James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I remember Speaker Hastert saying, no, this is the right thing. We have to do it. We are again at that point. Chairman Frank has crafted an extraordinarily talented proposal that protects the public interest. And once again, we have to do it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2382, as amended, to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (``FEMA'') to quickly and fairly address the abundance of surplus manufactured housing units stored by the Federal Government around the country. S. 2382, as amended, addresses a number of critical disaster recovery issues related to FEMA. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the sponsor of H.R. 4830, the House companion measure to S. 2382, for his critical support for this legislation. S. 2382 addresses an ongoing consequence of the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As a result of stockpiling trailers in the aftermath of these devastating storms, FEMA owns a large number of trailers and other temporary housing units that the agency is not using and may never need. Some of these units have never been used. S. 2382 requires FEMA to assess the number of temporary housing units necessary to meet requirements for major disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act. FEMA is also required to establish a plan for storing the units that the agency needs, and disposing of those trailers that it does not need. S. 2382 provides FEMA with the flexibility to provide these excess trailers to state and local governments to house victims of incidents caused by hazards that do not result in a Federally-declared major disaster or emergency, provided that the Governor of an affected State certifies that there is an urgent need for the housing. S. 2382, as amended, also includes some common-sense provisions from H.R. 3247, the ``Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Recovery Facilitation Act of 2007'', which passed by the House on October 29, 2007, and provides specific relief for problems associated with recovery efforts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The bill authorizes changes made to the public assistance program under the Stafford Act that only apply retroactively to the recovery efforts from those devastating storms. These provisions include an increase in the Federal contribution for alternate projects from the current level of 75 percent to 90 percent, thereby allowing communities to rebuild their facilities in the most efficient manner possible. The bill also allows state and local governments to use alternate dispute resolution to solve some of the most difficult and lingering issues in the recovery from these storms. To help expedite the recovery, S. 2382 also allows FEMA to use a simplified procedure under which small projects are permitted to proceed based on estimates. The bill increases the ceiling for small projects to $100,000, an increase from the current level of $55,000. Finally, S. 2382 requires FEMA to expeditiously report back to Congress on the status of its recovery efforts from these storms. S. 2382, as amended, also includes a provision from H.R. 3247, as reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, that authorizes FEMA to provide case management services to citizens impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is unfortunate that some citizens still require these services as they struggle to recover three years after these storms. The bill further requires FEMA to review, update, and revise, through rulemaking, the factors considered in making recommendations for the assistance to individuals and families under the Stafford Act as provided in 44 CFR 206.48. State and local governments have expressed concerns about the lack of clarity in these regulations, which they use to gauge when to seek assistance from the Federal Government. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for working with me on this bipartisan amendment to S. 2382, and I strongly support its passage. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this legislation in a previous form passed the House last year by a vote of 426-0. The Senate passed a comparable bill by unanimous consent. The bill before us is a bipartisan compromise between our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House and the Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation in the Senate. It is a complicated piece of legislation that took a great deal of time to work out. The objective of this legislation is to reform the Coast Guard acquisition program. Stories began creeping out of mistakes and cost overruns and serious problems within the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program. A closer look by our committee investigative staff found that there were serious flaws in the conduct of this program, and we began an extensive inquiry and investigation into those flaws and into the consequences thereof, the most serious of which was that the first article of the cutter extension program went to sea and cracked in three places, predicted to be problem areas by the chief naval architect of the Navy, in consultation to a whistleblower within the Deepwater Program. I need not go back and unravel all of the details that led up to that. Suffice it to say that the core of the problem was a self- certification initiative undertaken by the Coast Guard at the direction of the Department of Homeland Security that led to serious flaws, not only in the program but in the construction of these vessels and the extension initiative. The result was that taxpayers have lost over $100 million, the Coast Guard has lost the service of some 49 cutters, and frankly, I think there should have been criminal investigations undertaken by the Justice Department of those engaged in these practices. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland, the Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, and the staff's relentless pursuit of the facts of the causes of the problems, we held a hearing that went till 11:30 at night, nearly 10 hours of investigative hearing, drew fact after fact out and established causality problems and led the way to solutions. It's not enough just to conduct oversight, to find the flaws, to find the problems; it's important to correct them. And in that process, we had this blended participation with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) who has proven himself to be a devotee of the Coast Guard and mastered the issues of the Coast Guard and of this particular contractual undertaking of the Coast Guard. The result of those hearings was substantial reform of the Coast Guard's acquisition program. The details of the program I will call on the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and ask him to explain the details and how we frankly intend and are going to cure this problem for the future. It took a great deal of negotiation with the other body and with the Coast Guard to come to the resolution that we bring to the House today, and for that progress, I thank the gentleman from Ohio and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, for their patience over many weeks of negotiating out these terms and conditions that we bring to the House today to cure this program, save the taxpayers money, put the Coast Guard on a sound footing, and assure to the greatest extent that we can that these problems don't extend into the future. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6999, as amended, the ``Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act of 2008''. I would like to congratulate the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, as well as Ranking Member Mica and Subcommittee Ranking Member LaTourette for their work on this landmark acquisition reform bill. Last year, the House passed H.R. 2722, the ``Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act'', by a vote of 426-0. The Senate subsequently passed its Deepwater Reform bill, S. 924, by unanimous consent. H.R. 6999 is the bipartisan compromise agreement of these two bills of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. The Integrated Deepwater Acquisition Program is a $24 billion program to replace all Coast Guard aircraft and cutters that primarily operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Coast Guard has never attempted to replace its whole fleet under one long-term program. The Committee has conducted numerous oversight hearings on this program to understand why there have been cost-overruns and why the Coast Guard spent $100 million to renovate and replace eight of its 110-foot patrol boats-- only to have these renovated boats tied to the dock as unseaworthy. As I have said many times, if I were adrift in the ocean, there is no one I would want to save me but the U.S. Coast Guard. What they do at sea to save lives is second to none. However, when it comes to managing an acquisition program--the Coast Guard has serious challenges. Just because you can fly an aircraft or drive a cutter, doesn't mean you know how to manage an acquisition to buy that aircraft or cutter. As a result, the Coast Guard's acquisition programs are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule--including the Deepwater Acquisition program and the Rescue-21 program to install new search and rescue communications systems. In the past week, we have seen firsthand what happens on Wall Street when there is a lack of oversight, accountability, and standards. But Wall Street doesn't want to be regulated. Neither does the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard wants to have Congress continue to write the checks-- while they say ``trust us'' to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. While I would trust them with my life at sea, I don't think we should continue to write blank checks without demanding standards and accountability. H.R. 6999 reforms the Coast Guard acquisition program. Specifically, the bill: terminates the use of lead systems integrators beginning on October 1, 2011; requires that the Commandant, and not the contractor, retain the technical authority to determine when the contract specifications have been met; requires Early Operational Assessments to be made for all aircraft and cutters after they are designed--but before they are built--to ensure that they will meet the mission requirements of the Coast Guard; requires all new cutters and aircraft and their engines to be certified by an independent 3rd party to ensure they meet design and performance requirements; requires the development of workforce policies to ensure that the best qualified individuals are assigned to the acquisition program; requires the Commandant to establish career paths for military and civilian personnel who wish to pursue careers in acquisition programs; requires the Commandant to establish a balanced workforce policy to promote a workforce in which women and members of racial and ethnic minorities are appropriately represented in Government service; establishes a Chief Acquisition Officer for the Coast Guard. The CAO may be a civilian or military officer, but must have a level III acquisition program manager certificate and 10 years of experience in an acquisition position; requires the Coast Guard to report to Congress when there are cost overruns or program delays; and requires the Coast Guard to use the Department of Defense's contract management expertise and contracting, where appropriate, to obtain the best possible price for Coast Guard assets. H.R. 6999, as amended, also contains a provision that makes it unlawful to operate a stateless submersible or submersible vessel on the high seas. Use of submarines has become a new trend with the international drug runners operating out of Columbia. When the Coast Guard interdicts these vessels the smugglers pull a lever to flood and sink the submarine--and then wait for the Coast Guard to ``rescue'' them. However, all of the drugs are on the bottom of the ocean and it makes a prosecution more difficult. So Coast Guard personnel are risking their lives to enter the sinking submarine to get some of the cocaine as evidence. H.R. 6999 will obviate the need to enter the submarine. The Coast Guard can arrest the smugglers and they can be prosecuted for operating these pirate submarines. