James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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 resolution, H. Res. 1241.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ensign DeCarol Davis was the valedictorian of the Coast Guard Academy, Class of 2008, the first African American to graduate as valedictorian of the Coast Guard Academy. But this is not the first time that Ensign Davis graduated at the top of her class. She was valedictorian of Forest Park High School, Woodbridge, Virginia, in 2004. Ensign Davis is a very impressive young lady, a Truman Scholar. She won the 2008 Connecticut Technology Council Women of Innovation Award. She is a standout basketball player. She was a 2006 Arthur Ashe, Jr. Women's Basketball First Team Sports Scholar, and she was selected to the ESPN The Magazine Academic All-District I College Women's Basketball First Team. She's now a commissioned officer in the Coast Guard. Ensign Davis will join 41,000 men and women wearing that unique color of blue, enforcing the Nation's laws on our waterways, making the waterways safe as well as secure, and has chosen to begin her career in the Coast Guard Marine Safety Program. I'm delighted to see that future leaders of the Coast Guard value that program. I was at the Coast Guard Academy just 3 months ago, met with the Commandant of Cadets and the director of the academic program at the Coast Guard Academy, met with several of the cadets and sat in on one of the classes. And I must say each time I do, each time I hold a session with the Coast Guard, and each time I meet the cadets, I have enormous confidence in the future of the Coast Guard and its service to boating, to maritime safety, and to the future needs of the Coast Guard and our country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of our time to concur with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina is not that old. His service with the Coast Guard was distinguished, noble, and a great asset to our community, as he brings to bear his service with that noble entity that goes back to the very foundations of our Nation when he participates in our Coast Guard hearings and markups. He deserves the term ``distinguished,'' both for his service in the House and with the United States Coast Guard. And we're pleased to have him with us here on the floor today. I congratulate Ensign Davis. I observed to Chairman Thompson that if each of us were to do as well in our elections with 3.96 percent, as she did in academics, we all would have something to cheer about. That is an extraordinary academic record. It is an extraordinary career that she has led in the Coast Guard Academy, both in the classroom, on the field of play, and in the community. She is a talented, gifted young woman and will be an officer of distinguished service to the Coast Guard, but a role model for other young women, and I hope especially African-American women, to serve in the United States Coast Guard. I wish her continued success as she embarks on a remarkable journey with the U.S. Coast Guard.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6493) to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance aviation safety, 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. 6493, and include therein extraneous material.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very obvious support of H.R. 6493, the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. I consider this a first or, say, initial legislative step in reversing the complacency over safety regulations that has set in at the highest levels of the Federal Aviation Administration. At the outset, I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Mica, the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member on our full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ranking Member Petri from the Subcommittee on Aviation, and Chairman Jerry Costello from Illinois, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. All of us have worked diligently on the hearing that we held on aviation safety and on the legislation that we bring to the floor today. For years, the FAA has earned and held the distinction of the ``gold standard for aviation safety'' in the world. Other countries come to the United States to emulate the practices of the FAA in overseeing safety and setting standards for safety and maintenance of aircraft, engine and airframe. And it is, indeed, the charter of the FAA, in the very opening paragraph of the Organization Act of 1958, that created the Federal Aviation Administration from the old Civil Aeronautics Agency, quote, ``Safety in aviation shall be maintained at the highest possible level.'' Not the level airlines choose, not the level they can afford, but the highest possible level. Safety in aviation must start in the corporate boardroom and permeate all through the organization. It is the responsibility of the FAA to set minimum standards and expect that not only airlines will meet them, but exceed them. And there has been, over the years, a partnership in safety between the manufacturers of aircraft--whether it's Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Cessna, Cirrus, Piper, or these days Airbus in France--with the FAA in establishing standards, seeing that the standards are met, and then ensuring that in the course of operation of aircraft and the maintenance of aircraft safety is maintained at that highest possible level. Over the last few years, we've seen a slippage with the FAA from that high standard. And following information we received from whistleblowers in the committee staff, and it came to my attention immediately, we found that there was a change in attitude at the FAA, a shift away from insisting on those highest standards, a move from a partnership to a customer service initiative in which the FAA directed its principal maintenance inspectors to treat airlines as though they were