James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, S. 294.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We move today on a somewhat unusual procedure to take up the Senate bill, S. 294, as amended, and use that vehicle to move us in going to conference with the other body on The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, the Amtrak reauthorization bill. The procedure we are using will allow us later today to move to go to conference with the Senate on their bill which is before us now, and our bill, H.R. 6003, that passed the House by a vote of 311-104 on June 11 of this year. In that context, I just want to express again my great appreciation for the partnership we have had with Mr. Mica, whose constancy and, I should say, stirring initiative on behalf of intercity high speed passenger rail has been very, very, reassuring, encouraging, and is moving us toward that goal. And when we get this legislation enacted it will be more than a goal. It will become a reality. And toward that end, the enormous amount of the success and of the movement in the direction of high speed passenger rail will go to the gentleman from Florida for his constant effort in that direction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who has been such a strong, consistent, and unrelenting advocate for Amtrak and conducted over the last few years a Harry Truman-style campaign from the seat of an Amtrak passenger rail vehicle advocating for the moment we visit today.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield for unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side. We're prepared to close after the gentleman from Florida has concluded on his side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of our time, and in the interest of bringing this matter to resolution so that we can very quickly yet this afternoon move to go to conference with the Senate and appoint conferees, I will suspend my 1-hour speech on behalf of Amtrak and simply express, again, my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for her evangelization of Amtrak, and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his thorough discourse on the subject of Amtrak. Suffice it to say, 52 years ago, I traveled to Europe for a graduate study program, traveled from Minneapolis to Chicago on the Milwaukee 400, 400 miles in 400 minutes. You can't fly there in 400 minutes today. In Europe, I traveled from Paris to Brussels in 6 hours by train. Today, that's an 80-minute trip. If we can close the gap between Minneapolis and Chicago to 80 minutes, from Chicago to Cleveland in 2 hours or so, and New York to Washington, in the vision of the gentleman from Florida, in under 2 hours, then we will have accomplished something truly significant for today, for today's generation, for future generations. And we will do that when we get to the conference on this bill and we will produce a meaningful and lasting benefit for America.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I move to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 294) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, with a House amendment thereto, insist upon the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I welcome the gentleman's motion to instruct. The Buy America provision in Amtrak is comparable to the Buy America provision that I authored, got enacted in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, to require all steel in the Federal Aid Highway Program to be made in America, American steel. And we extended that to the transit program subsequently, and to the Corps of Engineers program. The situation with Amtrak is that there are two Buy America laws. The first was established in 1978. It requires Amtrak to buy U.S.-sourced equipment, U.S. materials, U.S. supplies for purchase in excess of $1 million. As time went on, there was concern that there was a good deal of equipment manufacturing moving offshore because our domestic rail transit, rail passenger transit systems were in decline. There was little funding for them, and manufacturers were drying up in America, and the new sourcing was coming from foreign manufacturers. So the Appropriation Bill of 2002 required Amtrak to comply with the Buy America for procurements under $1 million, pursuant to Amtrak's grant agreements. Our bill would require Buy America to apply to purchases of $100,000, being very specific about it, $100,000 or more. So this motion instructs the managers to insist, and we are happy to insist on those provisions. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for his motion. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on our side, and I reserve my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the interest of fast-tracking Amtrak, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate the thoughtful presentation of the gentleman from Nevada, very structured and supported by documents and references to specific facts. The energy issue really consists of three elements; supply, demand, and a regulatory function. We need to deal with all three of those. On the supply side, one of the elements we're supplying is the Maglev project that was authorized in the current SAFETEA legislation that the gentleman from Alaska and I worked on to connect Los Angeles with Las Vegas. I know that's of great interest to the gentleman from Nevada. And I'm very hopeful that we will see that project take root and go into operation. It will be a great addition to our surface transportation system and will reduce energy costs. I heard the gentleman's reference to the electric car. There is a small, family-owned firm in my district that's making a very small electric car, selling for under $120,000, maybe $115,000. It's not an Escalade, but it's a very nice vehicle. It can get people from one point to another very efficiently for about the cost of what it takes to run your refrigerator for a year. So there is progress being made in all of these arenas. In Amtrak, we will be able to make an enormous contribution, an alternative to air travel, intercity passenger rail more fuel efficient than car and air travel, consuming less energy than a car or airplanes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute. And with the new energy-efficient equipment that Amtrak and the freight rail network are using, we will see more fuel-efficient switching locomotives, more energy-efficient auto train vehicle carriers, and the regenerative braking system with Acela. We need to move ahead with this legislation and make our contribution in our little corner of the world in transportation through accelerating the work on Amtrak, which has been a bipartisan product of our committee. Section 221 of the bill requires Amtrak to comply with the Buy America Act, and the regulations thereunder, for purchases of $100,000 or more. Amtrak is currently subject to two separate Buy America laws. The first was established in 1978 and requires Amtrak to procure U.S.