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark bill that will significantly improve the management of the multi-billion dollar acquisition program of the Coast Guard. It is the direct result of the Committee's in-depth investigation of the Deepwater Program. Like H.R. 2722, it deserves the support of every Member of the House. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6999, the ``Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act of 2008''. Finally, I insert in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, and me. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, September 26, 2008. Hon. James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 6999, Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act of 2008 introduced by Mr. Cummings on September 23, 2008. H.R. 6999 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill to the full House expeditiously. Accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, this decision should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, o diminishing its jurisdiction over this legislation. Additionally, the Committee on Homeland Security reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees during any House-Senate conference convned on this legislation or on provisions of this or a similar bill that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I ask for your commitment to support any such request by the Committee on Homeland Security for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 6999 or similar legislation. Finally, I respectfully ask that you place a copy of your letter and this letter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 6999. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the remaining time to thank the gentleman from California, my colleague in the informal Hip Replacement Caucus, for raising the issue of submersibles and for introducing the bill that he champions that we are happy to incorporate, and which is important to do in this legislation. Again I express my profound respect, appreciation and admiration to the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership of the Coast Guard subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio for his superb management of the issues on the minority side of the committee on this issue and for the constant communication that we've had. As long as we keep the communications going, as we have done over these 2 years and over the previous years, we will do good work for the country and for the Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a unanimous vote on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the pending bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6999) to restructure the Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for those very thoughtful comments. I was listening with great interest as he moved from deepwater to deep finance and was worried that he was going to suggest that the powers on high give that problem to our committee. Well, we'll build a fence around it, we'll build a bridge over it, we'll build a tunnel through it, we will encapsulate it and subject it to the funding out of the highway trust fund and the problem will be behind us. I think in the end we would have a solution to that problem that everybody could sign onto, but that's not our domain. And of course we both have reservations about the legislation before us in similar spirit, but I think we go forward with this legislation, hope that the other body moves it through without further--how shall I say? I'll be kind about it--without further changes, and that the bill will move on to enactment, and that someday soon the Lorain Shipyard will build vessels for the Coast Guard. It will be good for the Great Lakes, it will be good for Lorain, Ohio, it will be good for the gentleman from Ohio, and it will be good for the country. The Lorain Shipyard is one of the great assets of this Nation, built extraordinarily successful vessels that are still plying the lakes today, the thousand-footers that carry iron ore from northern Minnesota in my district to the lower lake steel mills, and that have borne the brunt of the forces of nature on the Great Lakes. It was a great shipyard, I've been there several times. It built the Mesabi Miner, by the way, a thousand-footer that is still active, carrying 60,000 tons of iron ore. But, unfortunately, that vessel, if I may digress a moment, and others have had to go out 7,000 tons light because of the drought in the Great Lakes and the failure of the Corps of Engineers to dredge the harbors and the channels of the Great Lakes, meaning that our lakers have to travel three or four extra voyages a year to meet the tonnage requirements, raising the cost of tactonite, and therefore raising the cost of steel production in lower lake steel mills, and why passage of our Water Resources Development Act of last year and the veto override is so critically important and why funding of those projects is so critical. And I'm delighted that the stimulus legislation we passed yesterday has some $5 billion for the Corps of Engineers to undertake projects that can be underway within 90 days. And we all know very well that there are dredging projects all throughout the Great Lakes--and the lower lake