James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment eliminates all of Amtrak's capital and debt service grants but the $132 million that Amtrak receives from state and local agencies for capital improvements. This amendment is nothing more than a re-hash of the Bush Administration's numerous yet unsuccessful attempts to force Amtrak into bankruptcy. Let's be clear: This is a shut-down amendment. A shut-down of Amtrak will strand millions of rail passengers, disrupt commuter operations, add to our already congested roads and airports, eliminate well over 20,000 jobs nationwide, and jeopardize local economies and businesses that depend on Amtrak's service. The gentle lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) must know that without capital funding provided by the federal government, Amtrak won't be able to maintain its own rail network. Amtrak is then left with two choices: shut-down or jeopardize the safety of millions of Amtrak riders, passengers on the commuter railroads that operate along the Northeast Corridor, and the crewmembers of at least two freight railroads--Norfolk Southern and CSX, which rely upon Amtrak's infrastructure and dispatching services in the Corridor. Amtrak won't be able to replace any ties; fix any track, tunnels, or bridges; make station improvements; overhaul equipment; or invest in much-needed safety and security improvements. Further, the railroad won't be able to make any of the capital improvements necessary to make the 481 Amtrak-served stations, platforms, parking facilities, and other structures accessible to persons with disabilities, as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Funding for Amtrak's fleet plan would be decimated. The fleet, both locomotives and railcars, are the only means for Amtrak to provide service. If Amtrak's fleet can't be maintained, then Amtrak can't provide service--certainly not safe and reliable service. Right now, the average age of Amtrak's passenger car fleet is 25. The mainstay of the Amtrak fleet are 412 ``Amfleet I'' passenger cars commonly used on the Northeast Corridor; these cars were built between 1974 and 1977 and are presently beyond their assumed 30-year commercial life cycle. Amtrak's Heritage Equipment railcars were built as far back as 1948. Baggage cars, used on long distance trains, were built between 1950 and 1961. Dining cars, also used on long distance trains, were built between 1948 and 1958. The locomotive fleet fares no better. Amtrak's locomotives average 21 years of age. Based on the 20-year commercial life cycle of a locomotive, replacement locomotives are already overdue. Amtrak plans to overhaul its fleet and purchase new equipment over the next several years. Amtrak is already in discussions with General Electric to purchase new locomotives, and with other companies to purchase new rail cars and parts for maintenance for the existing fleet, which in turn will provide hundreds if not thousands of jobs for an entire industry (railway suppliers) that is rapidly declining in America. But without capital funding, that won't happen. No funding for capital means no jobs. According to the Association of American Railroads, if Amtrak shutdown, the freight rail industry would lose an estimated $5.3 billion over the next six years at a time when the freight railroads are just starting to recover from the economic crisis and bring people back to work. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. But more than that, thank you for persistent, vigorous and insightful and creative leadership you've given to the entire reauthorization of FAA, but especially to this particular safety issue. You've given your heart, your soul, your time, your energy; and we're now at a point of making an extraordinary difference in the history of aviation safety. Our Constitution has a unique provision, unlike that in any other constitution I'm aware of. It prescribes the right of the citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances. The families of the victims of the Colgan Continental express flight that crashed February 12 of last year have exercised that right with vigor, with persistence, with highmindedness. They know, as the families of all the victims of transportation tragedies, that they can't bring back the lives of those they loved, but they can do something to make sure it won't happen again to others. I've seen the tears in their eyes that reflect the pain in their hearts. I've experienced their determination never to give up. I've also stood at the site of the grim tragedy of the Mesaba Airlines commuter crash, only 6 miles from my home in Chisholm, Minnesota; the flight path toward the Chisholm Hibbing Airport in December 1993, where 19 people lost their lives because that aircraft didn't have a ground proximity warning system. It wasn't required for commuter airlines, because there was a mismatch between pilot and copilot, because there was an inadequacy of training on the one hand and a mismatch of personalities and of skills and of abilities to manage aircraft under unusual circumstances. I vowed to the families we would make a difference, Congress would act. And we were able to require the regional airlines to have ground proximity warning systems, regardless of the cost to the airlines. That's their problem. They can figure that out. And vowed to move to have more equitable management in the flight deck of matching of pilots and first officers. That was not as successful. Didn't have enough time before, frankly, we lost the majority. But I also stood with my colleagues on the Pan Am 103 Commission in Lockerbie, Scotland, at the abyss, this trench that was carved in the Earth where that 747 exploded that killed 271 people. And we vowed to each other and to the families of Pan Am 103 to make a difference, to make the airways safer. Our report of 64 recommendations we took in this committee, which I chaired at the time, the Aviation Subcommittee, which Mr. Costello now chairs, 63 of the 64 recommendations, translated them into legislative language in the House and in the Senate, and moved a bill through the House to make aviation safer. We didn't get everything we asked for. We got 98 percent of it. There was much more yet to be done, and more happened after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. It should not require loss of life and tragedy and pain in the hearts, pain in the lives of people to make these changes for aviation safety and security. The opening paragraphs of the FAA Act of 1958 says, ``Safety shall be maintained at the highest possible level.'' Not the level the airlines can afford. Not the level the airlines want. Not the level that the airline executives choose to provide. The highest possible level. That is where we go with this legislation. This bill passed the House last year. We sent a separate safety bill over to the other body when they didn't act. We have cajoled and wheedled and tried and pushed and moved, but holds, and hot holds, and threats of filibuster, and failure to break filibuster, and failure to agree in the other body have held up the entire FAA authorization bill. The Senate bill had no provision comparable to this safety provision in their bill. The families of the victims, exercising their right to petition the government, broke the logjam, broke the indifference and the resistance in the other body. We are on the verge of a citizen triumph in safety. Let us all work earnestly to ensure this bill passes the other body, goes to the President, is signed into law, and that never again citizens have to petition to make things right for safety. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5900, the ``Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010''. This bill ensures that aviation programs, taxes, and Airport and Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority will continue without interruption pending completion of long-term Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization legislation. Because the long-term bill will not be completed before the current authority for aviation programs expires at the end of this week, H.R. 5900 is needed to extend aviation programs, taxes, and expenditure authority for an additional two months, through September 30, 2010. The most recent long-term FAA reauthorization act, the Vision 100-- Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), expired on September 30, 2007. Although the House passed an FAA reauthorization bill during the 110th Congress, and again last year, the Senate failed to act until March of this year. The FAA has, therefore, been operating under a series of short-term extension acts, the most recent of which expires on August 1, 2010. Since passage of the Senate bill in March, we have been working diligently to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. To be frank, I had hoped that the House would pass a negotiated, comprehensive, multi-year FAA reauthorization bill this week. We are close to a final package with the Senate, with very few issues left on the table. As it stands now, the negotiated bill would provide the aviation sector with the stability of a multi-year authorization, safety reforms, record-high capital investment levels, several provisions that would accelerate the Next Generation Air Transportation System effort, and a passenger bill of rights. Unfortunately, the FAA reauthorization bill is hung up in the Senate, primarily over a provision that would significantly increase the number of long-distance flights at Washington National Airport. The Senate provision was included in neither the House-passed nor Senate-passed FAA bills, and it is strongly opposed by Members of Congress and Senators who represent the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region because, they argue, it would create a burden for Washington National Airport by creating congestion at terminals and siphoning passengers away from Washington Dulles International Airport. I also have concerns that the provision, as written, would unduly benefit dominant incumbent carrier, US Airways. Madam Speaker, on the night of February 12, 2009, a Colgan Air flight operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed in Buffalo, New York, killing 50 people. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation that followed rocked the airline industry, stunned the American public, and identified the need to closely examine the regulations governing pilot training and rest requirements, with a particular focus on regional airlines. In response to this tragedy, the Subcommittee on Aviation held a series of hearings, receiving testimony from the FAA, the NTSB, the Department of Transportation Inspector General, pilots' unions, airline representatives, and the representatives of the Colgan 3407 Families. With regard to the Colgan 3407 Families, they have been a driving force behind aviation safety reform legislation. In the last 17 months they have come to Washington, D.C., more than 30 times to push for legislation. They have served the American public well. It is time to let them go home now, to know that they have made a difference, to put closure on this tragedy and to pick up the pieces of their lives. Moreover, safety is our highest priority. Therefore, this extension act includes the airline safety and pilot training provisions that we have been able to negotiate with the Senate. These safety provisions will dramatically upgrade the training and experience necessary to be an airline pilot. Key features of this legislation include: Requiring all airline pilots to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, which requires a minimum of 1,500 flight hours; the current requirement is 250 flight hours. Directing the FAA to update and implement new flight and duty time rules for pilots within one year, to more adequately address the results of scientific research in the field of fatigue. Requiring FAA to ensure that pilots are trained on how to recover from stalls and upsets and that airlines provide remedial training to pilots who need it. Establishing a pilot records database to provide airlines with fast, electronic access to a pilot's comprehensive record. Some have argued that these safety provisions are one of the strongest selling points of a comprehensive FAA reauthorization package, and that by moving these provisions separately we may put the larger bill in jeopardy. We believe that moving these safety reforms right now, as part of an extension act, is simply the right thing to do. Moreover, we see no reason why Congress cannot return in September and work through the very few remaining issues in a larger FAA bill. We view these safety provisions as just a preview of a very strong comprehensive aviation package that this Congress will deliver for the American public in a matter of weeks. I thank Chairman Levin of the Committee on Ways and Means for his assistance in ensuring the continued operation of aviation and highway programs. I also thank my Committee colleagues--Ranking Member Mica, Subcommittee on Aviation Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member Petri-- for working with me on this critical legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5900.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to compliment the gentlewoman on her splendid work on this legislation and her leadership of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey for his consistent and persistent advocacy. And if we pass this bill tonight, it will go directly to the President. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3372, a bill that extends a provision prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States from requiring permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for certain discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length and all fishing vessels. This Chamber has now twice passed the language contained in S. 3372. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his continued work on this issue. As I have said many times to my colleague, we will get this legislation signed into law. This legislation extends a narrowly tailored provision enacted by Congress in 2008 to establish a moratorium on permit requirements under the Clean Water Act for certain discharges from fishing vessels and those commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length. This legislation ensures that EPA has sufficient time to consider the implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, while preserving the goals of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. When the moratorium was established two years ago, EPA was directed to conduct a study on discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The purpose of this study was to provide the Agency and Congress with additional information on the nature, types, volumes, and composition of vessel discharges, and the potential impact of these discharges on human health, welfare, and the environment. EPA completed this study earlier this year and determined that discharges from these smaller vessels are not benign. Appropriately, EPA plans on bringing these vessels within the scope of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Currently, however, EPA does not have the framework in place or the resources to expand NPDES coverage to these smaller vessels. S. 3372 extends the current moratorium to December 18, 2013. This extension will allow EPA time to implement the appropriate Clean Water Act mechanisms for controlling, minimizing, and properly addressing these types of vessel discharges. It will also allow the Agency to plan for the inclusion of these smaller vessels when the Agency renews its Vessel General Permits program. The language contained in S. 3372 was included in H.R. 3619, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010'', which passed the House on November 2, 2009. In addition, last week, the House passed H.R. 5301, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), which included this provision. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of S. 3372.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 5897, the ``Economic Revitalization and Innovation Act of 2010'', to authorize the programs of the Economic Development Administration, EDA, for 5 years. This legislation creates new programs and adds additional flexibility to EDA's current authorities to ensure that EDA will continue to meet the challenges of high unemployment in economically distressed communities and the need for innovative job creation programs. In 1965, I served as a staff member of the Committee on Public Works when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Works and Economic Development Act into law, creating EDA. I was a strong supporter of EDA then and I continue to support the agency now, 45 years later. I know EDA works because I have seen it work first-hand: providing infrastructure investment, job training, and planning funds to create jobs and economic opportunities in economically distressed communities across the Nation--from blighted urban and rural communities to regions devastated by natural disasters. In fact, we need look no further than in Congress' own back yard where EDA provided critical funding to reconstruct the Eastern Market facility, which was destroyed in a fire. Eastern Market, with assistance from EDA's flexible and responsive programs, was quickly rebuilt, restoring not only bricks and mortar, but economic opportunity for small businesses and jobs for the local community. In the current difficult economic climate, EDA plays a strategic role in supporting the efforts of economically distressed communities to cope with a diverse range of economic disruptions and move toward recovery. Part of EDA's success is due to the fact that it truly operates its programs as an investor, seeking to obtain the maximum impact for the Federal dollar. EDA investments are also instrumental in attracting private capital to communities. In fact, in fiscal year 2009, EDA invested $466 million in infrastructure that attracted $11.7 billion in private investment--or $25 for every $1 of Federal investment. What enables EDA to operate such effective programs is its extensive network of more than 800 local economic development partners across the country. These partners, with assistance from EDA, perform the rigorous regional planning activities necessary to ensure viable, locally- supported, job-creating projects that EDA then funds on a competitive basis. Such projects include: Construction of a job training center in Delaware to train former auto workers in green building technology and alternative energy systems; Expansion of port infrastructure in Georgia to allow for increased exports of U.S. manufactured products; Conversion of an obsolete furniture factory in Mississippi to train workers for new advanced manufacturing positions; and Expansion of rail infrastructure in Tennessee to service a new industrial park where the first Volkswagen automobile plant in the United States will locate. These projects are just a handful of EDA's efforts to create jobs and provide the building blocks for economic development in economically distressed communities throughout the nation. H.R. 5897, the ``Economic Revitalization and Innovation Act of 2010'', reauthorizes EDA for 5 years and provides the necessary funding and investment tools to enable EDA to help regional and local communities raise the standard of living for their citizens, increase the overall rate of economic growth by expanding economic opportunities, increasing international competitiveness, and fostering a climate to create jobs. H.R. 5897 provides $500 million for Economic Development Administration, EDA, investments for each of fiscal years FY 2011 though FY 2015, for a total authorization of $2.5 billion. This annual investment level is equal to the FY 2008 authorization level, but represents a significant increase over current appropriations levels. Specifically, the bill authorizes: $2.225 billion for economic development investments, including public works and economic adjustment grants; $180 million for planning grants to Economic Development Districts (EDDs); $50 million for university centers in States, including DC, without such centers; and Such sums as necessary for EDA administrative expenses. The authorized funding levels in H.R. 5897 will support grants to economically distressed communities, increased staffing to assist communities, and new and expanded programs. With more than 8.4 million jobs lost during the recent recession, the call from the American people is ``jobs, jobs, jobs.'' H.R. 5897 is a considered response to this dire need. Major provisions in H.R. 5897 that accomplish the goal of increasing jobs and support to distressed communities include: Providing loan guarantees, up to a total of $500 million, to construct business incubators and science and research parks; $25 million in annual funding to support green and alternative energy investments; Direct funding using EDA's existing network of non-profit lenders to lend to technology and manufacturing companies; Increased funding to EDA's network of local planning organizations; Assistance to communities to incentivize manufacturing and technology companies to locate or relocate to the United States from overseas, or ``on-shoring''; Funding and direction to EDA and its local planning partner organizations to capitalize on economic development opportunities from high-speed rail; and Greater flexibility in EDA funding to allow communities to adapt to new economic circumstances, such as high home foreclosures and reduced tax revenues. By focusing EDA's efforts on proven programs and projects such as business incubators, which tend to generate the greatest number of long-term jobs, we can help facilitate and support the economic renaissance that so many communities need. I cannot overstate the importance of this legislation. I am sure that every Member has seen firsthand the devastation of lost jobs and distressed communities. As we consider reauthorization of EDA, we must recognize the current economic picture is unsettled: investor confidence and enthusiasm has given way to uncertainty and wariness of future development opportunities. However, EDA, the only Federal agency tasked with the mission of supporting economic development in distressed areas from the ground up, must be empowered to continue to identify opportunities for future economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness using its expertise and model of proven success. A complete summary of H.R. 5897, the ``Economic Revitalization and Innovation Act of 2010,'' is included with my statement. [Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, July 28, 2010] H.R. 5897, the ``Economic Revitalization and Innovation Act of 2010'' (Introduced by the Honorable James L. Oberstar, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Other Members of the Committee) Authorized Funding Levels and Job Creation Goals Authorized Funding Levels H.R. 5897, the ``Economic Revitalization and Innovation Act of 2010,'' provides $500 million for Economic Development Administration (EDA) investments for each of fiscal years (FY) 2011 through FY 2015, for a total authorization of $2.5 billion. This annual investment level is equal to the FY 2008 authorization level, but represents a significant increase over current appropriations levels. Specifically, the bill authorizes: $2.225 billion for economic development investments, including public works and economic adjustment grants; $180 million for planning grants to Economic Development Districts (EDDs); $50 million for university centers in States (including D.C.) without such centers; and such sums as necessary for EDA administrative expenses. Job Creation Goals Requires that recipients of EDA assistance establish job creation goals as a condition of receipt of EDA assistance, and penalizes recipients for failure to satisfy job creation goals. EXPANDED SUPPORT FOR BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND SCIENCE AND RESEARCH PARKS Loan Guarantee Funding Provides a total of $500 million in loan guarantees (i.e., a guarantee of non-Federal financing) to enable EDA to provide loan guarantees for the construction and development of business incubators and science and research parks. Construction Funding Continues funding for the construction or expansion of business incubators and science and research park facilities under EDA's public works grant program (requiring matching funds). Operations Funding Clarifies EDA's ability to provide business incubator operating support.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, together with Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, I rise today to introduce H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010''. This legislation continues the long-standing tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to address the critical infrastructure needs of the Nation, including its water-related infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is second to none in terms of authorizing investment in our Nation's vital infrastructure projects. Whether the issue is investment in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure, investment in our nation's highways and public transit, or investment in our nation's water-related infrastructure, this Committee is committed to investment in our Nation's infrastructure, to create well-paid jobs that cannot be outsourced, and to ensure the economic and environmental health and well-being of this Nation for decades to come. Every day, we see and hear of the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, and, on a bipartisan basis, are moving an agenda to repair and replace existing assets, and to plan for the next generation of highways, bridges, transit systems, airports, water transportation, and water- related infrastructure. Last year, in an effort to stave off the worst impacts of the economic downturn, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5. The Recovery Act has already played a key role in putting Americans back to work. The Recovery Act enabled communities to invest in safe and reliable modes of transportation, invest in our Nation's economy and environment, and ensure that the next generation will be provided with the same opportunities that were provided to us by our predecessors. Yesterday, our Committee held its 20th oversight hearing on the implementation of the Recovery Act, and heard testimony that, as of July 2009, 17,024 highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure projects have broken ground across the nation, totaling $32.7 billion-- that is 86 percent of the total available formula funds. Within this total, work has been completed on 6,920 projects, totaling $5.3 billion. Many of the projects built with these Recovery Act funds were originally considered and authorized by this Committee, including projects and studies authorized in prior water resources development acts. Under the Recovery Act's appropriation of $4.6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Corps, the agency has committed $3.9 billion for 793 projects, or 85 percent of its total allotment. These investments have enabled the Corps to repair or improve 155 lock chambers, and maintain or improve harbors and waterways that serve over 2,400 commercial ports. In addition, through the Recovery Act, the Corps has initiated 1,132 flood risk management projects to improve dam or levee safety, and 1,034 projects to maintain or upgrade recreation areas. The basis for these types of investments is the water resources development act. For decades, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has strived to enact a water resources development act every Congress. Since at least 1986, this Committee has been successful in reporting legislation, every Congress, to meet the water-related infrastructure needs of the Nation. While these efforts were not always successful in moving a bill to the President's desk for his consideration, the tradition of our Committee, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, is to address the critical needs of the Nation in a timely and regular manner. Following the successful enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-114, the current Democratic and Republican leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure renewed our committed to enactment of a water resources development act in every Congress. Through a water resources bill, Congress authorizes critical navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration projects and studies carried out by the Corps. Throughout its history, these water resources development acts have provided the Corps with the authority to carry out nationally significant projects that have improved the economic prosperity of the nation, have protected its citizenry from the threat of flooding and coastal storms, and have put in place restoration efforts for many of America's natural treasures. In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Congress authorized major navigation projects along the coasts of the United States, and throughout its interior, authorized projects for the long- term recovery and restoration of coastal Louisiana from the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and authorized the first critical projects for the restoration of the Florida Everglades. Today, the Corps maintains more than 11,000 miles of channels for commercial navigation and operates locks at 230 sites. One-half of all locks are more than 50 years old. The Corps also maintains 300 deep commercial harbors and 600 shallow coastal and inland harbors. There are 75 hydropower plants at Corps facilities producing one-fourth of the Nation's hydroelectric power. To address flood risks, the Corps manages 383 major lakes and reservoirs, and 8,500 miles of levees. The Corps estimates that, on average, its civil works projects prevent $20 billion in flood damages ever year. The enactment of water resources development acts has a unique history, in which Congress authorizes each individual project. Since the first authorizations for these projects in the earliest days of our Nation, Congress has always provided line-item authorizations for each project. Congress has never authorized a blank check to the Corps to enable it to invest wherever it chooses. Given this unique history, and in the interest of transparency and accountability, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure charted a new chapter for project authorizations at the outset of the 110th Congress. We adopted a policy requiring each project authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to be requested by a Member of Congress and accompanied by a ``no financial interest'' certification signed by the requesting Member. Every project authorization included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was specifically requested by a Member of Congress, either in the House of Representatives or the United States Senate, and each request of a Member of the House was accompanied by a certification from the Member that neither he nor she nor his or her spouse had a financial interest in the project. This information was made publicly available through the Committee report, the Congressional Record, and in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Report prior to consideration of the legislation in the House of Representatives. That transparency and accountability principle continues to be the policy of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the formulation of H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010.'' In December 2009, the Committee received more than 2,000 individual requests from both Democratic and Republican Members for projects and studies to be included in the water resources development bill. Although this bill includes only a small percentage of those requests, the legislation introduced today represents progress in meeting the next generation of critical navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration projects for our Nation. In addition, with the introduction of this legislation, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has instituted an additional measure of transparency and accountability by requiring that all project and study requests included in the introduced bill be publicly disclosed and made electronically-available on the Internet, along with a copy of the individual certifications from Members of Congress stating that neither the Member nor his or her spouse has a financial interest in the project, and a copy of a letter from the State or local government expressing support for the project. A summary of H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'', is included with my statement. H.R. The ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'' In General Reaffirms the continuing commitment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the nation's water resources infrastructure, and a regular authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers to address new and emerging water resources needs, and to fine-tune the Corps' missions and responsibilities. Authorizes three projects with Chief of Engineer's reports relating to hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration. Includes technical changes to the Corps' programmatic authorities, including: clarifying the intent of Congress related to the Corps' crediting authority; increasing the transparency of independent reviews; and improving the effectiveness of mitigation that addresses impacts from Corps' projects on the natural environment. Establishes a policy for increased expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to ensure that annual revenues collected are utilized to meet the nation's navigation maintenance dredging needs. Authorizes the Corps of Engineers to work with local communities in the assessment and evaluation of local flood control structures, including levees. Navigation and Commerce Authorizes four small projects for navigation. Authorized additional Federal funding for the upgrade of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Flood Damage Reduction Authorizes 29 small flood damage reduction projects. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Shore Protection Authorizes the project Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. Authorizes the project West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina. Authorizes ten smaller projects for shoreline and streambank protection. Environmental Restoration and Protection Authorizes the project for Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay. Authorizes 31 smaller projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration and increases the per-project limit for small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects and small project modifications for improvement of the environment to $10 million. Authorizes the Corps of Engineers to upgrade the initial electrical barrier and implement additional barriers in and around the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to enhance efforts in keeping the Asian Carp from entering the Great Lakes. Directs the Secretary to study the potential for hydrologic separation of the Mississippi River basin system and the Great Lakes basin at the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Directs the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, in coordination with other Federal agencies and consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Directs the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for carrying out ecosystem restoration projects within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States. Study Authority Authorizes the Secretary to undertake more than 160 studies for potential future water resource projects, including potential projects for navigation, flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water supply. Watershed Planning Increases the opportunities for the Corps to facilitate watershed planning and carry out watershed and river basin assessments. Authorizes the Corps of Engineers to undertake a comprehensive water supply and allocation study for the State of Georgia.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H. Res. 1401, as amended, introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), which expresses gratitude for the contributions that the air traffic controllers of the United States make to keep the traveling public safe and the airspace of the United States running efficiently. Our air traffic control system currently handles commercial aircraft with more than 700 million enplanements, and the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, predicts that this figure will reach 1 billion by 2023. In 2010, air traffic controllers will handle 39 million terminal radar approach control, TRACON, operations, which are forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent, and to reach 54.4 million in 2030. It is also expected that 39.4 million aircraft operating under instrument flight rules will be handled at FAA air route traffic control centers in 2010, increasing 2.5 percent per year, and reaching 64.1 million in 2030. Air traffic controllers provide essential services to ensure separation between aircraft in the national airspace system. They work in difficult and stressful situations to assist pilots with navigation during arrival and departure from airports and while in flight, and provide critical information and advisories during flight. Because of the stressful environment in which they work, they must take regular breaks and they must retire by age 56. Air traffic controllers help to ensure the safety of approximately two million aviation passengers each day. H. Res. 1401 recognizes the critical work performed by air traffic controllers seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The resolution describes nine recent incidents in which air traffic controllers were instrumental in ensuring the safety of flight crewmembers and passengers. These examples demonstrate air traffic controllers' heroic actions, dedication, and quick and skillful decision-making. H. Res. 1401 commends air traffic controllers for the calm and professional manner in which they perform their duties. The resolution also encourages greater investment in modernizing the air traffic control system to ensure that controllers have the necessary resources and technology to better carry out their duties as air travel grows. As we honor the nation's air traffic controllers in this resolution, there also several provisions in the House-passed FAA reauthorization bill--H.R. 1586, the ``Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010''-- that that support air traffic controllers. H.R. 1586 creates certainty and stability for the FAA and its unionized employee groups, including air traffic controllers, by establishing mediation and arbitration processes for resolution of collective bargaining impasses. The new dispute resolution process makes it clear that labor-management disputes between FAA and its organized employees will be resolved through a fair and equitable process. Under the bill, if the use of a Federal mediator in a collective- bargaining dispute does not produce an agreement, then the issues in controversy would be submitted to the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which would assert jurisdiction and order binding arbitration using a private three-member board. The bill requires the arbitration board to make its decision within 90 days; the decision would be binding and conclusive. In addition, H.R. 1586 as passed by the House includes the following provisions that will benefit air traffic controllers in the important work they perform: Stakeholder Involvement: Requires the FAA to establish a process for including and collaborating with qualified employees selected by each affected exclusive collective bargaining representative in the planning, development, and deployment of air traffic control modernization projects, including the Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen. Staffing Studies: Facilitates the implementation of NextGen by requiring several studies related to the FAA's staffing needs and assumptions with respect to air traffic controllers and other safety- critical employees. Also requires the FAA to study training programs for air traffic controllers. FAA Facility Conditions: Directs the Administrator of the FAA to convene a task force to study workplace conditions in FAA facilities. Consolidation of FAA Facilities: Facilitates NextGen implementation and the protection of employee groups by requiring the Administrator of the FAA to convene a working group to develop criteria and make recommendations for potential consolidation and realignment of FAA facilities. The working group will contain members from airlines and affected labor groups, among other interested stakeholders. We are currently negotiating with the Senate to reach a swift compromise on H.R. 1586. I will work to ensure that these provisions are included in the final FAA reauthorization legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1401.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5730, the ``Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act,'' introduced by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey). The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) has scoured the books of the Federal Highway Administration to identify funds that can be rescinded. This bill rescinds $713.2 million of Federal-aid highway contract authority that is currently available for 309 Member-designated projects included in four prior surface transportation authorization bills. It takes this $713 million off the table so that it cannot be used to increase spending in the future. Any savings from this bill will be used to reduce the deficit. Specifically, the bill: Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) (P.L. 100-17): $4.55 million for 2 projects; Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240): $263.543 million for 154 projects; Rescinds all highway projects designated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) that have not obligated at least 10 percent of the funds authorized for the project: $441.475 million for 152 projects; and Rescinds all High Priority Project program funds authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) that were not designated for use on a specific project: $8.190 million for 1 project. In addition, the bill establishes a process for tracking unspent project funds going forward, enabling Congress to identify projects that have inactive funds or that have been completed in the previous year. Member-designated projects play an important role in the Federal-aid highway program. They provide constituents with a chance to weigh in directly with their elected officials on their community priorities, and allow Members an opportunity to support transportation safety and mobility improvements that may be overlooked by the State Department of Transportation. Yet, it is also necessary to use a commonsense approach to dealing with projects that are complete or no longer viable. Many of the funds rescinded under this bill are from projects that are complete, but have excess remaining funds that cannot be used now that the project is finished. There is no reason for these remaining funds to stay on the books. Other projects affected are those that show no likelihood of going forward, due to changing community priorities or other transportation needs. Rescinding funds from projects that are no longer viable is a practical approach to saving taxpayers' dollars. Rescinding this $713 million now prevents it from being used to increase spending in the future. It has, unfortunately, become somewhat routine for appropriations bills to rescind contract authority to offset other spending. Such rescissions are included in appropriations acts because they are useful in offsetting other spending. Even if a contract authority rescission is ``scored'' as only reducing budget authority, not outlays, a budget authority offset is often all that is needed to facilitate additional spending in an appropriations bill. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed to use a portion of the funds rescinded in this bill to offset spending in its version of the FY 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. To the extent that this bill takes $713 million off the table and makes that amount unavailable for rescission, or use, by some future appropriations bill, it will indeed result in ``real'' savings. The gentlewoman's bill is in line with the High Priority Project reform principles issued by the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in April 2009, which established an unprecedented level of transparency, accountability, and reform for surface transportation projects going forward. These principles called for the repeal of funds from older projects that have not spent out. The gentlewoman's bill is an effective and thoughtful means of achieving this policy objective and will save the government money by eliminating unnecessary project designations. H.R. 5730 is one step in a continuing effort to find savings within programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Other steps are also being taken. Last week, the House passed H.R. 5604, the ``Surface Transportation Savings Act of 2010'', introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello), which rescinds $107 million in highway safety and transit contract authority. I applaud the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for her initiative in bringing this measure forward and her commitment to sound fiscal policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5730.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 258. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for his work on this legislation. H. Con. Res. 258 congratulates the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Superintendent of the United States Coast Guard Academy, and the Academy's staff on the Academy's 100th year of operation in New London, Connecticut. In 1910, the School of Instruction to the Revenue Cutter Service relocated from Curtis Bay, Maryland to New London at Fort Trumbull. The school became known as the Coast Guard Academy when the Life Saving Service and the Revenue Cutter Service were consolidated in 1915. In 1932, the Academy moved to its present location in New London, Connecticut, on the West Bank of the Thames River. The Coast Guard Academy is the single accession point for all Coast Guard officers and home to the Coast Guard's Leadership Development Center, which touches virtually every aspect of the service through a host of training programs, including Officer Candidate School. Furthermore, the Coast Guard Academy is a highly competitive educational institution that provides a holistic education that includes academics, physical fitness, and leadership training as the Academy prepares its cadets for the Coast Guard's many diverse missions. In addition to congratulating the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Superintendent of the Coast Guard Academy and its staff for 100 years of operation of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, H. Con. Res. 258 honors the many men and women who have graduated from the Academy and encourages all Americans to learn more about the Academy, its missions, and its long history. As we celebrate this important anniversary, I also note that on June 28, 2010, the Coast Guard Academy inducted the Class of 2014, which is one of the most diverse in school history. Of the 290 students who started this summer, 68 students--or 23 percent--are minorities. This is the second-highest percentage in the school's history and higher than the Class of 2013, which consists of 15 percent minority students. I urge my colleagues to join me in agreeing to H. Con. Res. 258.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1366, as amended, which honors the freight railroad industry and its employees and the important contributions they have made to our nation and the national transportation system. Freight railroads have played an essential role in the growth of our country since 1825, when Colonel John Stevens, considered the father of railroads, demonstrated the feasibility of steam locomotion on a circular experimental track constructed on his estate in Hoboken, New Jersey. By 1830, railroads were still in their infancy and there was less than 40 miles of track in operation. However, Peter Cooper's Tom Thumb locomotive would change the face of railroad locomotion forever on August 28, 1830, when his American-built locomotive was challenged by horse-drawn equipment in a head-to-head race. The Tom Thumb easily pulled away from the horse until a belt on the locomotive slipped and failed. Though Peter Cooper and his locomotive lost the race, it was apparent that the locomotive offered superior performance. Steam locomotives would reign over American railroads for the next 100 years. From these very humble beginnings, railroads brought economic and social changes never dreamed of by early Americans. Just 10 years later, in 1840, railroad mileage increased to slightly over 2,800 miles, tripling to over 9,000 miles by 1850. In 1860, mileage tripled again to more than 30,000 miles and brought prosperity to all the communities that railroads touched. Railroads moved manufactured goods, farm implements, and building materials to the west, while bringing meat, produce and other crops to the east. Steam locomotives raced along averaging 25 miles per hour, reducing trips that used to take days to hours. For example, a trip from Cincinnati, Ohio, to St. Louis, Missouri, was reduced from three days to just 16 hours. On July 1, 1862, the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, as enacted by Congress, was approved and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. This led to the creation of the first transcontinental railroad, when the Central Pacific Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad linked at Promontory Summit, Utah, on May 10, 1869, connecting over 1700 miles of western railroads to the eastern railroads at the Missouri River. This established the first mechanized transcontinental transportation network that revolutionized the population and economy of the American west. While the railroads moved goods across the country and helped build cities and towns across the west, the railroad was also the hi-tech industry of its day, responsible for innovations such as ``standard time'' and pioneering the use of the telegraph as a nationwide dispatching communication system. The railroad industry was also a leader in bringing about worker protections. The Railway Labor Act of 1926 established basic principles of fair bargaining and mediation. Our Nation's social security system, enacted in 1935, was based partly on provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934. Today, more than 183,000 hardworking, dedicated Americans help keep our country and its trains moving around the clock. Our freight rail industry is composed of an efficient and well- maintained network, moving 2.2 billion tons of freight over 140,000 miles of railroad annually. Freight rail is also one of the most energy-efficient modes of transportation, moving one ton of freight 480 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. One train can take 280 trucks off the road--the equivalent of 1,100 automobiles. Freight and intercity passenger rail are important components of our nation's economic strength and mobility. Freight railroads account for 43 percent of intercity freight volume--more than any other mode of transportation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1366.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5825, the ``Multi-State Disaster Relief Act''. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) identified this issue after floods struck last August in his district in Indiana, and neighboring counties in Kentucky. I thank Representative Hill for bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and working with the Committee on a practical solution. The Stafford Act and our Nation's emergency management system are based on a multi-level system of response at the local, State, and Federal level, as necessary. Local citizens and communities have the primary responsibility for responding to incidents and disasters that strike their communities. When they need additional assistance, they seek that assistance from their State. When the disaster is beyond the capability of the State, the State seeks help from the Federal Government. As a result, the President must look at the impacts on the State in which the disaster took place in determining whether Federal assistance is warranted. However, disasters don't always stay neatly within the lines we have drawn, and the impact of a particular event often crosses State lines. When disaster strikes, first responders, emergency managers, volunteers, and others respond, regardless of county or State lines. In my home State of Minnesota, there are neighboring jurisdictions separated by a river. In many places, that river is the State boundary, but in reality, it is one community that encompasses both sides of the river. In 1997, in the western part of Minnesota along the Red River, devastating floods struck both Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. In my own district, we have seen this happen as well. In 1992, a gas leak from a derailed railroad tank resulted in the evacuation of more than 50,000 people from the Twin Ports of Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin--communities separated by the St. Louis River. Hundreds of first responders provided assistance, including members of the National Guard and Army Reserve. While at least two dozen people from both States were hospitalized, we were fortunate that the cloud quickly dissipated and Federal assistance was not necessary. It is only logical that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the President, in making a determination whether to declare a disaster and provide assistance to individuals and households, consider both immediate local impacts and the impacts in neighboring communities, even if they are in another State. When a disaster also affects a neighboring county across a State line, this legislation directs FEMA to consider this fact when the agency recommends to the President whether or not to declare a disaster. The Committee understands that FEMA is currently working with State and local emergency managers on revamping the criteria the agency uses regarding whether to recommend that the President declare a major disaster or emergency in order to provide assistance to individuals and households. FEMA has been working on these changes for some time. This legislation is not intended to impede that process. This legislation merely puts a reasonable deadline on the process and requires that one common-sense criteria be incorporated. This legislation is supported by the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), which represents our Nation's county, local, and tribal emergency managers, who serve in the communities that would benefit most from this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5825.