- sourced equipment, materials, and supplies for purchases in excess of $1 million. The second was established in the appropriations bill of 2002 and requires Amtrak to comply with Buy America requirements for procurements under $1 million, pursuant to Amtrak's grant agreements in effect with the Department of Transportation. Our bill ensures that Amtrak would be subject to one set of Buy America requirements for procurements of $100,000 or more. This motion instructs the House managers in the conference to insist on the provisions contained in Section 221 of the bill. The Senate- passed Amtrak reauthorization bill does not contain a similar Buy America requirement for Amtrak. We feel this provision is important, so we support the motion. Energy Benefits of Amtrak Amtrak and intercity passenger rail helps fight global warming. Our transportation sector produces one-third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions (and one-twelfth of the world's). The average intercity passenger train produces 60 percent less carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than the average automobile, and 50 percent less carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile of an airplane. Amtrak and intercity passenger rail reduces highway and aviation congestion. Gridlock is becoming a shared experience for tens of millions of motorists every day, which impacts communities across the country. Over the past decade alone, travel growth on the nation's highways has averaged 2.2 percent annually. In 2007, congestion forced Americans to waste 2.9 billion gallons of fuel and cost Americans a staggering $78 billion. One full passenger train can take 250 to 350 cars off the road. Further Amtrak as a whole removes 8 million cars from the road and eliminates the need for 50,000 fully-loaded passenger airplanes each year. In conjunction with metropolitan transit systems, the city-center to city- center service offered by intercity passenger rail can also support dense, transit-oriented development in downtown areas, helping to reduce highway travel demand for both local trips and intercity trips. Amtrak provides an alternative to air travel. Intercity passenger rail is competitive with air travel of 500 miles or less, and more than 80 percent of all trips exceeding 100 miles in length are less than 500 miles. For example, Amtrak service controls 56% of the air/rail market from Washington, DC to New York City and 43% of the air/rail market from New York City to Boston, MA. Amtrak and intercity passenger rail is more fuel efficient than automobile and air travel. The Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book reports that intercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than automobiles. Amtrak and intercity passenger rail consumes less energy than automobile and air travel. Amtrak's British Thermal Unit, (or, ``BTU,'' standard unit of energy) per passenger mile was 2,650 in 2006. This compares to the 3,264 BTUs for air travel and 3,445 BTUs for highway travel in 2006. New energy efficient equipment is further improving conservation (e.g., in addition to Acela Express trains' regenerative braking system, Amtrak has acquired new more energy-efficient Auto Train vehicle carriers and is evaluating more fuel efficient switching locomotives). Amtrak's BTU per passenger mile improved from 2,800 in 2003 to 2,760 in 2004, 2,709 in 2005, and 2,650 in 2006. Amtrak is taking steps to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. After Amtrak restored electrified service to the 104-mile Philadelphia-Harrisburg line in October 2006, it replaced 9 diesel powered roundtrip trains per weekday with 12 roundtrip trains powered by electricity. Today, most of the electric power Amtrak uses between New York and Washington is generated from non-fossil fuel sources. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, the bill which Congressman Mica, Congressman Costello, Congressman Petri and I are introducing today is a first legislative step in reversing the complacency over safety regulation that has set in at the highest levels of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. This legislation is not a silver bullet that will produce a comprehensive solution to problems that have been developing for years, Rather, the legislation deals with several issues that are ripe for action, following an investigation by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, DOT IG, and a rejection of some of the DOT IG's recommendations by FAA. I expect that we will have additional legislation after completion of the comprehensive investigations now underway by the DOT IG, FAA's own special committee, and Congress. We must also bear in mind that legislation can only go so far in solving the problem. What is most needed is a change in attitude by FAA. Without that change, there will only be grudging, limited compliance with the best designed legislation reforms. If, on the other hand, there is a change in attitude, FAA can use its existing authority to make most of the improvements that are needed. Madam Speaker, on April 3, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing that detailed major shortcomings in the FAA's safety oversight of the aviation industry. Our investigation found that one air carrier, with FAA complicity, had allowed at least 117 of its aircraft to fly with passengers in violation of Federal Aviation Regulations, amounting to the most serious lapse in safety I have been aware of at the FAA in the past 23 years. Our investigations led to the discovery of other instances in which inspections were not properly conducted or repairs were not properly made. To ensure safety, it was necessary to ground several hundred airplanes for inspections, resulting in thousands of cancelled flights, and raising serious questions about whether high-ranking officials in the FAA are carrying out their safety responsibilities for the entire industry. Since that April 3 hearing, our investigative staff has been contacted by many other individuals