harbors, particularly-- that could benefit from that investment. As Mr. Cummings said moments ago, we didn't get here on our own. Our staffs on both sides of the aisle have worked rigorously in shaping in legislation and in laying the groundwork for the investigation. Clay Foushee, who led the investigative team on our side. And Lucinda Lessley, on Mr. Cummings' committee staff, who championed both the oversight hearings and the legislative hearings. And our chief council on the Coast Guard Maritime Subcommittee, John Cullather--for my money, the finest mind in maritime legislation in the country. And John Rayfield, who is a storehouse of knowledge on the subject, and Eric Nagel on the minority side, all deserve our appreciation and gratitude for the many hours of labor invested in bringing us to this point of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6460) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern, and for other purposes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6460.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Finally, we are here with essentially a conference report on the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008. This great and extraordinary body of water, the Great Lakes, represents one- fifth of all the fresh water, not frozen, on the face of the Earth and is a treasure for all of America, not just for the nearly 40 million people who reside on or near or within 100 miles of those Great Lakes. It's a treasure for all of America and for the world. It is our responsibility. And only us humans can protect that water. Only Lake Baikal rivals the volume of water in Lake Superior. Lake Baikal is deeper. It's almost 1 mile deep, not as much surface, enormously deep water. Next is Lake Victoria in Africa. But all are standing in line in significance, in volume and in quality of water to the Great Lakes. The gentleman from Michigan, for whom I have enormous admiration, Mr. Ehlers, has been a relentless champion since entering the service of Congress, bringing his splendid scientific mind to the challenges of the Great Lakes, of invasive species, of water quality, of bottom sediments in the 45 toxic hotspots of the Great Lakes, principally the harbors throughout the lakes, the need to study, to understand the causes, but then for the need to implement an action program to deal with this. It is not enough just to verify in scientific test tubes that pollution exists and invasive species are present, but to get to the causes and then to roll back that pollution, to roll back those invasive species and to prevent their further or future entry into this waterway. The Great Lakes Legacy Act gives us the opportunity to do that. It is the culmination of a great deal of effort on both sides of the aisle in both bodies of the Congress. I must stop for a reflective moment and go back to 1955 when my predecessor, John Blatnik, assumed the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors. John Blatnik was also a scientist, a biochemist. He served in the OSS in World War II behind Nazi lines in northern Yugoslavia in what is Slovenia today, rescuing American airmen shot down on returning bombing runs over the Ploesti oil fields in Romania. And John Blatnik started his service as an educator in the Civilian Conservation Corps after graduating from college. There weren't any jobs. He became camp educational adviser in the Superior National Forest, later a chemistry teacher in our hometown of Chisholm, and then later, as I mentioned a moment ago, with the OSS and working with the junior chamber of commerce on resource use conservation. When he came to Congress, he brought his scientific mind to bear on the problems of the country. And in 1955 he took the chairmanship of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee and traveled down the Mississippi River to understand the work of the Corps of Engineers. What became more important for him was to see, as he described it, the raw phenols, the raw sewage that came in to the Mississippi River from its tributaries and from the cities that lie along the banks of those 2,000 miles as the river courses from Upper Leech Lake down to the Gulf of Mexico. He said that by the time we got to New Orleans, there were raw phenols bubbling in the water. It was toxic. It was a soup of chemicals. And he realized that more important than the locks and the navigation channels was to clean up the Mississippi. And then he turned his attention as well to the Great Lakes. These were great reservoirs of clean water. And how could they be fouled? But by that time, the lamprey had invaded the Great Lakes. And in 1953, just 2 years before he took the chairmanship of that subcommittee, the lake trout population plummeted from 3.5 million pounds of catch a year to 350,000 pounds. The white fish population plummeted from 2.5 million pounds to 250,000 pounds in just 1 year because the lamprey exploded with violent force on the Great Lakes, this invasive species that came in the ballast water of vessels probably from the Black Sea into the fresh waters of the Great Lakes. That led John Blatnik to launch legislation that he called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, signed into law by President Eisenhower, with three key provisions that are still the core of the EPA program today, research to understand the causes of pollution, funding to help cities build sewage treatment facilities and enforcement program to bring communities and industries together to clean up where they failed to do so voluntarily. A great deal of progress has been made since 1956. Since 1968 when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire and caught people's attention, from later that year in 1968 when great mounds of suds were floating down the Ohio River and endangering water quality of homeowners who would turn on their faucets and