great Lakes waterways. Throughout its history, the Conference has been a vocal supporter for continued Congressional attention in meeting the nation's water-related needs, including navigation, flood damage reduction and risk management, environmental restoration, hydroelectric power, recreation, and water supply. The Conference is guided by its purpose of promoting better understanding of the public value of the American waterways system, and to document the importance of far-sighted navigation and water resources policies to a sound economy, industrial and agricultural productivity, regional development, environmental quality, energy conservation, international trade, defense preparedness, and the overall national interest. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, understands the importance of the nation's waterways in preserving both the economic and environmental health and prosperity of the nation. Water is our common heritage. America's greatest population centers are cities because they have ports. Seventy-five percent of the nation's population lives along the water, either on the coasts or the inland waterways. Despite the relative scarceness of potable water supplies, generations of Americans have taken water for granted. For most Americans, the only time to think about water is when there is too much or not enough. Today, our nation and the world face significant water resources challenges; yet, there are clear signs that water-use is not being properly used or planned at home or throughout the world. For over a century, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has served our nation well in investigating and addressing our most critical water resources challenges. Whether it is the construction and maintenance of our coastal and inland navigation systems, protecting the lives and livelihoods of our constituents from flooding or coastal storms, or restoring some of the nation's greatest natural treasures, such as Yellowstone National Park or the Everglades, the nation has relied on its premier water-resources related agency, the Corps, to meet its current and future challenges. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is a vital partner to that effort. It is through the periodic enactment of a water resources development act that Congress provides direction to the Corps to meet both the current and future water resources challenges of the nation, including authorizing critical navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration projects, and studies carried out by the Corps. Following the successful enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114), the Democratic and Republican leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure committed to enactment of a water resources development act every Congress. Throughout its history, these water resources development acts have provided the Corps with the authority to carry out nationally significant projects that have improved the economic prosperity of the nation, have protected its citizenry from the threat of flooding and coastal storms, and have put in place restoration efforts for many of America's natural treasures. Throughout this effort, the National Waterways Conference has been a vocal advocate for regular authorization of water resources development acts. In the view of the Conference, regular consideration of such laws, such as that taken by our Committee in support of H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'', is ``essential to the nation's environmental well-being and our economic vitality.'' I applaud the valuable role that the Conference has played in the formation of water resources laws, and commend them for bringing the often-competing views of the various waterway users to the forefront of the debate on nationally significant water resources policies. I also commend the Conference for its vocal support for funding of the Corps of Engineers in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). Under the Recovery Act, Congress provided $4.6 billion to the Corps to address both a significant portion of its backlog of operation and maintenance needs, as well as plan and begin construction of the next-generation of water-related infrastructure. According to the Corps, as of August 31, more than 92 percent of the $4.6 billion is under obligation, with the remainder likely to be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. By almost all accounts, this investment of $4.6 billion has been a huge success in meeting the water-related infrastructure needs of the nation. I applaud the foresight of the National Waterways Conference in its advocacy for this effort. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Conference for its commitment to meeting the water-resources-related challenges of the nation, and for marking its 50th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1639.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize America's professional truck drivers who serve our Nation by delivering the clothes we wear, the food we eat, or the medicine we rely on. This week, September 19-25, has been designated National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, which provides a perfect opportunity to express our appreciation to the 3.4 million professional truck drivers in the United States. I urge my colleagues and all Americans to use this week to reflect on the important role these hard-working and dedicated drivers play in facilitating many aspects of our daily lives. Trucking serves as the backbone of our economy, responsible for nearly 70 percent of the total U.S. freight tonnage. Over 80 percent of communities rely solely on the trucking industry for their goods and commodities. Across the Nation, the trucking industry allows businesses and manufacturers to connect with consumers in a reliable and efficient manner that allows the free flow of goods to power the American economy every day. One out of every 15 people across this country is employed in the trucking industry, making it one of our Nation's largest employers. Most individual long-haul drivers average 100,000 to 110,000 miles driving per year. In doing so, America's truck drivers sacrifice precious time from their families, all the while, they deliver for ours. This week we pause to say thank you to them and to their families. I salute the fine professionals of the Nation's trucking industry and their families for the dedication they continue to demonstrate to America and for delivering life's essentials safely and securely.