James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million. The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that mistake. Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill. We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over years of use. Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and continue their maintenance. Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies to respond to their current needs. I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local communities in the education and promotion of public transportation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his time?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr. Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses. We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes. The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters, and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting from the report. States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services. Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the gentleman. In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to help the environment, and to serve the public need. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do the same thing. I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26 House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, in its present form.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly'' and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''

Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now proposed. If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that language immediately back to the House.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion, and this is a sham motion. Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the Congress, which the gentleman fully understands. The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title 23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before us. Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill. Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 6052, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, July 9, 2008.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6327. This legislation provides a three-month extension of aviation programs and taxes, through September 30, 2008. Without this extension, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, will face a partial shut-down beginning next week, on July 1, 2008. The previous authorization for aviation programs--the ``Vision 100-- Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act''--expired on September 30, 2007. On September 20, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2881, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' to reauthorize FAA programs for fiscal yeas 2008-2011. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to act on this or any other long- term FAA reauthorization bill. I strongly urge the other body to bring their reauthorization bill to the floor, so we can go to conference and pass a long-term reauthorization of aviation programs. In the meantime, the three-month extension before us today is urgently needed. H.R. 6327 extends the aviation excise taxes through September 30, 2008. These taxes are necessary to support the Aviation Trust Fund, which in recent years has provided about 80 percent of the FAA's budget. With an uncommitted cash balance of just $1.5 billion at the start of this fiscal year, any lapse in the aviation taxes could put the solvency of the Aviation Trust Fund at risk. In addition to extending the aviation taxes, H.R. 6327 extends the FAA's authority to make expenditures from the Aviation Trust Fund. Without this authority, the FAA will face a partial shut-down beginning July 1st, as it will be unable to pay approximately 4,000 employees whose salaries are funded entirely by the Aviation Trust Fund. H.R. 6327 also provides an additional $919 million in contract authority for the Airport Improvement Program, AIP. Together with the $2.756 billion provided under the previous short-term extension, this results in a total of $3.675 billion in contract authority for the AIP program in FY 2008. This will enable airports to move forward with important safety and capacity projects. To allow aviation programs to continue under the same terms and conditions as were in effect during the previous authorization period, H.R. 6327 also extends several other provisions of Vision 100. I thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery of the Committee on Ways and Means for their, assistance in ensuring the continued operation of aviation programs. I also thank my Committee colleagues, Ranking Member Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Costello, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Petri, for working with me on this critical legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6327.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6040, a bill to make a technical correction to a Water Resources and Development Act of 2007 provision authorizing the Secretary of the Army, acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to establish a Committee on Levee Safety. Title IX of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorizes the Corps to establish a committee of Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector experts on levee safety to develop recommendations for a national levee safety program. As the events of the last few years have clearly demonstrated, there is a serious concern with the condition of the Nation's primary structural flood control measures--the Nation's system of levees. These structures, which range from the Federally constructed and maintained levees along the lower Mississippi River and tributaries, to Federal, State, and local levees nationwide, protect our lives and livelihoods from the risks of flooding. Within the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers alone, there are between 12,000 to 13,000 miles of levees protecting everything from major metropolitan cities to towns and townships throughout the nation. Without a doubt, the health, safety, and security of countless lives depend on the resiliency and upkeep of these essential structures. We have all witnessed the result of levee failure. Just 2 years ago, the flood walls surrounding three of the canals within the city of New Orleans failed, and the result was a major metropolitan city being underwater for days. Many of the communities impacted by this failure are still struggling today. Just this past month, we watched as the rivers of the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries overfilled their banks and resulted in the unfortunate loss of life, as well as thousands of families losing their homes, their cars, and their businesses to the raging waters of the Mississippi River. Cognizant of the importance of the Nation's system of levees, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure included a provision within the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to create a Committee on Levee Safety that would be tasked with developing recommendations for a national levee safety program. The Secretary of the Army will establish the committee, and it will develop short-term recommendations to Congress for the creation of an effective and efficient National Levee Safety Program. The House and Senate conferees on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 agreed on the importance of soliciting the recommendations of the Nation's leading experts in levee safety to aid in the drafting of a future National Levee Safety Program. The recommendations made by the committee on Levee Safety will be reported to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the Corps has been working toward the creation of this committee, including