instead of getting clean water, they would get suds coming out. When just a little later, in 1969, Lake Erie was declared a dead lake, a dead sea it was called. There were many proposals for how to do this. One hare-brained scheme was to punch a hole in the bottom of Lake Erie and let all the sediments drain down 2,000 feet into some underground aquifer, which of course Blatnik said was an absolute idiotic idea and would endanger far more than the Great Lakes. But steadily with the funding that was provided under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and later the Clean Water Act of 1972, of which he was the principal author and I served on the staff at the time, cities along the Great Lakes invested some $10 billion, industry invested nearly $110 billion in cleanup, and the toxics that once flowed into the Great Lakes began to recede and Lake Erie began to regain its vibrancy step by step. And now we have a vibrant fishery. We have the same on Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Huron and Superior. But the challenge is never over. Those toxic hotspots, those 45 areas of concern, still have to be dealt with. And the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which the gentleman from Michigan championed in 2002 which the House passed, the Senate passed and got enacted, set the stage for substantial investment that we included in our House-passed version, $150 million a year through 2013. Regrettably, when this measure got over to the Senate, as so often happens in the other body, one person can shut down the Senate and can shut down the country. In this case one objection held up Senate action on the bill until funding for the program was cut. I'm just so disappointed and so anguished over the failure of the Senate to provide the funding. They didn't change anything else in the bill, just implementing it, just funding it. That is cutting out the heart. That's all right. Congress survives. We will come back next year. There will be a different spirit in the White House, a different spirit in the Congress. We will fix that. We will provide funding in years to come. For now, it is important to move ahead with this excellent piece of legislation, which will help us move further ahead, laying the groundwork for creating the framework within which we can undertake cleanup in those areas of concern. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas, the ranking member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, for his attention to detail. He has really lent his best efforts to understanding the broad problems of water quality, water resource development issues, the programs of the Corps of Engineers, and I greatly appreciate his thoughtful, scholarly consideration. And, of course, our Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who has really been vigorous in her pursuit of the water resources issues under the jurisdiction of the committee. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have no further speakers on our side. I welcome the gentleman to recognize other speakers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close on his side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I want to express great appreciation to our colleagues on the committee on the Republican side who have worked without party barriers or banners to deal with a common issue of importance to all of us on the Great Lakes, and that is to address these issues, these areas of concern. I also want to express great appreciation to Senators Levin and Voinovich, George Voinovich of Ohio, Carl Levin of Michigan, who both have been champions for the Great Lakes. I have known both men for many, many years, Senator Voinovich, particularly, going back to his years as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. We worked together on so many issues. We worked on economic development of the Great Lakes, water quality, trade between Canada and the United States, on the Asian carp issue, supporting funding for the barrier to the Chicago rivers, to prevent the Asian carp from getting into the Great Lakes; and then the second barrier that is authorized in the Water Resources Development Act south of the Twin Cities, to prevent Asian carp from going up the Mississippi into the inland waters of the State of Minnesota and into the upper Midwest. While there is occasionally obstruction from the other body, there are people of goodwill, good intentions and good bipartisan spirit who deserve recognition. In the Duluth Harbor, with the Corps of Engineers and the EPA, we have had a remarkable success story in dredging bottom sediments with suction dredging and other technologies that avoid reintroduction into the water column of the removal of bottom sediments and putting them into a contained disposal facility. The Erie Pier in the Duluth- Superior Harbor has maybe 2 million cubic feet of bottom sediments that have been dredged from the harbor, deposited in the facility, with the sand filtration barrier that has allowed the water to filter back into the lake relatively clean, not quite drinkable, but without the toxics, without the PCBs, without the mercury and cadmium and lead and other toxic metals that have been found in those bottom sediments. What the Corps learned in this project was that the most complicated issue is that of grease, fuel oil, gasoline, other hydrocarbons that mix with the sand and the clay in the harbor bottom and become extremely difficult to extract in the cleanup process. Attacking that issue, this is a typical issue, we had a steel mill in Duluth for nearly 100 years. Its discharges went into the harbor, and that's typical of many communities along the lower lakes that have to deal with these problems of bottom sediments. We learned a great deal from Duluth. We now need to apply those lessons to the other harbors on the Great Lakes. It's somewhat of