James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to start by thanking the Chair and the Parliamentarian for clarification of a rule of the House that somehow escaped my understanding, and it was interesting to have that explanation. I apologize to the gentleman from Ohio if we had some missteps even to the advantage of the committee. Of course, I support the amendment, as I said at the outset. It's a study and report amendment to provide a critical assessment of how much the Coast Guard has done to establish standards for State and local law enforcement units that perform maritime patrols and the extent to which law enforcement can meet those standards. I think it's useful to have that information. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. I think we got away with one for a while. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Certainly it's our intention to protect the resources of the Coast Guard. We will work to assure that when a bill emerges from conference that there will be sufficient change, that we will not elevate one mission above any other critical Coast Guard mission. And as further clarification, it was simply a request from NTSB that at least for 1 year we transfer adequate funds to start off. So the legislation limits that transfer of dollars to 1 year, and we will work to assure the strengthening of that language to make sure that that's only for 1 year. And then in the meantime, as I said in an earlier discussion on this matter, we will go to the Appropriations Committee, I hope in a bipartisan effort, to ask them to provide sufficient additional funding for the Coast Guard to continue to carry out its missions.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is certainly not our intent to elevate marine safety. Marine safety is one of several functions of the Coast Guard. But as I said in earlier debates, when Mr. Young, then chairman of the committee, and I were at the White House at the earliest stages of creating the Department of Homeland Security, we raised this issue at the White House and said, You're not making clear enough distinction between the homeland security role of the Coast Guard and the other functions, search and rescue, marine safety, aid in navigation, and so on. So we're now providing that clear delineation, assuring there are adequate resources, providing additional personnel to the Coast Guard, the first really substantial increase in Coast Guard personnel since I came to Congress in 1975. And I'm really insistent on this, that we do not elevate above that but that we clearly delineate the marine safety function of the Coast Guard.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for offering this amendment. It does indeed correct a technical mistake and oversight in drafting the bill. There should have been a cross-reference as we inserted one provision in the bill so that the interlake transfer of ballast water would have been covered. Unfortunately, it was an oversight that the legislative counsel did not catch in time, and our committee staff found it after the manager's amendment had been already presented. So through the vigilance of the gentleman from Illinois and his concern for interlake transfer, we certainly accept this provision. I am very happy to report that not only did we deal with invasive species in the WRDA bill, but also in this Coast Guard bill. It is the first time we have enforcement language on invasive species and interlake transfer. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) said earlier today, this is a bad day for invasive species. This is another bad moment for invasive species. I also want to mention that either next week or the following week I have a meeting, the subject of which I have already discussed with Mr. LaTourette, with one of our major interlake shipping companies and other entities to put in place this shipping season a control pilot program for ballast water for lakers. The lakers present a more complicated challenge on ballast water exchange because they have four or five times as many ballast chambers as do the salties coming into the Great Lakes, and dealing with the volume of water and the number of ballast chambers and the treatment technology, it becomes much more complicated for interlake shipping. We are going to address that this summer. We are going to put in place a pilot program and explore all of the treatment methodologies and equipment and chemicals and how to treat those chemicals before they are again discharged back into the waters of the Great Lakes. And the viral hemorrhagic septicemia issue is chief among those. I think science still doesn't know how to address it. But it and other such assaults upon this one-fifth of all the fresh water upon the face of the Earth is vital. We make an assault upon it in this legislation, and we are determined to follow it through. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentlewoman for offering the amendment and her deep concern, which we share on the committee, for those maritime workers. Madam Chairman, 230,000 applied and 64,000 have actually received their cards. There is a bottleneck at TSA principally in printing out those cards, and the amendment just provides a margin of safety and a time to accomplish the objective. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment is very limited in nature, very specific, to deal with the transfer of property that will not take place until the Coast Guard has relocated the station at facilities that are yet to be built. It will also not take place until environmental cleanup has occurred on the existing site. And that is important. The commandant has determined that retention of property is not required to carry out any other Coast Guard mission. So protection for the Coast Guard, protection for the City and the cleanup provisions, and it is a very beneficial amendment. I want to address another matter, the concern of the gentleman from Michigan about the transfer of excess property to the Christian Cornerstone Academy, a land transfer that is supported by the Coast Guard, by the Academy, and the community of Sheboygan. We had already filed the manager's amendment at the time that this issue came to the attention of the gentleman from Michigan, and it was not possible to include that in the manager's amendment nor in the amendments considered by the Rules Committee. But I do want to assure the gentleman that we will work to accomplish the purposes of this land transfer as we get into conference with the other body. Or, should such language be included by the other body in their version of the Coast Guard, which is now working its way to the floor of the other body, that we should expect to meet in conference and recognize the special needs in this matter. The Coast Guard executed a 10-year, no cost lease for the construction of the Cornerstone Christian Academy in Sheboygan. The lease has been renegotiated to fair market value. The Coast Guard has deemed 6 acres of the property as excess, if I have described the matter rightly. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I share the gentleman's concern for adequate icebreaking capability on the Great Lakes. We have the new icebreaker Mackinaw. The Coast Guard has smaller harbor icebreakers. But they simply are not sufficient to keep channels open. This past shipping season, the Coast Guard failed to send the Mackinaw upstream, up lake, to keep channels open for shipping of iron ore to lower lake steel mills. I assure the gentleman, I will work diligently with the Coast Guard to keep their attention focused on our needs for icebreaking capability on the Great Lakes. On the Chesapeake Bay, I said to the chairman of the subcommittee, you don't have that problem. It doesn't freeze over.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2830, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I support the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week. National Public Works Week is celebrated for a full week each May to celebrate our public works professionals and the important work they do to keep our country running smoothly. May 18 through 24, 2008 will recognize the many duties that public works professionals--those who design, build, operate, maintain and protect transportation systems, water supply infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities--perform to enhance communities and our Nation. Public works keep our society functioning: providing buildings that house vital government offices, and giving our country rail, highways, airports, and public transit to move goods and passengers. Similarly, public works help maintain public health: Providing systems for waste and sewage disposal, while supplying us with crucial water for our homes, businesses, and agriculture. Pipelines safely transport natural gas and hazardous liquids through 2,300,000 miles of pipelines throughout the country. Many people take for granted our public works, recognizing their importance only when problems are encountered. When water supply is not efficient, when infrastructure crumbles, and when accidents in moving transportation occur, we are then forced to reflect on what needs to be invested in the larger public works sector of our economy. The ``2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance'' report by the Department of Transportation confirms that investment in the Nation's highway, bridge, and transit infrastructure has not kept up with the growing demands of the system. Likewise, our country is in need of critical investment in water infrastructure. It was more than 1 year ago, at the beginning of the 110th Congress, that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed three key water infrastructure bills: H.R. 569, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007; H.R. 700, the Health Communities Water Supply Act of 2007; and H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. These bills later overwhelmingly passed the House, and we continue to wait for our counterparts in the Senate to take similar action. I strongly support investment in our Nation's infrastructure, as well as the men and women who keep our public works, quite simply, working.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. This amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the Beach Protection Act, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. These changes further improve the underlying bill, and will greatly assist in providing the public with clearer, quicker, and hopefully, more accurate information on the quality of our Nation's coastal recreational waters. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to reach agreement within the Committee on establishing a hard deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency to complete its evaluation and validation of a rapid testing methodology for testing coastal recreation waters. As recognized by the sponsors of this legislation, we need to move away from two-to-three day delays in obtaining information on the quality of our waters, and towards real-time, same-day information. It does no one any good to know that the waters were unsafe for swimming yesterday--yesterday is too late. We want to know what the conditions of waters are today--before we decide to take ourselves and our families to the beach for the day. This amendment will move us in the direction of providing same-day information on the condition of our recreational waters, and give our citizens the option of avoiding contact with waters that could be potentially harmful to their health. The Manager's amendment was developed jointly by the majority and minority staffs of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment, and urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. This amendment furthers the overall goals of the BEACH Act in providing the public with greater amounts of information on the quality of their favorite beach locations, including any potential sources of contamination that may make these beaches unsafe for swimming. The gentleman's amendment would require States and local governments that choose to implement contaminant source identification and tracking programs to ensure that any information gathered on potential sources of contamination be made public. Since, I would surmise, that many potential sources of contamination of coastal recreation waters come from failing wastewater or stormwater infrastructure systems, this increased public awareness on their location and relevance in protecting water quality is important. I have often heard it said that ``out of sight'' means ``out of mind.'' This is especially true of the deplorable condition of our Nation's wastewater treatment infrastructure. By providing the public with direct links between the source of the contamination, and the real world implications of potential infrastructure failure, I only hope that we will rekindle interest in reinvesting in our Nation's infrastructure. This amendment provides yet another avenue for increasing public awareness and pressure on improving our infrastructure, and in turn, improving our overall environment and safeguards for human health. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Richardson. The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) was signed into law on October 10, 2000, as a means to reduce the risk of illness to users of the Nation's recreational waters. The BEACH Act requires states, tribes, and territories to identify their coastal recreation waters and to report on monitoring activities at those beaches. EPA compiled into a single list all of the information submitted by states and territories to EPA as of December 31, 2003. This National List of Beaches provides the only nationwide assessment of the extent of beach monitoring across the country. The requirements for EPA to create and periodically maintain this list were included as part of the BEACH Act to help EPA determine how to better implement the Act, and minimize the potential human health effects from coming into contact with contaminated waters. The National List of Beaches also provides information to the public about beaches in their state. Unfortunately, this important list has only once been published by EPA--in March of 2004. Since that time, we have little information on whether progress is being made towards full implementation of the BEACH Act. No additional nationwide assessments have been conducted to determine whether individual states or local governments are making improvements in the number and quality of local beach monitoring and notification programs. By requiring EPA to revise this list every two years, we will halve a better idea of the progress that is being made to safeguard public health, and ensure that a trip to the beach will not also result in a trip to the emergency room. I applaud the efforts of our Committee colleague, Ms. Richarson, for offering this amendment, and I strongly support its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressman Inslee's amendment to H.R. 2537, reauthorization of the BEACH Act. This amendment calls for a study of the long-term impacts of climate change on the pollution of coastal waters. At its center, the intent of the BEACH Act is to provide information and notification for the public with regard to the safety of the coastal waters they use for recreation. It is well-known that climate change may cause significant changes to ecosystems, hydrology, and water temperature. What we are unsure of, however, is the extent to which these changes will occur, and also--importantly--the effect this will have on public health. For example, if coastal water temperatures increase and freshwater inflows decrease, does this result in a more hospitable environment for pathogens in our coastal waters? Because the public--including children--are in direct contact with these waters, it is of the utmost importance that we have a better understanding of what a warming environment means for public health. The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee included a similar provision in last summer's energy bill. This program called for a National Academy of Science study to be conducted on the impacts of climate change on water quality, and subsequent ramifications of these changes on the Clean Water Act. While this provision did not survive conference, I am pleased that Mr. Inslee's amendment picks up in a similar vein. I call on other members to join me in supporting passage of this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach protection Act of 2008. This legislation, and the underlying statute that the Beach Protection Act amends, are vital to ensuring that the public is aware of, and protected from coming into contact with, potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants in our coastal recreational waters. I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and our colleague on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop, for shepherding this important legislation through the hearing process, through Committee markup, and to the floor of the House today. I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to the President's desk. The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30 million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards that were considered ``safe.'' In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last 8 years include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, and increased monitoring and notification of such waters. However, inasmuch as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing more information to the public, the Bush administration's track record on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to protect human health has been far less successful. For example, the EPA was given authority to promulgate standards for States that did not have sufficient standards as compared to those in the 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was given further direction to continue to study the impacts of waterborne pollutants and bacteria to human health, and to revise the criteria every five years as needed. Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches, and more recently, in a report of the Government Accountability Office (``GAO''). This GAO Report, entitled ``Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection,'' established that more work could be done to ensure the safety of our beach waters. Just this week, a Federal District Court judge in California ruled that EPA, again, violated its ``non-discretionary duty'' to complete required studies on revising coastal water quality criteria and standards. Even after losing a similar lawsuit in 2006, EPA continues to argue that the statute gives the Agency the discretion to ``conduct the studies as it sees fit.'' This is contrary to the law, and has once again been dismissed by the Federal District Court judge. Similarly, the Bush administration has failed to utilize the authorities and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public has the best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of their favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for a creation of a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the public with information on which beaches had in place monitoring and notification programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction to periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new information. I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the Nation's beaches. Again, the administration has failed to utilize the tools provided by Congress to ensure the protection of human health and safety. Despite the current administration's track record, the BEACH Act is an important law for protecting the public from the presence of harmful pollutants and contaminants in the Nation's recreational waters. The Beach Protection Act, under consideration today, will further enhance these authorities by working towards real-time, same-day information on the condition of local waters to safeguard against unintentional contact with contaminated waters. Again, I strongly support the efforts of our colleagues in drafting this important piece of legislation, and urge its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I'm surprised at the remarks, Madam Chairman, of the gentleman from Georgia, about bicycling. I think we need to pay more attention and do more work for bicycling. And we would all do better burning 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle than eight barrels of oil a year in our cars.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have sat here patiently and listened to a litany of speakers come here and address the Committee of the Whole on subjects important to them but irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. And one or another, maybe several of them, said ``this Democratic Beach bill.'' I just want to remind the colleagues that this is the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has labored for several years on behalf of this legislation. We finally move it through committee, bring it to the floor, and now it's laid on our doors to be the Democratic bill and why are we wasting the House time. We bring it under an open rule, and then someone said, you should have brought it on suspension. If we had brought it on suspension, they would have complained because they didn't have an opportunity to offer the eight amendments that they're bringing to the floor. I am just perplexed by this tactic. It's unworthy of the legislation pending. And we've worked hard to accommodate the gentleman from California who has a legitimate concern. I concur with his concern. We bring the bill out, and we do it in good faith, and we expect at least a good- faith response from the other side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the 109th Congress, we considered the reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. During consideration of the bill in committee, I proposed language to prohibit earmarks, which have been done time and again in the appropriation process, prohibit earmarks in the Appalachian Regional Commission appropriation process. The gentleman from Arizona supported my initiative, and I appreciated his support. It was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the committee did not include that language. When the bill came to the floor, I worked to defeat the bill because it did not have that prohibition on earmarks, and the gentleman from Arizona supported my initiative. In the BEACH bill, or the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, proposed by the gentleman from California, with whom I worked on this matter for a period of 6 or 7 years, both in his previous seating in Congress and during the time he was out of service in the Congress and when he returned, it's a good bill. The initial BEACH Act authorized $30 million. About $10 million has been appropriated each year. And the money goes out by formula to the States. There have never been earmarks. In the Appropriations Committee nor on the House floor have there ever been attempts to suballocate the funds. Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations based on a calculation of each State's varied beach monitoring and notification efforts. Now, we know very well that $10 million is insufficient, and because money is insufficient for a bill, that's often why, Madam Chairman, Members come with a proposal for an earmark to designate money so they are sure that their State or their beach or their city gets their, at least, perceived fair share of funding. But it's never been done on this legislation, and we don't need any such limitation language. I think we have a fair formula, a specific focus on the base cost of the States of developing, maintaining water quality monitoring, notification programs, the mileage of the beach, beach use, the length of the season, and other factors that the administrator of the agency determines to be appropriate. That is fair, and I think Members of this body and of the other body recognize that it's fair; so they haven't attempted to tinker with it, and we shouldn't do that in this bill. This is a good piece of legislation, a fair piece of legislation. Look, we bring this bill to the House floor under an open rule. It's one advocated by a Member from the other side, a Member for whom I have the highest personal regard, and then we have a succession of Members standing here complaining that we bring a bill to the floor under an open rule that should have been brought under suspension. If we had brought it under suspension, I suspect the same people would come to the floor, Madam Chairman, and complain that we didn't have an open rule. So we're trying to the do the right thing on the right piece of legislation, and we ought not to gimmick it with this proposal that is totally unnecessary for a limitation on earmarks. We ought not to adopt this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?