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for that very thoughtful comment. I consider myself hardworking. It's nice to have that affirmation from the gentleman who himself knows the value of, and puts in, hard work. Perhaps the best news this afternoon was the announcement we just heard from the other body that the Senate has passed, by consent, H.R. 4853, the Airport and Airway Extension Act, with a substitute amendment carrying through the authorities through the end of this calendar year. That's good news. The unfortunate news that Mr. Costello has amply outlined and as Mr. Petri has also underscored is that the full authorization is still held up over disagreements in the other body. We passed this bill, we on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under Mr. Costello's diligent leadership, by hard work, dozens of hearings and meetings and conferences and discussions to lead to the long-term authorization--then it was about $60 billion-- investing in the future of air traffic control, modernizing yet again. It's in a state of constant modernization. You can't say we do it once and then it's done. It's in a constant state of modernization. Resolving very thorny issues within the air traffic control workforce and the previous administration. We put all those together in a package, it passed the House and didn't pass the other body. And then there was a threat from the previous administration, well, if the bill in its present form reaches the President, he'll veto it. Nonetheless, we had a bipartisan effort. Mr. Mica, Mr. Petri, Mr. Costello and I and the representatives from the White House; the Secretary of Transportation, Ms. Peters; the head of the FAA. We met for days, week after week after week, to try to resolve the issue of controller pay, try to resolve a number of other issues that were in the bill. And, as we quaintly say in this body, we came to no resolution thereon. Now we're close. We're so very close. But there are just a couple of items that have nothing to do with the air traffic control system, nothing to do with the air traffic control workforce. This administration came in in January of last year and the first thing the President, the White House did, with the vigorous support of Mr. Costello and me, and I think even encouragement from Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri, settled the air traffic controller pay issue. That was the first thing they did. They tackled it head-on. They had a 95 percent support vote from the members of NATCA; and things are moving ahead. But now a dispute over whether one airline, who has the dominant position at National Airport, should have further dominance in long-haul service out of National Airport, that's got the other body all in a tangle. We have not had a formal conference. We have not sat opposite face- to-face to discuss options. There is a flat-out resistance in the other body to increasing the Passenger Facility Charge so that airports, at their discretion, may choose to raise that fee and generate the roughly $2 billion that the capacity facility charge generates to invest in modernization of the airport facilities, improve the terminals in the parking areas and the hard side of the airport, runways and taxiways and parking aprons. All that money goes directly into investments and creates jobs, economic opportunity. But they are hung up over there, just one person holding this and another person holding something else and a third one holding something else and then have the secret holds and the hot holds and the threats of filibuster. The other body is just all tangled up in themselves. That's just an exasperating condition. I have seen this over 25 years, back to the time when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, but we were always able to work it out. I have never seen such a tangle like this. So I urge the other body to rise above themselves, get over these little petty differences, come to agreement in the greater good of this country. Aviation is 9 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. Last year a billion people traveled by air worldwide, 750 million moved in the U.S. airspace. We account for three-fourths of all air travel worldwide. Every other nation in the world wants to get into the U.S. and wants to serve our constituents because it is such a lucrative market. But if we don't invest in the future and continuing the modernization of air traffic control, we are not going to be the leader in the world. That is what this legislation does. It lays down the charts, the path forward for continued modernization of the air traffic control system of the United States, which is the most robust in the world. So you might ask, well, why are we doing just this short-term extension through the end of the year? Because I am confident that sanity will prevail, that equity will abound in the other body, and they will find themselves, and they will come to agreement in the post- election session, maybe before then, and then we could do the full, 4- year authorization bill. So we must proceed on the course we have laid before you today. I thank my colleagues on the committee, Mr. Mica, Mr. Petri. Mr. Boustany, thank you, from Ways and Means, a refugee from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who has, as has Mr. Lewis, also a graduate of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, gone on to Ways and Means, where we still have the partnership. I am glad we are all together. At least on this side, we are all together moving in the right direction. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6190, the ``Airport and Airways Extension Act of 2010, Part III''. This bill ensures that aviation programs, taxes, and Airport and Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority will continue without interruption pending completion of long-term Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization legislation. Because the long-term bill will not be completed before the current authority for aviation programs expires next week, H.R. 6190 is needed to extend aviation programs, taxes, and expenditure authority for an additional three months, through December 31, 2010. The most recent long-term FAA reauthorization act, the Vision 100-- Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), expired on September 30, 2007. Although the House passed an FAA reauthorization bill during the 110th Congress, and again last year, the Senate failed to act until March of this year. The FAA has, therefore, been operating under a series of short-term extension acts, the most recent of which expires on September 30, 