alleging serious breakdowns in FAA's regulatory oversight. As a result of our hearing, it was clear to me and many of my colleagues that FAA needed to rethink its relationship with the airlines and the other aviation entities that it regulates and be more active in enforcing regulations. There has been a pendulum swing at FAA, away from vigorous enforcement of safety regulations towards a carrier-favorable cozy relationship. That opinion is shared by the DOT IG, as well. On June 30, 2008, the DOT IG issued a report, Review of FAA's Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs, noting that it had made several recommendations to the FAA to strengthen its national oversight of air carrier safety. Importantly, the DOT IG recommended that the FAA periodically rotate its flight standards safety inspectors and establish an independent investigative organization to examine safety issues identified by FAA employees. In its response to the DOT IG recommendations, the FAA stated that it did not concur with the recommendation to rotate inspectors and only partially agreed to implement the recommendation to establish an independent organization to investigate FAA employee complaints. On employee complaints, the FAA's response has been to implement a Safety Issues Report System, SIRS. This process largely duplicates existing hot-lines and does not provide for an independent review outside of FAA's Aviation Safety Organization, which has a long record of not responding adequately to complaints. I find the FAA's response to this very important recommendation to be wholly inadequate. As the DOT IG aptly stated in its safety report: FAA's response is unacceptable. Although FAA stated that it partially agreed with our recommendation, the actions taken do not demonstrate a commitment on FAA's part to address the root causes of the issues we identified. Our work at SWA and NWA identified serious weaknesses in FAA's process for conducting internal reviews, ensuring corrective actions, and protecting employees who report safety concerns. In our view, SIRS merely adds one more process to an already existing internal reporting process within the Aviation Safety Organization that is unequivocally ineffective and possibly even biased against resolving root causes of serious safety lapses. The FAA's refusal to embrace the DOT IG's recommendation in this regard demonstrates a ``business as usual'' approach to safety. In addition, many FAA aviation safety inspectors have subsequently contacted our Committee and provided evidence of retaliation against them by their local FAA management when they attempt to elevate safety concerns to higher levels of management. FAA is reluctant to investigate whistleblower concerns. The FAA management responsible for safety appears to face an inherent conflict-of-interest when faced with charges of failure in regulatory oversight. That is why this bill creates an independent Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office within the FAA, but independent of the Aviation Safety Organization. The Director of the new Office would be charged with receiving safety complaints and information submitted by both FAA employees and employees of certificated entities, investigating them, and then recommending appropriate corrective actions to the FAA. The FAA is directed to respond to the Director's recommendations in writing, including details of any corrective actions taken. Importantly, the bill ensures the Director's independence and protects the identities of employees providing safety information. In addition, the bill addresses the DOT IG's recommendation to periodically rotate supervisory inspectors to ensure objective FAA air carrier oversight. FAA has not been willing to implement this recommendation. This bill would require that the FAA rotate principal maintenance inspectors between airline oversight offices every 5 years. This will serve as at least a partial countermeasure to ensure that a ``cozy relationship'' does not develop between the regulators and the regulated. In addition, the bill would establish a 2-year ``post- service'' cooling off period for FAA inspectors and supervisors before they are allowed to go to work for the airlines they have been overseeing. During our April 3 hearing, I was shocked to learn that in its mission statement for aviation safety, FAA has a ``vision'' of ``being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public.'' This suggests that FAA regards the airlines and other companies it regulates as its ``customers.'' This approach is seriously misguided. The ``customers'' of FAA safety programs are the persons who fly on the airplanes FAA regulates. FAA's bedrock responsibility is to ensure that these ``customers'' travel safely. To ensure that passengers remain FAA's number one ``customer,'' the bill directs the FAA to modify its customer service initiative, mission and vision statements to remove references to air carriers or other entities regulated by the Agency as ``customers'' and to clearly state that in regulating safety the only ``customer'' of the Agency is the American traveling public. Madam Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence in the recommendations, findings and statements of the DOT IG, the Office of Special Counsel, and the very brave FAA whistleblowers that brought these critical safety lapses to our attention that change is sorely needed at the FAA to improve safety. This bill provides a critical first step. We must prod the FAA to again make safety the number one priority and to keep the American public safely flying. Madam Speaker, this bill is just a start. It will not address all of the issues, because to do so will require substantial leadership and cultural change within the FAA. However, it is meant to serve notice upon FAA that we will not continue to tolerate the lax environment that has been allowed to develop over the last few years. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of passage of S. 3145, which designates a portion of U.S. Route 20A in Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Timothy J. Russert Highway''. This highway, which leads to Ralph Wilson Stadium--home of the Buffalo Bills, is a fitting tribute after Tim Russert. A native of Buffalo, Mr. Russert will be best remembered for his integrity and his tenacious yet fair approach to his interviews as moderator on NBC's ``Meet the Press''. Tim Russert began his career in 1977 as a key advisor for two of the leading elected officials and policymakers of their time, United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and New York Governor Mario Cuomo. In 1984, Russert joined NBC and quickly became one of the Nation's leading journalists and political analysts, serving as NBC's Washington Bureau Chief and host of ``Meet the Press''. Throughout his career in journalism, Russert received 48 honorary doctorates and several awards for excellence in journalism, including an Emmy Award, the Radio and Television Correspondents' Joan S. Barone Award, the Annenberg Center's Walter Cronkite Award, and the Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Television Journalism. Tim Russert also became a bestselling author, with the publication of his autobiography, Big Russ and Me, which chronicled his life growing up in South Buffalo and the lessons that he learned from his father. He also authored The Wisdom of Our Fathers. What many may not know about Tim Russert is the work he did on behalf of numerous charities, which included serving on the board of directors for the Greater Washington Boys and Girls Club and America's Promise- Alliance for Youth. Tim Russert will also be remembered as a proud native son of Buffalo, New York, and his passion for his hometown football team the Buffalo Bills is legendary. It is a fitting tribute to Tim Russert that Buffalo Bills' fans will drive down the ``Timothy J. Russert Highway'' as they approach Ralph Wilson Stadium. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) for bringing this legislation before the House and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 3145.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 496, as amended, a bipartisan bill to improve the programs authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-4) and reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission (``ARC'') for 5 years through fiscal year 2012. The Appalachian Regional Commission was created to address economic issues and social problems of the Appalachian region as a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society program. Historically, the Appalachian region has faced high levels of poverty and economic distress resulting from geographic isolation and inadequate infrastructure. As a regional economic development agency, the ARC supports the development of Appalachia's economy and critical infrastructure to provide a climate for industry growth and job creation in 13 States, including all of West Virginia, and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Appalachian region covers nearly 200,000 square miles and contains nearly 23 million people. Currently, of the 410 counties included in the ARC, 78 are economically distressed counties and an additional 78 counties are classified as ``at-risk''. Since its creation in 1965, the ARC has administered a variety of programs to aid in the advancement of the region, including construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System, enhancements in education and job training, and the development of water and sewer systems. The ARC's funding and projects have contributed significantly to employment, health, and general economic development improvements in the region. According to research conducted by Brandow Co. and the Economic Development Research Group, three fourths of ARC infrastructure projects with specific business or job- related goals met or exceeded formal projections. S. 496 builds upon more than four decades of economic development successes by providing additional, much-needed Federal investment in the region. It authorizes $510 million over the 5-year period through fiscal years 2012. In addition, the bill provides authority for the Commission to make technical assistance grants for energy efficient projects or projects to increase the use of renewable energy resources. The bill authorizes $65 million for the ARC to provide grants to promote energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy in Appalachia. This energy efficiency authorization is an outgrowth of the ARC's Energizing Appalachia report and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space) for working to include this provision in the House bill and this House- Senate compromise bill. The gentleman is a true champion of Appalachia and I thank him for his efforts to move this bill forward. ARC's authorization expired at the end of fiscal year 2006. This bill includes the anti-earmarking provision that I have insisted upon for the last three years in response to the Republican-led earmarking of ARC projects by the Committee on Appropriations. I am encouraged that the Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of Chairman Obey and Chairman Visclosky, has halted this practice. This provision will ensure that a future Congress doesn't restart it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this House-Senate bipartisan compromise bill, S. 496, to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

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, H.R. 802.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I smile because it's a delight to call the gentleman Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of H.R. 802, as amended, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I introduced this legislation at the outset of the 110th Congress to provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency with the legal authority they need to implement Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The House passed H.R. 802 on March 26, 2007, by a vote of 359-48. Notwithstanding that overwhelming vote of approval, the bill languished in the place we affectionately call the other body for more than a year. But recently they have passed, with minor changes, that legislation. With House passage today, the bill can go to the President for consideration and for his signature. Global warming is a critical issue, not just for the United States, but for every Nation, for every person on the planet. The international maritime community has recognized their contribution to global warming and to ocean pollution and have developed an international convention to address air pollutants from diesel ships. For many years, the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations has been developing international standards to prevent pollution from ships that traverse the oceans. Those standards are now embodied in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. The U.S. has implemented these environmental laws by enacting and