customers. I've never heard that term used in aviation in my 25 years of involvement in oversight of and setting standards for aviation safety. If there is a customer, it's the traveling public, not the airline. And if the airline is your customer and the customer is unhappy with the service he is getting, then that customer can complain. And that's what one of the airlines did, complained to the FAA about the principal maintenance inspector being too rigorous, overseeing too vigorously. And that PMI was removed from that position. Until the FAA found out that our committee was investigating a range of practices that strayed from the standard of vigorous oversight of and enforcement of aviation safety, then they brought the person back. Well, we found that one carrier with FAA complicity allowed at least 177 of its aircraft to fly with passengers in revenue service in violation of FAA regulations, the most serious lapse in safety I've observed in 23 years. The investigation the committee launched led to the discovery of other instances in which inspections were not properly conducted and repairs were not properly made. The result, after we brought this to the attention of the FAA, and to the public in a statement that we released about the situation in preparation for our hearings, numbers of aircraft, hundreds, 972 aircraft were grounded by not only the airline in question, but other air carriers as well. Thousands of flights were cancelled. Serious questions were raised about whether high-ranking officials in the FAA were carrying out their safety responsibilities toward the industry and toward the traveling public. Since the hearing we conducted on April 3, the investigative staff has been approached by individuals from other maintenance providers of other carriers alleging serious breakdowns in FAA's regulatory oversight. As a result of the rigorous investigation and the intensive hearing conducted in committee, there has been a shift in the FAA. The pendulum swung too far to the cooperation side and is now moving back to the middle with a more balanced relationship with airlines instead of the carrier-favorable relationship previously. On June 30, 2008, the Inspector General of DOT issued a report entitled ``Review of FAA's Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs,'' observing that the IG made several recommendations to the FAA to strengthen its oversight of air carrier safety. Specifically, the IG recommended the FAA periodically rotate its flight standards safety inspectors and establish an independent investigative organization to examine safety issues found by FAA employees. The FAA said it did not agree with the recommendation to rotate inspectors. It said it only partially agreed to implement the recommendation to establish an independent organization to investigate employee complaints, FAA employee complaints. The FAA's response has been to implement a Safety Issues Report System that duplicates existing hotlines, does not provide for independent review outside of FAA's Aviation Safety Organization, which in the past had a long and successful and effective record of responding to complaints filed by whistleblowers. Well, I think FAA's response has been wholly inadequate. This legislation will move us in the direction of correcting the problem and putting aviation safety back on the highest level, the gold standard, that has been characteristic of the FAA in years past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The issues at stake in the hearing that we held relate principally to two major issues of aviation safety: One was hull inspection, and the other was inspection of the power control unit on 737 aircraft that regulate the movement of the rudder onboard those aircraft. Both of these air worthiness directives and Federal air regulations that govern oversight of maintenance performed on high-time aircraft and on aircraft that have this unique power control unit resulted from accidents that involved loss of life. The 737 of Aloha Airlines en route to Honolulu lost 18 feet of its hull in the air. The flight attendant was pulled to her death. Passengers strapped in suffered rapid, severe decompression injury but no other loss of life. The investigation that followed showed that there was extensive corrosion and metal fatigue and perhaps also improper technology used in putting the plates together in the hull of the aircraft. There followed a worldwide conference on aging aircraft, which I was the lead speaker. We gathered aviation manufacturers, airline operators, and aircraft inspection agencies from every nation in the world that had commercial aviation operation. And out of that conference resulted a number of recommendations which we crafted together in a bill that my then partner on the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, and I moved through subcommittee, full committee, to the House floor and through to enactment. The language reads: The administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft. The regulations prescribed shall at least require that the administrator make inspections and review the maintenance and other records of each aircraft and air carrier used to provide air transportation that the administrator decides may be necessary to enable the administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation and air transportation. The air carrier shall at least demonstrate that as part of the inspection, maintenance of the aircraft's age, sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety. And work performed under this section shall be carried out after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in service. That was not just a happenstance. It was a very specific directive dealing with high time aircraft, a very specific directive to the FAA and to airlines to undertake this rigorous inspection. The FAA failed to maintain that level of vigilance. The air carrier failed