2010. Since passage of the Senate bill in March, we have been working diligently to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. As it stands now, the negotiated bill would provide the aviation sector with the stability of a multi-year authorization, safety reforms, record-high capital investment levels, acceleration of the Next Generation Air Transportation System effort, and a passenger bill of rights. Moreover, a comprehensive multi-billion dollar FAA reauthorization would create tens of thousands of well paying aviation sector jobs. This would build upon the aviation investments funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We know that Recovery Act aviation investments have been a tremendous success. Work is underway or completed on 758 aviation projects ($1.2 billion), representing 96 percent of the total available Recovery Act aviation funds. Within this total, work is underway on 205 projects ($627 million), and work is completed on an additional 553 projects ($622 million). Aviation investments will result in 155 runway improvements at 139 airports that accommodate 11 million annual takeoffs/landings ($483 million); 83 taxiway improvements at 78 airports that accommodate 8.1 million annual takeoffs/landings ($220 million); and 25 projects to modernize air route traffic control centers ($50 million). This record of success underscores the need to build upon these efforts and pass a long-term FAA reauthorization act. Unfortunately, since July, the FAA reauthorization bill has been hung up in the Senate, primarily over a provision that would significantly increase the number of long-distance flights at Washington National Airport. The Senate provision was included in neither the House-passed nor the Senate-passed FAA bill, and it is strongly opposed by Members of Congress and Senators who represent the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region. They argue it would create a burden on Washington National Airport by creating congestion at terminals and that it would siphon passengers away from Washington Dulles International Airport. I also have concerns that the provision, as written, would unduly benefit the dominant incumbent carrier at National Airport, US Airways. We will continue to work as hard as we can on behalf of the American public for a strong, comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill, which I still remain confident that we can deliver this Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Shipping Act of 2010''. This bill has its roots in the Shipping Act of 1916, which provided the foundation for the regulation of international shipping in the United States. In the 94 years since that law was enacted, shipping has changed greatly. Most significant was the development of the intermodal shipping container in the late 1950's, which allows for cargo to be loaded into standardized containers for shipping rather than on pallets put on a ship using cargo nets. Use of these containers has transformed the manufacturing and distribution of goods throughout the world by increasing the productivity of our global intermodal transportation system by having a container that can be loaded on a truck chassis, easily transferred on to a ship, and then transferred again on a rail car. This bill will modernize the regulation of that transportation system by increasing competition and improving services for the movement of those goods. First, it eliminates antitrust immunity for ocean carrier agreements, which currently allows ocean common carriers to get together to discuss, fix or regulate transportation rates. Although parties to the carrier agreements are not required to adhere to the rates set by the conference when they are contracting, oftentimes they use the collectively set rate as the basis for negotiations. The carrier's tendency to use the agreed upon rates as a floor for negotiations has made it difficult for shippers to negotiate more favorable terms for transportation. Antitrust immunity for these agreements was initially granted to enable carriers to stabilize their economic position through controlling rates and capacity. In fact, Congress has long been concerned about the anticompetitive impact of these conference agreements and, in the Shipping Act of 1916, put a regulatory structure in place to monitor their activities. Currently, the conferences must submit their agreements to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), who reviews them for compliance with the statutory requirements including whether or not the agreement is likely, by a reduction in competition, to produce an unreasonable reduction in transportation services or an unreasonable increase in transportation costs. However, even under the current regulatory scheme, immunity for such agreements has long outlived its usefulness, and stifles competition. In 2007, the Antitrust Modernization Commission (Commission) report stated that ``free-market competition is the foundation of our economy, and the antitrust laws stand as a bulkwark to protect free-market competition.'' The Commission found that there is questionable justification for continuing conference exemptions from the antitrust laws in the Shipping Act and that there is nothing unique about ocean carriers that warrant an exemption from the antitrust laws. A survey cited by the Commission found that ``the steepest declines in observed freight rates have coincided with a generalized decrease in conference power in the face of competition from strong independent operators and the implementation of competition-enhancing legislation in the United States trades.'' On March 17, 2010, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the challenges faced by U.S. importers and exporters in moving cargo by the international container lines. The Committee received testimony from importers, exporters, agricultural shippers, manufacturers, retail stores, and raw products exporters. In that hearing, shippers complained that ocean carriers do not have enough capacity in the market to meet the demands of U.S. shippers and that rate increases imposed through new service contracts have skyrocketed. Many believe that these rate increases reflect the desire of carriers to recoup their losses of the past year. Moreover, these shippers expressed concern that there is no willingness on the part of conference agreement participants to negotiate independent rates. This has significantly increased the costs of U.S. exports and made it difficult for U.S. importers to price their products. Eliminating the antitrust immunity for these conference