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1504, a resolution recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation, introduced by the distinguished Majority Leader (Mr. Hoyer). On July 26, 1990, upon signing this landmark civil rights law, President George H. W. Bush stated that the ADA ``promises to open up all aspects of American life to individuals with disabilities-- employment opportunities, government services, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications.'' As we celebrate 20 years since its enactment, we have an opportunity to reflect on the successes of the ADA. The ADA has helped to expand and enhance opportunities for over 50 million Americans with disabilities by removing barriers to employment and essential services. Thanks to the public accommodations required by the ADA, individuals with disabilities are able to more fully participate in our society, and to enjoy the freedom that comes with independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Congress included transportation-specific requirements in the 1990 Act because accessible transportation services ensure that all Americans with disabilities can enjoy extraordinary freedom of mobility. Without reliable transportation, many individuals with disabilities would not be able to access the significant public accommodation improvements that have occurred in cities and towns across the country as a result of the ADA. Specifically, the ADA required public transit systems, passenger rail systems, and over-the- road bus operators to modify their vehicles and facilities to make them accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress set an aggressive timeline for public transit vehicles and facilities to achieve ADA compliance. One month after enactment of the ADA, all new trains and buses were required to be constructed as fully ADA compliant; any refurbishing of buses or trains that took place one month after enactment had to include ADA retrofits. Three years after enactment, all readily achievable key subway, commuter rail, and light rail station alterations were to be completed in order to bring these systems into substantial compliance with the ADA. As of today, every single key transit station is required to have been retrofitted to be in full compliance with ADA. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been vigilant in its oversight of the implementation of the transportation requirements of the ADA. The majority of our nation's public transit systems have met their ADA requirements. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), only 36 percent of transit buses in urban areas were ADA compliant in 1989, but that number rose to 97 percent in 2005, and is closer to 100 percent today. While this marks good progress, more needs to be done to ensure that any public transit systems that are not fully accessible are brought into compliance as soon as possible. In the 110th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure advanced H.R. 3985, the ``Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007'' to ensure that motorcoach accessibility regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1998 were being implemented. DOT had failed to enforce its own regulations for a decade, based on an interpretation that any enforcement must be carried out by the Department of Justice. However, the Department of Justice does not conduct vehicle inspections and did not have a mechanism to identify operators who were out of compliance. H.R. 3985, which was signed by the President on July 30, 2008, closed this loophole and prohibited DOT from granting registration authority to a motorcoach company who is not willing and able to comply with the accessibility regulations and gave DOT express enforcement authority. In the 110th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also advanced legislation to help Amtrak, our national passenger railroad, to come into compliance with the ADA. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432) required Amtrak to conduct an evaluation of the condition of Amtrak's stations and its plan for making them readily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities and fully compliant with the ADA. The law also authorized funding for Amtrak to improve the accessibility of facilities, including rail platforms and services, and required the Federal Railroad Administration to monitor and conduct periodic reviews of Amtrak's compliance with the ADA. In FY 2008, Amtrak provided intercity passenger rail service to a record number of 28.7 million passengers across 46 States over a 21,095 mile network owned by freight railroads, commuter railroads, governmental authorities, and Amtrak. Amtrak provided service to 515 stations; 481 of those stations are required to be ADA-compliant by July 26, 2010. In 2008, however, Amtrak announced that it would not be able to meet the legislative deadline for compliance with the ADA. Instead, the railroad presented a plan for coming into compliance over the next five years, and has requested additional funds to implement this plan for FY 2010 and again this year. Since releasing that plan, however, Amtrak has determined that funding may not be the main source of concern. Rather, Amtrak continues to face challenges in defining what work is necessary to comply with the ADA and in forming work agreements with its partners--the freight railroads, commuter railroads, and governmental authorities--at each station, some of which Amtrak does not own. As Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee I find this news distressing, and I intend to hold a hearing this fall to determine what is blocking Amtrak from coming into full compliance with the ADA. Finally, in 2008, this body passed H.R. 3195, a bill to restore protections for a wide range of individuals with disabilities (such as those with epilepsy, diabetes and cancer) by overturning judicial decisions that had narrowed the scope of the ADA as intended by Congress. I was pleased that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure played a role in shepherding these important amendments through the House, which were signed by the President on September 25, 2008. The modifications made by Congress since 1990 have strengthened the original Act. We must continue to aggressively monitor the implementation of the ADA and subsequent amendments to ensure that all Americans are granted access and equality under the law. I commend the distinguished Majority Leader for his tireless work over the last 20 years on behalf of Americans with disabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1504.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart to join fellow cyclists throughout Minnesota in mourning the untimely loss of Terry McGhauhey, father, founder, godfather, midwife, impresario of the Paul Bunyan Bicycle Trail. It was Terry McGhauhey who, 22 years ago, saw the notice of termination of rail service along central Minnesota's area from Baxter, Minnesota, up to Hackensack, and rode out like a modern day town crier to alert communities along the trail to join together, save the right- of-way, to build the Paul Bunyan trail, which now has 650,000 users a year. Every year Terry McGhauhey mobilized group rides, engaged the business communities all along the trail to see not only the physical and outdoors enjoyment and health benefits of a bike/ped, in-line skating trail, but also to see the business opportunities that have benefited all the communities along. We didn't expect Terry's loss. He had suffered from Parkinson's, but he was there at the helm of this year's ride, and he was already planning for next year's ride. I shall miss him greatly as a friend, a treasured participant in bicycling. All of bicycling in Minnesota will miss Terry McGhauhey.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I submit the attached exchange of letters on H.R. 5266, the ``National Commission on Children and Disasters Reauthorization Act of 2010'' between the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security. Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, July 20, 2010. Hon. James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oberstar: I write to you regarding H.R. 5266, the ``National Commission on Children and Disasters Reauthorization Act of 2010.'' H.R. 5266 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction over subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. Further, I request your support for the appointment of an appropriate number of Members of the Committee on Homeland Security to be named as conferees during any House-Senate conference convened on H.R. 5266 or similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this bill. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5266, the ``National Commission on Children and Disasters Reauthorization Act of 2010'', which extends the authorization for the Commission on Children and Disasters for an additional two years. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for introducing this bill and the attention she has brought to the issue of the needs of children in disasters. In 2007, Congress enacted the Kids in Disasters Well-being, Safety, and Health Act of 2007 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). This legislation established a 10-member Commission to examine the needs of children in response to and recovery from disasters and emergencies. The bill required the Commission to submit a final report to Congress with its findings two years after the date of the first meeting of the Commission, and sunset the authorization for the Commission 180 days after the submission of the final report. Under current law, the report of the Commission is due in October 2010. H.R. 5266 extends the date for the final report to December 31, 2012, and requires annual interim reports from the Commission in the intervening years. The Commission was created as a result of lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, a disaster that affected thousands of children. As the Commission's May 2010 Progress Report reminds us, more recent disasters--such as last year's tsunami in American Samoa, this year's devastating earthquake in Haiti, and the recent H1N1 outbreak-- disproportionately affected children compared to adults. However, serious impacts on children can occur in a disaster of any magnitude. Last month, tornadoes spread across my home state of Minnesota. The hardest hit area was Wadena, in my district, where preliminary damage assessments indicated that the community bore 90 percent of the damage to infrastructure and emergency response costs. Shortly after the storm, I was in Wadena and saw the damage first- hand. One of the worst hit facilities was the Wadena Deer Creek High School, which was damaged beyond repair. Following a disaster, it is essential to reopen schools as quickly as possible in order to restore a sense of normalcy and stability for children and families. Children need to resume their education and reconnect with their friends, and with schools open, parents can get back to work. We are fortunate in Wadena that while the high school is being restored, the district will be able to use a recently closed parochial school and a local community and technical college campus. We are also fortunate, as the Commission's May 2010 Progress Report points out, that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made good progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission, including the appointment of a Children's Working Group that reports directly to the Administrator. Unfortunately, other Federal agencies have been slow to implement the Commission's recommendations and, as a result, the work of the Commission remains incomplete. In October 2009, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on the then-newly issued interim report of the Commission. Based on the testimony at this hearing and the Commission's findings, I included language in H.R. 3377, the ``Disaster Response, Recovery and Mitigation Act of 2009'', to require the Administrator of FEMA to take into account the recommendations of the Commission when drafting or updating agency plans, strategies, regulations, and policies. It is important for the Commission to be extended so it can advise Congress and the President on how FEMA is meeting this requirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5266.