to maintain its level of vigilance. And on some of those aircraft, there were found to be small cracks. But it's those small cracks that led to failures, the small cracks that led to life lost. In another instance, the power control unit on 737 aircraft, something happened to an aircraft to cause the flight deck crew to lose control of that aircraft when the rudder made an uncommanded movement. And 137 people died in Pennsylvania. In the investigation conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board pursuant to the accident, it was found that this very small unit, this big, had failed. Up to that time, there had been 93 million hours of operation of 737s, and Boeing Company said, we haven't had any failures. But when the NTSB looked back in the record of other unexplained accidents, they were traced to this power control unit which was subsequently redesigned and retested under the extreme conditions that aircraft fly at high altitudes and rebuilt and reinstalled and a vigorous airworthiness directive put in place to require periodic inspections of the power control unit. Those inspections were missed. And the airlines involved, having missed the deadline, had to go back, take those aircraft out of service and inspect those parts. That is what we're talking about, vigilance at the highest possible level. And I have seen a situation where in safety, a very comfortable relationship can exist between the overseer and the practitioner of safety. To say, as we do in the Congress, to say as we do about other members of the executive branch, that you must move around from one position to another in the executive branch, and we say to those who leave service, leave the Federal public service, ``you cannot come back and lobby the Congress for a period of time'' is an already established practice. To say that in a period of 2 years, a person who leaves the FAA to go work elsewhere outside of government, is not to say to that person that your service is not valued. We just want to make sure you're not using it to a contrary purpose to that which the person had served for all those years. We only in this language prevent that person from working for the carrier they once oversaw. I think that is a reasonable step. It is one recommended by the Inspector General. I think it is in the best interest of safety to do this. It is in the best interest of safety to continue the Air Transportation Oversight System, ATOS, where airlines and manufacturers are engaged in developing trend lines, by watching these trend lines where we know and see certain things happening and take action before there is a failure and before there is a catastrophe, to prevent a tragedy. ATOS is a very good system. But it should not be transformed into one in which the airline is in the command position. There is a proper balance. And I think this legislation will bring the FAA back into proper balance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of our time. And I will not take all of whatever time remains. An observation, and I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Florida, committing himself and the committee as a whole to vigorous oversight of safety. It is a good record, as the gentleman said, in air carrier safety over the last few years. What I have learned in my experience with safety in aviation, highways, railways, waterways and airways, is that that safety is just around the corner from the next accident. And while it may have been an inconvenience for passengers for the airlines to pull aircraft out of service, it's a horrible inconvenience to be dead or injured because of an airline accident. Had the airlines been conducting their inspections appropriately, vigorously and in keeping with the airworthiness directives in the time frames envisioned, it would not have had to pull these aircrafts out of service to do major inspections in blocks, as was done this spring. And as the gentleman from Florida said, this legislation, enacted, carried out by the FAA, will make sure that aviation stays on a steady path of constancy in oversight of aviation safety. That is what we want. That is the objective of this legislation. It is the continuity of inspection and of oversight of the air carriers who have the prime responsibility to maintain their aircraft in safe, airworthy condition. And that is what we will achieve when we get this legislation enacted into law. I'm very hopeful that the other body will act promptly on this legislation, that it will be signed and carried out vigorously by the FAA and reestablish its standing in the world community, which looks to the United States to set and maintain the gold standard for aviation safety.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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 include extraneous material on the bill, S. 2766.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we are. We started on this journey with this legislation in subcommittee and full committee on the initiative of Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. LaTourette of Ohio, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin, a whole host of Members who live along the water, whose districts encompass water-based recreational activity, alarmed by constituents that something serious was about to happen as a result of a decision of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, that guys and women with little motor boats are going to have to go through a ballast water discharge system. Well, the ramifications would have brought forward a regulatory scheme that would have been extraordinarily and unnecessarily burdensome on weekend recreational boaters. Every weekend I travel throughout my district, and I look longingly out on the lakes at those who are using their boats and wish I could be out there with them. I am doing other things, most of them meetings indoors. I know from hearing from my