the identification of a broad array of experts in levee safety. Unfortunately, the Corps believes it has hit a roadblock due to the specific wording of the authorization language that has prevented the Corps from utilizing available funding to pay for the travel expenses of the committee members. H.R. 6040 is a simple modification to the existing authorization language to ensure that the Corps can utilize already identified funding to pay these expenses so that the Committee on Levee Safety can formally be assembled and begin its important work. I applaud my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ranking Member Mica, and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Congressman Boozman, for sponsoring this legislation. It is my hope that the other body can quickly move this legislation to the President's desk, so that the Committee on Levee Safety can begin its important work later this summer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I want to compliment Chairwoman Norton for the splendid work she has done chairing the subcommittee, holding hours of hearings on the Pre- Disaster Mitigation program and on various aspects of FEMA's programs that have unfolded in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. She has rendered enormous service to the country, to the people of flood prone, disaster prone areas of the country through these hearings and done a superb job. And to Mr. Graves, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Mica who has fully participated in the shaping of this legislation. It is truly a bipartisan initiative, but one that goes back a very long time. It was in 1988, then the Committee on Public Works and Transportation authorized FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Program. We thought then this was a very important initiative to provide grants to communities so that they could put in place initiatives, whether structures or nonstructural approaches to protecting communities and individuals, businesses, residences against the hazards of flood, tornado, hurricane and, in our northern tier, excessive snowfall. The idea was to build better after a disaster and be better prepared for the next time around. But that idea evolved over time, and it was in the mid 1990s that then James Lee Witt, the administrator of FEMA, conceived the idea of taking hazard mitigation a step further to pre- disaster mitigation. He called it Project Impact. He came up to the committee, now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to meet with then Chairman Bud Shuster and me as the ranking member to discuss Project Impact, saying that we can save money, as the gentlewoman, the minority leader for this afternoon, has indicated, that we can save money by protecting against what we know will be hazards, disasters happening in the future. And so the committee crafted in 2000 the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program in our FEMA disaster Hazard Mitigation Program. Out of that program was allocated to the City of Seattle $50 million to strengthen structures in the city against the possibility of earthquake. The city invested some $50 million in strengthening public structures, public buildings, public roadways, and private structures as well. And then they had an earthquake. After the effects of the earthquake had been analyzed, FEMA estimated that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation investments saved $500 million in what would have been damaged public and private structures alike, ten-fold the value of the investment. The program then was further extended as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continued its work. I remember subsequent Chairman Don Young saying so often: Yes, we have to be prepared. FEMA is in the Department of Homeland Security and has to be part of protecting against the security threat to the United States. We don't know when it will come. We know that we have to be prepared. But we do know that every year, said Chairman Young, there are going to be hurricanes, there is going to be a flood, there is going to be whiteouts, there is going to be an earthquake, and we need to continue this program. So with bipartisan support, we have extended the program. In the aftermath, one of the best examples was the town of Valmeyer, Illinois, devastated in the 1993 Mississippi River flood. For $45 million in Federal, State, and local funding and Pre-Disaster Mitigation, the town was simply relocated to bluffs 400 feet above the site of the former town. This year, as the Mississippi overflowed its banks in many places along its course from southern Minnesota through Iowa, the Chicago Tribune ran a story entitled, ``Valmeyer, Illinois, Soaked in '93, Town Now High and Dry.'' Quoting a resident, Eleanor Anderson, 86 years old, home destroyed in the 1993 flood, said, ``I am sure glad I don't have to worry now that we are high enough here on the hill.'' That is a reasonable investment of public funds. Story County, Iowa, in 1990, 1993 and 1996, homes were flooded out. Finally, in 1996, with Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funds, those six homes were bought out and moved out. And in 1998 when the floods struck, FEMA estimated that the Federal and State and local governments saved $541,900 in what would have been damages to restore those homes. In my own district, in 1999, on the eve of July 4, on July 3, straight-line winds called a derecho of 100 miles an hour in a swath 15 miles wide swept through the Superior National Forest, the Boundary Waters Canoe area on the U.S.-Canadian border, and blew down 26 million trees, 3 years' worth of timber harvest for the whole State of Minnesota, creating an enormous hazard for fire to local residents. In the area outside of the wilderness, trees had to be subjected to salvage logging to clear out a way from homes, from resorts, and from outfitter buildings. Following up, FEMA came to the area and said, with Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds, we propose a 75/25 participation to install sprinkler systems around all the homes and all the businesses in the Gunflint Trail area to protect against the potential, the very real potential of future fire. Almost every resident and business participated in the program, and about 96 percent of the people maintained their sprinkler systems. Then last year, in April of 2007, a fire broke out. Careless campers left the site of their camping and a wind came up and blew it into what eventually became a 75,000 acre fire. The homes that had the sprinkler systems, the buildings that were protected with the sprinkler systems were unscathed. Those that weren't, 147 of them, burned. Pre-Disaster Mitigation saves lives, saves property, saves costs. It is a sound investment in the future. We have authorized in this legislation the program for an additional 3 years at $250 million each for fiscal 2009 through 2011. The chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has outlined all of the specifics of the bill; I need not go into them. I simply speak to reinforce the specific examples the benefits of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. It is a sound investment in the future of this country for all of us as we are subjected to increasing amounts of disaster from natural causes.