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5545, a bill to deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. This bill deauthorizes one-half of the Federal navigation project width of the Washington Channel, District of Columbia. The channel deauthorization runs from the northern limit of the Federal navigation project to just south of the Maine Police pier which includes the Spirit Ship Dock. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy regarding this proposed deauthorization and we have not been made aware of any opposition to the proposed deauthorization of this segment of the Washington Channel, District of Columbia. This non-controversial bill was reported favorably out of our Committee by voice vote, without amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5545.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5301) to extend the period during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and States are prohibited from requiring a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for certain discharges that are incidental to normal operation of vessels, as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, both of these bills have passed the House, have been duly fully considered by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, reported to the House and passed substantially. We combined them in this measure to send them to the other body, where we expect prompt action to be taken to send the bills on to the President. I rise in support of H.R. 5301. This bill extends a provision prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States from requiring permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for certain discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of vessels less than 79 feet in length. H.R. 5301 also reauthorizes EPA's National Estuary Program. I'd like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for their work on this legislation. Title I of H.R. 5301 extends a narrowly-tailored provision enacted by Congress in 2008 to establish a moratorium permit requirements under the Clean Water Act for certain discharges from commercial fishing vessels and other commercial vessels. This title ensures that EPA has sufficient time to consider the implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, while preserving the goals of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. When Congress established the moratorium two years ago, EPA was directed to conduct a study on discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This study was intended to provide EPA and Congress with additional information on the nature, types, volumes, and composition of vessel discharges, and the potential impact of these discharges on human health, welfare, and the environment. EPA completed this study earlier this year and determined that discharges from these smaller vessels are not benign. Appropriately, EPA plans on bringing these vessels within the scope of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, program. Currently, however, EPA does not have the framework in place or the resources to expand NPDES coverage to these smaller vessels. Without an extension, the permit prohibition expires on July 31, 2010. H.R. 5301 extends the current moratorium to December 18, 2013. This will allow EPA time to implement the appropriate Clean Water Act mechanisms for controlling, minimizing, and properly addressing these types of vessel discharges. It will also allow the agency to plan for the inclusion of these smaller vessels when the agency renews its Vessel General Permits program. Title I of H.R. 5301 was previously included in H.R. 3619, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010'', which passed the House on November 2, 2009. Title II of H.R. 5301 reauthorizes the National Estuary Program. Title II consists of the text of H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010'', as passed by the House on April 15, 2010. Estuaries and associated coastal areas are major economic forces for the nation. Commercial and recreational fishing annually accounts for $185 billion in revenues, and more than two million direct jobs. Estuaries are habitat for approximately 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch. Beyond fishing, estuaries produce significant economic value through tourism, energy production, and navigation. Estuaries also provide recreational opportunities such as boating, fishing, swimming, surfing, and bird watching. The University of California and the Ocean Foundation have determined that, on an annual basis, ``beach-going'' generates up to $30 billion of economic value, and that ``coastal wildlife viewing'' generates up to $49 billion. Title II includes four important modifications to the existing National Estuary Program. First, Title II calls for increased transparency and accountability through regular evaluation and management plan updates with a public disclosure requirement. Second, the title requires Federal agencies to be active partners in the restoration and protection of the estuaries where they are situated. This includes taking part in the development of the management plans, cooperating and coordinating their activities to implement the plans, and considering their financial responsibilities under any estuary management plan when submitting their annual budget requests. Third, Title II requires programmatic changes to the National Estuary Program such as identifying vulnerabilities to climate change and developing responsive adaptation actions; engaging in educational activities to better inform the public about their local estuaries; requiring that estuary programs consider sustainable commercial activities in the watershed; and ensuring that commercial entities along estuary waterfronts will be active participants in estuary programs. Fourth, this title increases the authorization for the program from $35 million to $50 million per year and establishes a minimum funding level for each of the 28 approved estuaries in the program of $1.25 million per year. If the program were fully funded at $50 million, 12 new estuaries could enter the National Estuary Program and each be funded at a level of $1.25 million. EPA reports that entities representing 38 additional estuaries have expressed interest in joining the National Estuary Program. H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010,'' was considered by the House earlier this year and passed by a roll call vote of 278-128. I am pleased to say that we received solid support on both sides of the aisle. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5301. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yes, indeed I will say, first of all to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey on his leadership on the issue of vessel discharge. He has been a champion on this subject. We have heard his strong appeal, his reasoned approach to the issue. That's why we moved the bill earlier. We now joined it with this estuaries bill. We expect always with hope that the other body acts promptly, but if not, there are backup plans to deal with the vessel discharge issue in advance of the deadline that the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey cited. We are together on this. We are going to assure that the issue is resolved. And hopefully, both of these bills, combined in this fashion, will bring enough interest in the other body to have a concentration of effort to pass both measures together.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the subject of these two bills.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. In House floor consideration of the railroad retirement program, it was made very clear time and again by both sides of the aisle that this plan for railroad retirement was not a formula for Social Security. Both sides were at pains to say that because of the difference in scale of the programs and the difference in purpose of the two retirements, Social Security and railroad retirement act. That's not to say that it couldn't be reconsidered at some future time, but it was made very clear then. You have some 600,000-plus railroad retirees and 33 million Social Security retirees. We all realized at the time the scale is vastly different. The purpose and the revenue streams are very different. So it was a very clear purpose on both sides of the aisle, not to confuse, not to roll over from one to the other. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield for a response to his very thoughtful question?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her strong, stout defense of the Railroad Retirement program; Mr. Perriello for his leadership and advocacy for the bill supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day; and for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, a strong supporter of our railroad system, both passenger and freight in this country, and for the Railroad Retirement fund. Now, the gentleman cited a figure about the vote in the House in 1935 on Social Security, and that figure is accurate. But that was on the conference report. And when the rule providing for consideration of Social Security came to the floor, only one Republican supported it in 1935. Now, I understand that a vote on the rule is a party-line vote and that, as a matter of party discipline, only one Member on the other side broke ranks to vote for the rule, but we must acknowledge that the Social Security program has saved the Nation, has been a bulwark for blue collar working Americans and upper middle class and upper class. In all of its 76 years, Social Security has never missed a payment. It has never bounced a check. You don't have to get up in the morning and look on the financial pages of the newspaper to see whether your retirement fund is intact or whether it's bottomed out or has dropped out of sight, as you have to do if your retirement fund is in the hands of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, corporation that you worked for went into bankruptcy or retirement fund was put in the hands of the PBGC and those assets were invested by the company for which you worked in the marketplace, and suddenly those assets lost value, enormous value. Some people have seen their retirement funds lose 50 percent to 60 percent of their value because the investments they had made proved unsound or vulnerable--sound to begin with, but vulnerable to this worldwide recession that we've experienced. Indeed, the Railroad Retirement Fund itself has lost $9 billion because of the recession. So let's not have this haphazard, careless, thoughtless rhetoric that we heard in this Chamber in 1995-96 from the other side--not the gentleman