constituents, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has, that incidental discharges, as covered by the court ruling, deck runoffs, laundry, shower and galley waste from 13 million State-registered recreational boats could wreak havoc in this sector that is a multi-billion dollar part of our national economy and vital specifically to local economies and vital to individuals who seek respite from their workaday life by getting out on a boat on the weekend and kicking back and enjoying the water and the water environment. In the aftermath of the court case, Northwest Environmental Advocates, our committee closely reviewed the issue of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, to use the technical term, including the implications of both recreational vessel discharges and commercial vessel discharges, and we decided it was appropriate to retain a limited exclusion from the national pollutant discharge elimination system that will allow requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel. We restore the status quo in this legislation that existed prior to the California court decision. Just one word of explanation for the procedure here. We were ready to bring our bill weeks ago. We got a message from our counterparts in the other body to wait and give the other body time to move its legislation because with all of the procedural limitations and hoops they have to jump through in the other body, wait until they could move a bill. And we waited and we waited and we waited. We were ready to move our own bill. I said this is it, we will bring it to the floor this week. We aren't going to wait any longer. Well, I won't characterize any further the other body. It might go beyond the decorum of the House in this matter. And suddenly, the trigger went off and the other body moved with its bill and brought it to the floor. If we act today on this legislation, we can just send these bills directly to the President for his signature, and that is what we ought to do in the best interest of boating and in the best interest of comity between the bodies. I express great appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio for his patience and for his cooperation and participation, and to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for also being very patient on the issue. And for all of my other colleagues who have wanted us to take this action, we are doing it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time for the purpose of closing. I also want to include in the list of distinguished Members who supported this legislation, and, from the outset, Mrs. Miller from Michigan. Candice Miller has been a strong advocate for this legislation. The gentleman from Ohio referenced the other body arising from its slumber. I think that is a passage from scripture, from the Old Testament, that concludes, in the last stanza, ``A new day is dawning.'' This is a new day of dawning, for boating, for recreational boaters. As I was up the north shore of Lake Superior on Saturday dedicating a new McQuade Road Harbor of refuge, there was, indeed, an open water kayak, a 20-foot kayak that put into the Harbor of Refuge. I thought of this legislation, and I told the folks gathered that we are going to make boating safe and easy, comfortable again, thanks to a partnership. Although there wasn't a boat in the carload, for the gentleman from Ohio, I brought his name up saying it's wonderful to have this kind of partnership and participation in legislation for the common good and common interest. I will observe further that today is the gentleman's birthday, and I promise not to break into song, but I do promise that we deliver to the gentleman an appropriate remembrance of his day in the form of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3298) to clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and to require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.

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, S. 3298, and include therein extraneous material.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, briefly, to describe the purpose of this legislation, which was vigorously supported by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor); the gentleman from Alaska, our former chairman, Mr. Young; Mr. LoBiondo from New Jersey; and, of course, the very distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. LaTourette; by Chairman Cummings, who gave his full support and initiative to this legislation. This is a 2-year moratorium for discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain commercial vessels other than discharges of ballast water. It also directs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct additional studies on the implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. We developed this legislation in similar fashion to the previous bill in recreational boating on the initiative of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the other Members that I mentioned previously. We also worked across the way with the other body, the Committee on Environment and Public Works and various individual Members of the other body. It took a little while to get their commitment, get their attention, to release the bill from holds over there, which are a quaint practice, not practiced in this body. Again, we were prepared to bring this bill to the House floor and had it scheduled for the suspension calendar this week out of exasperation with lack of progress across the way. But I know those 200 meters that separate the two wings of the Capitol are very difficult to traverse. Sometimes it can take as long as the Old Chisholm Trail to move from one end to the other, but that movement has been made. I will include in the Record the specifics of the legislation, the legislative history which is necessary to establish the legislative balance and the factual construct within which we bring