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5001, a bill to direct the redevelopment of the Old Post Office Building, which is not only a landmark in the Nation's capital, but a jewel of ``America's Main Street,'' Pennsylvania Avenue. I commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for introducing this legislation and for her work on this issue as Chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. Completed in 1899, the Old Post Office building was intended to be the U.S. Post Office Department Headquarters building as well as the city's main post office. The Old Post Office building was awarded a place on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. This Romanesque building is the second tallest structure and one of the first steel-frame buildings in the District of Columbia. Despite the magnificence of this building and its extraordinary location, it has been difficult to develop this building to its fullest potential. A renovation of the Old Post Office began in 1977 as part of the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1982, the General Services Administration, GSA, entered into a 55-year lease with a private sector developer to lease and operate the Old Post Office building. The building was renovated as a multifunctional building that included office space, retail, and a food court. Unfortunately, this redevelopment effort was not successful because of high turnover among the retail businesses and low satisfaction among tenants. The original developer went into bankruptcy and the lender foreclosed on the leasehold. Today, the Old Post Office building is an aging historical building that is inefficient, underutilized, and a financial drain on the Federal Building Fund. The building's large atrium and other factors contribute to the high costs of operating and maintaining the building. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has provided oversight and direction to GSA previously in attempts to foster the development of the Old Post Office, including requiring that GSA submit a viable development plan for the Old Post Office before any Federal funds be used to convert the space. Notwithstanding these efforts, the desired development has not occurred. H.R. 5001, the ``Old Post Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008'', authorizes the Administrator of General Services to enter into an agreement to redevelop the Old Post Office Building in a manner that is beneficial to the Federal Government. This bill will not only help spur the redevelopment of this building but also help ensure that the taxpayers get the fullest return from this historic and treasured structure. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 5001, the ``Old Post Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2452, the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act''. Let me begin by congratulating our Committee colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), for introducing legislation to provide common-sense standards for public notification of both combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. This well-thought-out legislation will be a welcome addition to Federal efforts in protecting public health as well as the natural environment. The most reliable way to prevent human illness from waterborne diseases and pathogens is to eliminate the potential for human exposure to the discharge of pollutants from combined sewer overflows (``CSOs'') and sanitary sewer overflows (''SSOs''). This can occur either through the elimination of the discharge, or, in the event that a release does occur, to minimize the potential human contact to pollutants. Unfortunately, Federal law does not provide uniform, national standards for public notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Notification of sewer overflows is covered only by a patchwork of Federal regulations, State laws, and local initiatives aimed at limiting human exposure to discharges. Potential human exposure to the pollutants found in sewer overflows can occur in a variety of ways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'), the most common pathways include direct contact with sewer discharges in recreational waters and beaches, drinking water contaminated by sewer discharges, and consuming or handling contaminated fish or shellfish. However, humans are also at risk of direct exposure to sewer overflows, including sewer backups into residential buildings, city streets, and sidewalks. In October 2007, in my own Congressional district, basements and city streets across the city of Duluth were flooded with sewer overflows that resulted from massive rainstorms in the Lake Superior basin. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary Sewer District reported at least seven major sewage overflows in its service area, with reports of numerous additional backups into local streets and basements. Similarly, earlier this month, heavy rains in the Midwest and flooding along the Mississippi River system resulted in a significant overload to the sewer systems and treatment works, and resulted in the release of untold gallons of untreated or partially treated sewage into the homes and street of communities along the Mississippi River system. As families are starting to return to their homes, they are in need of information on any health risks from coming into contact with potentially contaminated waters. The cost of eliminating CSOs and SSOs throughout the nation is staggering. In its most recent Clean Water Needs Survey (2000), EPA estimated the future capital needs to address existing CSOs at $50.6 billion. In addition, EPA estimates that it would require an additional $88.5 billion in capital improvements to reduce the frequency of SSOs caused by wet weather and other conditions. Upon being elected Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I made it a priority to renew the Federal commitment in addressing the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs. In March 2007, the House approved two bills reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--H.R. 720, the ``Water Quality Financing Act'', and H.R. 569, the ``Water Quality Investment Act''--to reauthorize appropriations for the construction, repair, and rehabilitation of wastewater infrastructure, including measures to address CSOs and SSOs. H.R. 720 authorizes appropriations of $14 billion over four years for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is the primary source of Federal funds for wastewater infrastructure. H.R. 569 authorizes appropriations of $1.7 billion in Federal grants over 5 years to address combined sewers and sanitary sewers. Both bills are pending before the United States Senate. However, even with significant increases in Federal, State, and local investment, it is likely that sewer overflows will continue. In the event that a release does occur, the most effective way to prevent illness is to provide timely and adequate public notice to minimize human exposure to pollutants. H.R. 2452, the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act'', amends the Clean Water Act to provide a uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer overflows. This legislation, which was approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote, will strengthen the monitoring and public notification requirements of the Clean Water Act to encourage increased awareness and public notification of overflows in an expeditious manner. The bill under consideration this afternoon is a slightly modified version of this legislation as reported by the Committee. The bill, as amended, makes a few technical and clarifying changes to the bill, as well as addresses a few transitional issues on the implementation of this Act. The framework of this amendment was developed jointly by the majority and minority Members of the Committee, it consultation with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and American Rivers. I appreciate the hard work by all parties to help move this common-sense legislation to increase public awareness of combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. Again, I applaud Mr. Bishop for introducing this common-sense legislation to ensure that our citizens are made aware of the potential public health threats caused by sewer overflows. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2452.