an embarrassment to us in the United States that Canada has cleaned up two of its three principal areas of concern and we have not done as well in the United States. This legislation sets the framework for us to move in that direction, $150 million would have provided the funding we need to go in that direction, but we will deal with that in the next Congress. Again, I thank all who have participated. I am pleased that the gentleman from Illinois mentioned Mr. Emanuel from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel has certainly been a champion on the issue on our side as well, along with a great list of Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a unanimous vote in support of the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1224, to commemorate the Tennessee Valley Authority (``TVA'') on its 75th anniversary. H. Res. 1224 recognizes the TVA for its long history of service in the areas of energy, the environment, and economic development on a service area that includes parts of seven States. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the legislation creating the TVA on May 1, 1933. This Authority was a product of President Roosevelt's New Deal plan to help the economy rise from the depths of the Great Depression. The establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority by the Federal Government illustrated Congress's recognition of the importance of integrating regional and national planning into problem solving strategies that affect multiple States. The TVA's mission areas were originally identified to reduce the risk of flood damage, improve navigation on the Tennessee River, provide electric power, and promote ``agricultural and industrial development'' in the region. The TVA continues to manage its resources in an integrated fashion for a wide range of benefits including electric power production, flood control, waterborne commercial transportation, recreation, water supply, and water quality. Through the years, TVA has continued to adapt and evolve to reflect the needs of the day. This evolution is reflected in its development of hydroelectric facilities in the 1940s to support the war effort and production of aluminum, to its present day development of renewable power resources. I applaud the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), for his strong advocacy of the Tennessee Valley Authority during his 18 years in Congress. The gentleman has been a valuable member of this Chamber, a distinguished alumnus of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and a dedicated champion for the people of the 5th Congressional District. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068. This bill, as amended by the Senate, represents an important step in ensuring the safety of Federal employees and all those who work in and visit our Federal buildings. On April 18, 2007, the Committee held a hearing entitled ``Proposals to Downsize the Federal Protective Service and Effects on the Protection of Federal Buildings''. The hearing probed the Department of Homeland Security's plans to cut the presence of Federal Protective Service (``FPS'') officers nationally. The reliance on contract security guards to protect Federal buildings is a troubling trend. On October 2, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3068 to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from awarding security guard contracts to businesses owned, controlled, or operated by convicted felons. H.R. 3068, as amended by the Senate, continues to support the central concept of the legislation as enacted by the House. The Senate amendment authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish guidelines that prohibit contracts for the provision of guard services to any business owned or controlled by individuals convicted of serious felonies, as determined by the Secretary. Further, the amendment allows discretion to contracting officers assess mitigating factors and the risks associated with a particular conviction. This bill, as amended, offers a common sense w y to ensure that security contracts that provide an essential service are awarded only to contractors who are, ``capable, responsible, and ethical'', as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. I support H.R. 3068, as amended, and urge its passage. Finally, I insert in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and me. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, September 25, 2008. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 3068, the ``Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2007''. I agree that provisions in H.R. 3068, as amended by the Senate, are of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further consideration of H.R. 3068, and I acknowledge that through this waiver, your Committee is not relinquishing its jurisdiction over the relevant provisions of H.R. 3068. This exchange of letters will be placed in the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of H.R. 3068, as amended by the Senate, 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, M.C., Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2482, a bill to repeal the provision of title 46, United States Code, requiring a license for employment in the business of salvaging on the coast of Florida. In 1847, Congress enacted a law designed to prevent individuals from luring ships on the beach with lanterns--and then salvaging these wrecks. The law said that you cannot salvage a ship in Florida unless you have a license issued by a U.S. District Court. At the time these individuals were called wreckers. Today, they are called salvors. Two years ago, Congress passed a recodification of all of the laws in title 46 of the U.S. Code--titled ``Shipping''. It was only after that recodification when the terms were updated from ``wreckers'' to ``salvors'', did the salvage industry realize that they needed a license to do its work in Florida. This requirement is not imposed on salvors in any other State of the United States. S. 2482 repeals this archaic law outright. Today Florida attracts tourists and cruise ships to its shores. It doesn't try to wreck them on the rocks. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 2482.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, there are many tributes one could establish for former colleagues: statues and plaques and naming of various facilities; but for Juanita Millender-McDonald, a transportation artery is truly appropriate, fitting, and necessary. From the time she set foot in this Chamber and won a seat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, she was ceaseless in her devotion to transportation initiatives. If I heard the term ``Alameda Corridor'' once, I heard it a hundred times; if I heard the Desmond Bridge once, I heard it 50 times; if I heard ``freight transportation corridors'' once, I heard it a thousand times. It was endless. And that was her passion, her devotion, her commitment. There were many other causes that Juanita Millender-McDonald championed. The gentlewoman from California, her successor, Ms. Richardson, has already enumerated those. I will submit those in a longer statement for the Record. But I just want to take this moment, as we did in committee and here on the floor, to pay tribute to a dear friend, a champion of transportation causes, a person with soul, with spirit, with grace, with elegance who served her constituents and State and this Nation extraordinarily well. And it is appropriate that we memorialize that service by this naming we are undertaking today.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6707) to require Surface Transportation Board consideration of the impacts of certain railroad transactions on local communities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 6707, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill before us arises out of long-standing concerns of communities along the routes of the Nation's freight rail system, particularly in cases where there is dramatic change, where a merger has occurred or is about to occur, and the result of which will be to change their quality of life. The period of the Interstate Commerce Commission, from the 1880s until the Staggers Act of 1980, was a period of regulation necessary in the public interest but of increasing burdensome regulation that inhibited the productivity of the Nation's railroads. Many would argue that the result of deregulation was too little representation of the public interest in our freight rail system. There are so many instances where the freight railroads have dismissed or been dismissive of or not paid sufficient attention to the concerns of communities and people that live along the railroad, the tracks that go through their cities and by their homes. There are, of course, those cases where some railroads have been very attentive and very responsive. But the core problem is that of the Surface Transportation Board. As we looked into the issues of concerns raised by many communities along class 2 or class 3 railroads, who are about to be absorbed into a larger class 1 railroad, I find questions of the actions of the Surface Transportation Board defending the public interest. This bill will assure that the Surface Transportation Board will have the legal authority and policy direction it needs to deal with mergers, which have potential to cause serious safety, environmental and other quality-of-life problems for the people in the communities along the route of the proposed merger. The bill does not require the STB, Surface Transportation Board, to approve or disapprove any particular merger. It is not merger specific. It seeks only to ensure that when the STB considers mergers, it will have the authority to disapprove any merger in which the benefits from the merger are outweighed by the adverse effects on communities or safety. It will vest in the board authority and give the board direction to fully evaluate rate crossing safety, hazardous materials transportation safety, public safety, noise, job losses, adverse economic impact. It will also, and our anticipation is, that the board will fully evaluate the benefits of a merger. There are clearly, in most of these mergers, benefits for one community that unfortunately are accompanied by adverse effects on other communities, or at least perceived adverse effects. Now, the problem that we found in the course of the hearing and in evaluating issues leading up to the hearing in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is that the action of the board in dealing with mergers of two class 1 railroads are different authorities than are available to the board in evaluating the proposed merger of a class 1 and a class 2 or class 3 railroad. This legislation will assure or make it clear that the board has the same authority to deal with mergers of class 1 with class 2 and class 3 railroads as it does in mergers of class 1 to other class 1 railroads. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to remind the gentleman that we incorporated all of the requests of the minority as we moved to create the manager's amendment to the bill, including spelling out what benefits should be considered, along with adverse impacts. We announced the hearing and invited all parties to the merger referenced by the gentleman, and welcomed all communities to participate in the hearing. Those who chose not to did so of their own accord. They were not excluded. We had a very extensive hearing in which all were welcome to participate in, and we explored fully all of the issues involved in this issue. Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Chair of the water resources appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?