this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, S. 3298 provides a two-year moratorium for discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain commercial vessels, other than discharges of ballast water, as well as directs the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to conduct additional study on the implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This legislation, which was developed in close coordination with the two lead co-sponsors of the House companion bill, H.R. 6556, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), as well as our counterpart in the Other Body, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and several individual senators. I applaud the work of all of my colleagues, in both chambers, for resolving their differences, and moving this legislation (S. 3298), and S. 2766, the ``Clean Boating Act of 2008'', in tandem today. S. 3298 strikes an important legislative balance between the need to protect our water-related environment and the need to provide additional time for certain vessel owners and operators to address the discharge of pollutants from their vessels. This legislation provides a targeted two-year moratorium from the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit requirements for commercial fishing vessels and other commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length--giving the nation's commercial fishermen and other small commercial vessel owners and operators more time to understand and address discharges from these vessels. This moratorium provides a narrow exception--providing additional time for those vessel owners and operators, which, in the opinion of Congress, were least prepared for the impending implementation of the Clean Water Act permitting requirements on September 30, 2008. For example, any vessel that was subject to the NPDES requirements of the Clean Water Act prior to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, such as certain oil and gas exploration vessels, energy and mining vessels, and seafood storage and processing facilities will remain subject to such requirements under this legislation. In addition, the scope of discharges included within this moratorium mirrors those discharges that were included within the regulatory exclusion found at 40 CFR 122.3(a), with the exception of the discharge of ballast water, which is not included within the scope of the two- year moratorium. Accordingly, any category of discharge from a ``covered vessel'' that was subject to the Clean Water Act exemption prior to the court decision, such as bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, and effluent from properly functioning marine engines, is covered withint the two-year moratorium of S. 3298. The only exception to this rule is if the EPA Administrator, or a State, as appropriate, could demonstrate that such discharge either contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. As was evident from testimony during a hearing on this topic before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the lack of sufficient information on the types, volumes, and composition of discharges from differing classes of commercial vessels has complicated the ability of Congress to address these discharges in a comprehensive manner. S. 3298 will provide Congress with additional time, and with additional information on what, exactly, is meant by discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, so that upon the expiration of this two-year period, Congress can revisit this issue and address these discharges in a manner that is workable, commensurate with their impact, and consistent with goals of the Clean Water Act to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.'' Mr. Speaker, S. 3298 is in direct response to a March 2005 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which overturned a decades-old Clean Water Act exclusion for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This decision, entitled Northwestern Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, held that the 1979 EPA regulation (found at 40 CFR 122.3(a)) which excluded certain vessel discharges from the permitting requirements of the Clean Water exceeded the Agency's authority under the law. In essence, the court was concerned that the 1979 Clean Water Act exclusion was written too broadly, and accordingly, the court issued an order vacating the regulatory exclusion for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as of September 30, 2008. In response to the court decision, and the pending outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the EPA was required to enforce the permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act on all vessel discharges. On June 17, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register two separate Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel. The first--the draft Recreational General Permit--would establish a set of mandatory and recommended best management practices for discharges from recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. However, the need for the Recreational General Permit will be rendered unnecessary by passage of the Clean Boating Act of 2008, which provides a targeted statutory exemption from the NPDES permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act for all recreational vessels, regardless of length. The second draft general permit--the draft Vessel General Permit (``VGP'')--addresses discharges from recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length and all other commercial vessels; however, the need for a general permit to address discharges from recreational vessels is, again, eliminated by enactment of the Clean Boating Act, but the need to address discharges from other vessels remains at the end of the two-year moratorium contained in S. 3298. EPA's draft VGP establishes effluent limits for 28 discharges typically