amending the legislation known as the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and when I served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, much of whose jurisdiction has now been absorbed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we worked on early versions of those amendments and environmental laws to implement and amend the APPS. Annex VI of the Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships limits the discharge of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel engines; it governs the sulfur content of marine diesel fuel; prohibits the emission of ozone-depleting substances; it regulates the emission of volatile organic compounds in the transfer of cargoes between tankers and terminals. It sets standards for shipboard incinerators and fuel oil quality; and it establishes requirements for platforms and drill rigs at sea. The Senate ratified this treaty by unanimous consent in April, 2006. But it doesn't go into effect until we enact implementing legislation. The bill we consider today will implement Annex VI of the convention. It will provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency the authority necessary to develop U.S. standards and to enforce those standards on the thousands of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. waters. Recognizing the challenge that the world faces in combating worldwide climate change and global warming, we have to take every measure possible to contain and then reduce rising temperatures on this planet, and particularly the oceans that are deep reservoirs of oxygen but also reservoirs of carbon and of the acid that we are pouring into the atmosphere. And that combination of absorbing heat, acid, and carbon is having deleterious effects on the Nation's world coral reefs. There was a very enlightening program on this devastation of the coral reefs on the Science Channel just the other evening. It is something that I witnessed myself when I lived in Haiti and did snorkeling and exploring of the coral reefs. This was in the 1950s. You could see the dead reefs on the one side, and the vibrant, growing coral reefs and the abundance of life on those coral reefs, filtering out deleterious elements in the ocean water. But on the other side, the dead reef and a testament to the effects of pollution in our waters. And that was 50 years ago. So the Senate amendments do not affect the application of MARPOL VI to the thousands of vessels that enter our ports. Their amendment clarifies that the United States can enforce MARPOL VI on vessels that are registered in countries which are not party to the convention when those vessels are in our 200 mile economic zone if the Coast Guard is on board of the vessel to enforce other annexes to the convention and to the extent that this enforcement does not violate international law. In addition, the Senate amendment clarifies that an individual, a person, may bring a civil action if the Administrator of EPA has failed to perform any act or duty not discretionary under the act, and that is similar to civil action that may be brought under other provisions of law on application of other annexes to the convention. The delay by the Senate, I regret, may have near term unfortunate consequences for the United States in the IMO negotiations that will take place this coming October to reduce emissions from ships. Under the terms of the convention, only parties to the convention may vote on those reduction measures, and a nation is not party to the convention until 90 days after its instruments of ratification have been deposited with the IMO. The Senate delay means we may not meet that deadline and the U.S. may not be able to vote to improve increased standards, even though delegates representing the United States chaired the working group that met over many sessions to negotiate these new, more rigorous standards. So, given the importance of completing action on this legislation, I asked our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to schedule this bill as quickly as possible immediately upon the House's return to session today. I thank the majority leader for his consideration, and I am hopeful we get the bill to the President's desk without delay. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank our chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, who has devoted a great deal of energy to the work of the subcommittee and to this particular issue in developing this legislation, and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of our committee, for his cooperation and support in moving the bill last year and expediting today's action considering the bill, and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), ever the thoughtful, considerate, legal expert of the committee. I am grateful for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of the Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs Subcommittee, my good friend, the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank the gentleman for that promotion, I think. But I most sincerely thank him for his comments on the work of our committee and for his partnership in shaping that success story that we have enjoyed and in partnership with Mr. Mica as well. It is representative of the historical tradition of the committee to work in a bipartisan spirit. Perhaps it is so because of the nature of our committee jurisdiction, as the gentleman has suggested in his comments. Indeed, as of the recess for Fourth of July, we had passed the 110th bill on that Thursday of the 110th Congress, the 110th bill from our committee, 64 of which have become public law or concurrent resolutions or House resolutions that were self-implementing; and that last measure, the 110th, was indeed to address the energy issue, to provide funding for transit and flexibility for transit authorities. And another bill that we passed by 311-104 was for the future of Amtrak, a bill that is now in House-Senate conference, and which I am confident we will bring to the House floor before the August recess to give Amtrak a new breath of life, incorporating some very significant Republican concepts and contributions that I think are important for the future of Amtrak. We did not operate in the committee on the principle of a majority of the majority, but rather on the principle of the best ideas that we could marshal and muster together and shape legislation that is beneficial for the future. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).