agreements will increase competition by requiring ocean carriers to compete in the marketplace with the best price and service to get shippers' business. That will benefit the industry as a whole. Moreover, the bill will require carriers to continue to file service contracts with the FMC and to have tariffs be available for FMC review. This information will allow the FMC to determine whether or not carriers are colluding after their antitrust immunity has been eliminated. However, this bill does preserve some antitrust immunity for ocean carriers so that they can enter into vessel sharing agreements. A vessel sharing agreement is an agreement among carriers to share space on each others vessels. This will allow carriers to offer shippers service five days a week on their ship or one of their partners' ships. However, under this bill, this authority is limited so that it ensures that there is still adequate competition in a particular trade. The European Union limits a vessel sharing agreement to 30 percent of the capacity in a trade. That is a reasonable place to begin. In addition, this bill deals with the carriers' practice of imposing surcharges, seemingly at will. Currently, shippers enter into negotiations with carriers for transportation service contracts at fixed prices. Once the transportation price is negotiated, the shipper then develops a pricing scheme for its customers. However, we have heard complaints that ocean carriers often decide at the last minute to levy surcharges, which are not necessarily based on their own increased costs (for example, the cost of buying fuel). This impacts the shippers business because the U.S. exporter or importer has already signed a contract with their customer for a fixed price. If the carrier increases the cost of a shipper's goods by imposing a surcharge and the shipper has already advertised the price for selling those goods, where is the increased cost going to come from? The shipper's profits? To ensure that a shipper can adequately price his product, this bill requires that any surcharge imposed by a carrier needs to accurately reflect increases in the carrier's cost. Elimination of antitrust immunity for ocean carrier agreements may not be enough to spur the carriers to improve their customer service. One major area that needs to be addressed is dispute resolution. The Shipping Acts of 1916 and 1984 were not designed to facilitate dispute resolutions between shippers and carriers. In fact, the only remedy authorized under the Shipping Act to resolve a dispute in a service contract is to go to court. The delay oftentimes associated with pursuing a case in court results in a major disadvantage to shippers. This is because a large volume of the cargo that shippers carry is perishable and those goods may be destroyed by the time a District Court ever hears the case. Under this bill, the FMC will be empowered to help resolve service contract disputes quickly through mediation and arbitration, so that the freight can keep moving. We have also heard from export shippers that carriers refuse to ship containers that are not owned by that ocean carrier. This results in many shippers being left without an alternative to ship their goods unless they agree to pay a steep price to the ocean carrier. I do not understand how a carrier can refuse to supply a shipper with a container at a reasonable price, and then refuse to move a shipper's goods if they are in a container provided by someone else. There needs to be transportation network neutrality so that shippers can have their cargo moved by an ocean carrier supplied container or one provided by a third party that meets internationally accepted container safety standards. This bill provides that neutrality by prohibiting carriers from discriminating against a shipper that provides their owner container or other equipment. It also addresses the practice of bumping or rolling containers, in which a carrier decides that there is not enough room on a ship for a container which they have already been contracted to transport. The bill prohibits ocean carriers from engaging in deceptive practices, including the unreasonable failure to provide transportation services as agreed to in a negotiated service contract. The FMC is then tasked with developing remedies and penalties for carriers that engage in such deceptive practices. President Obama has announced that he wants to double U.S. exports in the next 5 years. I am committed to helping him accomplish that goal by reforming our shipping laws to help the ocean carriers be more responsive to their customers. This bill is a pro-competitive bill that will help facilitate U.S. imports and exports. In 2007, the European Union eliminated the antitrust immunity that ocean carriers had from their laws. I am not aware of any ocean carriers being put out of business because of the loss of that exemption. Under the ``Shipping Act of 2010'', carriers will have to compete based on price and services in the same way as all other major industries in the United States.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1473, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), which expresses support for backcountry airstrips. Generally speaking, a backcountry airstrip is an unattended landing area in a location that provides access to remote, undeveloped rural areas by aircraft, usually airplanes. Backcountry airstrips are a part of life for many Americans, especially in the West. They provide countless benefits to the general public, including search and rescue, fire management, research, disaster relief and wildlife management. They also allow public access to some of the most beautiful, remote federal lands in America, as well as providing a means of access to remote areas for physically disadvantaged individuals who might not otherwise be able to get to remote locations for leisure. Backcountry airstrips serve as efficient access points for tourists, who in turn contribute to local economies and small businesses. More importantly, in the event of mechanical problems or inclement weather, they serve as emergency landing sites when larger airports are out of reach. Many backcountry airstrips are privately owned. In addition, several state aviation offices own and operate backcountry airstrips, and many airstrips are owned by public agencies involved in land management, such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation. H. Res. 1473 recognizes the value of recreational aviation and backcountry airstrips located on the nation's public lands and commends aviators and the various organizations that maintain these airstrips for public use. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1583, as amended, observing the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Rita. Hurricane Rita made landfall just east of the Texas-Louisiana Boarder as a category three hurricane on September 24, 2005. Hurricane Rita directly caused the deaths of at least seven people, damaged or destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes, and left over one million people without electricity. In addition to the devastation the storm caused in Louisiana and Texas, it also caused flooding and tornadoes in the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Before making landfall, Hurricane Rita was the second hurricane in 2005 to become a category 5 hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Rita broke Hurricane Katrina's record as the most intense hurricane ever in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm also climbed from a category 2 to a category 5 storm in less than 24 hours with the fastest intensification of any tropical cyclone in history. Coming less than a month after Hurricane Katrina, this storm forced 3,000,000 million residents to evacuate their homes. In many instances, those who were evacuating from Hurricane Rita were already evacuees displaced by Hurricane Katrina. We also witnessed the unfortunate deaths of 23 nursing home residents who perished when the bus evacuating them caught fire. As I have mentioned previously, since Hurricane Rita and the other storms of the 2005 hurricane season, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has passed legislation and held numerous hearings to improve not only the recovery from these storms, but also our nation's preparation for, response to, recovery from and mitigation of disasters from all hazards. These efforts continue on September 22, 2010, when the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will hold a hearing entitled: ``Five Years after Katrina: Where We Are and What We Have Learned for Future Disasters.'' Prior to the 2005 hurricane season, when our nation faced large or unusual disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was quick to adapt and provide solutions to unique problems that would arise, often working with Congress on those solutions. However, by 2005, things were very different. FEMA was an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and not an independent agency that reported directly to the President and Congress. As I have said previously, FEMA's performance as an agency has suffered since its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Even long after the response to the 2005 hurricane season, the agency's placement in DHS had a detrimental effect on the residents of the Gulf Coast. There were delays in decision making, which delayed delivery of critical assistance to citizens. While things appear to be improving with the recovery in the Gulf Coast, this improvement was far too long in coming. I am still deeply concerned that, even with the new leadership at FEMA, if FEMA remains in DHS it will not be able to respond to future disasters in the manner the nation needs and expects. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1583.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5773, as amended, which names the operations building on the Social Security Woodlawn campus in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Robert M. Ball Federal Building'', after former Social Security Administrator, Robert M. Ball. Robert M. Ball dedicated his professional life to Social Security and its beneficiaries, serving as Commissioner of Social Security from 1962 to 1973, spanning the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. During his tenure in a variety of senior executive positions at the Social Security Administration, both the disability program and Medicare were enacted into law, and Commissioner Ball played a significant role in creating, securing enactment of, and implementing both of these landmark pieces of legislation. Commissioner Ball, after retiring from public service in 1972, remained active and engaged in social security issues and policy. In 1981-83, he served on the Commission on Social Security Reform. Mr. Ball was instrumental in working out a compromise among Commission members, that led to the Social Security Act Amendments of 1983, which restored solvency to the Social Security Trust Fund. These amendments remain the most substantive changes to the social security system in the last 30 years. Recognizing the contributions of Robert M. Ball to the Social Security system by naming the Operations Building at the Social Security Woodlawn campus is a fitting and apt tribute to this public servant who one historian describes as ``the major non-Congressional player in the history of Social Security in the period between 1950 and the present.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5773.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3562, which designates the federally occupied building located at 1220 Echelon Parkway in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and Roy K. Moore Federal Building''. This bill, as originally passed by the House, named this Federal Bureau of Investigations, FBI, facility in Jackson after James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, civil rights activists who were lynched in the summer of 1964 while attempting to organize African Americans to vote and pursue other civil rights in Mississippi. On June 21, 1964, the three men drove to Longdale, Mississippi, to investigate the site of a burned church in Neshoba County. They were arrested by the Neshoba County police as they were leaving the site and held by the police for several hours. They were later released only to be rearrested shortly thereafter. After the second arrest, the Neshoba County police officer turned the three civil rights activists over to local Klansmen. On August 4, 1964, 44 days later, their bodies were found buried in an earthen dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3562 adds FBI Agent Roy K. Moore to the building name. Agent Roy Moore was personally picked by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to lead the investigation into the deaths of these young men. Nineteen men were later indicted; seven were tried and convicted. Agent Moore said the FBI would be there until it broke the back of the Ku Klux Klan, reestablished the rule of law at the local level, and enforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate amendment to H.R. 3562.