found in the effluent of commercial vessels, as well as best management practices designed to decrease the amount of these pollutants being discharged into the waters of the United States. The draft VGP establishes varying levels of regulatory authority and management practices to control these discharges scaled on the size and class of vessels, as well as establishes new monitoring and reporting requirements. The effective date of the draft VGP was to be September 30, 2008, as established by the Northwestern Environmental Advocates decision. S. 3298 will suspend the implementation of the draft VGP, providing an additional two years for the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize an appropriate regulatory approach to address discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as well as a time to further study the nature, types, composition, volumes, locations, and potential impacts of vessel discharges. However, unlike the Clean Boating Act, S. 3298 is not a statutory exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. During the two-year period following the date of enactment, EPA should continue to work with the individual States to resolve the outstanding State certification process under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as well as work with other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to satisfy its obligations under other Federal statutes. In addition, this two-year moratorium provides the regulated community with additional time to evaluate and provide public comment on EPA's draft Vessel General Permit. EPA should utilize this two-year period to work with vessel owners and operators, and hopefully address any technical or practical implementation questions raised by the regulated community. In essence, this two-year moratorium provides EPA with adequate time to complete its statutory obligations under the Clean Water Act and other Federal statutes, and be ready to implement the appropriate Clean Water Act mechanisms for controlling, minimizing, and properly addressing vessel discharges at the end of the moratorium. S. 3298 also directs the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and other interested Federal agencies to conduct a study on discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The intent of this study is to provide the Agency and the Congress with additional information on the nature, types, volumes, and composition of vessel discharges, and the potential impact of these discharges on human health, welfare, or the environment. S. 3298 specifically excludes three types of discharges from the scope of the study: discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces, discharges of sewage from vessels, and the discharge of ballast water. The Committee believes that all three types of discharges have been studied in the past, and should be excluded from the scope of this study to ensure that the Administrator is able to meet the 15-month deadline in this legislation. This study should cover only those discharges which EPA determines are ``incidental to the normal operation of a vessel'' and should exclude those discharges that are not necessary for the operation of a vessel, such as the discharge of dry cleaning byproducts, photo processing chemicals, medical wastes, and noxious liquid substance residues--all of which were similarly excluded from the scope of coverage under EPA's Vessel General Permit. In sum, 3298 is a narrowly tailored compromise that should provide certain vessel owners and operators and the Environmental Protection Agency with sufficient time and information to better understand the implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and, at the same time, preserve the goals of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side and reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am prepared to close on this side after the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OBERSTAR. To the list of encomiums that have been expressed on the floor during this discussion, I add that of Mr. Mica, who has participated all through the process in partnership, as we do on our committee, in crafting the approach, agreeing to separate tracks for the two bills, to patience waiting for the other body, and I greatly appreciate the support of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our ranking member. To all Members who have given so much of their time and energy and pointing out, as several have done, that if we don't act, as we are doing today, if we don't act promptly, come the start of commercial fishing season, there could be a shutdown of the entire industry with calamitous economic consequences, and we don't want that to happen. So we are here now to bring this bill to conclusion, a 2-year moratorium, give the regulated users, boaters, time to evaluate to provide public comment on EPA's draft vessel general permit. We also caution EPA to use this 2-year period to work with the vessel owners within the context of that court ruling and address technical or practical implementation issues raised in this entire context. There should be plenty of time for EPA to complete statutory obligations under the Clean Water Act and other statutes, and address vessel discharges at the end of this moratorium period so we don't have to have another crisis situation again. And I know that all those who are engaged in the commercial boating activities will appreciate the dispatch with which we have acted. And I assure one and all that we would have acted weeks ago had it not been out of respect for the other body and the procedural problems encountered in moving bills over there. Again, I thank all those who have given so much of their time and energy and early morning meetings, yes, to resolution of this issue.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 294) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, as amended.