from Pennsylvania, not his father who served with great distinction in this body then and still a great friend of mine--saying we're going to rip the system out by its roots, are going to replace it, we're going to privatize it, and a host of other schemes that eventually Members on the other side voted against. There's a very wise core of Members in the Republican side who understand the value of the Social Security program and who want to sustain and support it; and this is the most significant Social Security, most significant important social contract in America, in our history, the most successful; and Medicare's right behind it in its success, and right alongside it is the railroad retirement system. People who have worked hard, they've saved, they've contributed into the system; the employers, the railroads have contributed into the system. Our purpose ought to not to be pointing fingers or using scare rhetoric, but rather to say let's work together to keep our economy going, to keep investment expanding in this country, to expand employment so that there are more people working, contributing into the Railroad Retirement Fund and into the Social Security fund. That ought to be the purpose of our efforts. And that is why Mr. Perriello was so thoughtful to bring out the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day and our champion advocate for passenger rail, freight rails, Ms. Brown, and an equally passionate advocate for rail service, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Let's put the rhetoric aside. Let's join the visionaries of seven decades ago so that seven decades from now there will be retirement programs that will be the safety--they will be the safety net for those who worked hard all their lives and expect dignity in their retirement years. Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for yielding your time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H. Res. 1463, which celebrates 75 years of the success and importance of the railroad retirement system to America's working families, commemorates the day (August 29, 1935) when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Railroad Retirement Act, and recognizes August 29, 2010 as ``Railroad Retirement Day'', as designated by the Railroad Retirement Board. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello) for his leadership in introducing this resolution. In 1874, the first modern railroad pension system was established in North America by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Its stated purpose was ``to help workers worn out from long service to retire.'' The American Express Company, then a railroad freight agency, established the first railroad pension system in the United States shortly thereafter in 1875. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad created a pension system in 1880, followed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1886; other railroads soon followed suit. By the late 1920s, more than 80 percent of all railroad workers in the United States were covered by a pension plan. However, these plans were generally inadequate, liable to capricious termination, and of little assistance to disabled employees. The Great Depression drove the already unstable and inadequate railroad pension systems into a state of crisis. By 1928, over 250,000 railroad workers had lost their jobs and by 1931, 16 percent of all railroad employees nationally were laid off. Older railroad workers eligible for retirement exercised their seniority rights and continued working, deciding that a steady paycheck was preferable to pension systems that could not meet their obligations. This decimated the ranks of younger workers, affecting the railroad industry for years to come as the labor pool of younger workers disappeared. Congress passed the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934 ``to promote economy, improve employee morale and promote the efficiency and safety of interstate transportation.'' This law created a fund into which all railroad employers and employees paid. The Railroad Retirement Act was the first major piece of Federal retirement legislation under President Roosevelt's ``New Deal'' and set the precedent for later, more general retirement legislation. It allowed older workers to retire with the promise of a reliable income from a stable pension system for the first time in history, and enabled younger workers to return to work. However, after the Railroad Retirement Act became law, the United States Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional. Congress passed similar legislation the following year, which President Roosevelt signed into law on August 29, 1935. Railroad management and labor had to come to the table and resolve their differences and less than a year after the passage of the 1935 legislation, the first annuity payments to railroad retirees were made. In July 1937, the benefit payments of more than 50,000 pensioners were taken over by the Railroad Retirement Board. In 2001, Congress enacted the most sweeping changes to railroad retirement law since the 1930s, with enactment of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act. The Act liberalized early retirement benefits for 30-year employees and their spouses, eliminated a cap on monthly retirement and disability benefits, and lowered the minimum service requirement to under 10 years if at least five years of service occurred after 1995. By the beginning of 2010, railroad retirement benefits have been paid to two million retired employees, 1.1 million spouses, and 2.4 million survivors. This year, nearly 600,000 beneficiaries will receive retirement and survivor benefits and about 42,000 railroad workers will receive unemployment and sickness benefits. H. Res. 1463 recognizes the vitally important contributions that the rail industry, rail workers, and retirees make to the Nation's transportation system. It recognizes the success of the legislation signed into law by President Roosevelt 75 years ago, and celebrates the importance of the railroad retirement system to America's working families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1463 and celebrating Railroad Retirement Day on Sunday, August 29, 2010.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman from Virginia has been very diligent and vigilant on deficit reduction and on careful investment of the public resources, as has the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer), and there is no one who can exceed those qualities other than the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a gentleman whose entire career has been one of public probity and clarity. As the gentleman from Michigan said, where he comes from and where I come from in northern Minnesota, where the gentleman from Virginia comes from, $107 million is real money. We could build 100 lane miles of new road at $1 million a mile in my part of the country. But being very clear, this is contract authority that is not going to be used. It's very clear it's not going to be used. The agencies have said they're not going to use it. But in the curious construct of our budget processes in both the executive branch and the legislative branch, on this side of the Hill and the other side of the Hill, that money can be used in an obscure fashion that it takes a very long time to explain to ordinary citizens. Say, in a passing comment in a Fourth of July parade, you can't plumb the depths of this curious budget process. Sure, there are no outlay savings, but that's why the Appropriations Committee year in and year out, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, have used the rescission process to claim savings on the one hand and spend money on the other hand, real general revenue dollars on the other hand for projects that they consider to be important. The supplemental appropriation bill earlier this month rescinded $25 million of highway safety contract authority that will be rescinded by the bill before us. The supplemental appropriation bill rescinds $2.2 billion of Federal- aid highway contract authority so they can use it as something else. This is real. What we are doing here is saying this is done. These authorities that exist in law that will not be used, for which obligations will not be made, and for which projects will not be advanced is terminated, and the Appropriations Committee then can't use that gimmick for something else they want to do. So what we do is real in this legislation. It takes $107 million off the table. It makes it unavailable for rescission and unavailable for gimmickry through the appropriation process in either this body or the other body. We take a real positive step, one that is within the authority of this committee. We are not the Budget Committee. We are not Ways and Means. We have jurisdictional issues, and we are identifying other savings of this nature that will be considered on the House floor in the coming week before the August recess. So I applaud the deficit hawks of our committee on both sides of the aisle for their vigilance and for pursuing this matter. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5604, the ``Surface Transportation Savings Act of 2010''. I commend the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer) for introducing this legislation. This bill rescinds $107 million in excess contract authority that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) cannot use in fiscal year (FY) 2010. In doing so, H.R. 5604 will take these funds off the table so that they cannot be used to increase spending in the future. The largest rescission contained in this legislation will occur in NHTSA's safety belt performance grants program. This program received $124.5 million in FY 2010 to carry out an incentive grant program to encourage States to enact and enforce laws requiring the use of safety belts. This funding level is equal to the amount authorized for this program in FY 2009 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109- 59). According to NHTSA, only three States are expected to qualify to receive an incentive grant under this program this year, requiring no more than $28.5 million in FY 2010 to carry out the authorized activities of the program. NHTSA does not have the authority to redistribute the unused program funds this fiscal year, and they will remain unallocated in 2010. H.R. 5604 rescinds $81.0 million in unusable contract authority from this program. The Surface Transportation Savings Act also rescinds $8.5 million in contract authority from NHTSA's administrative expenses, the National Driver Register, and research and development programs. This excess contract authority was made available under the extension of current surface transportation programs passed as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act). Because the amounts of contract authority provided for these programs under the HIRE Act is greater than the funding levels provided by the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, NHTSA cannot use these funds this year. H.R. 5604 also rescinds $17.4 million of contract authority from FTA's formula and bus grant programs. The HIRE Act provides $8.361 billion in FY 2010 to carry out FTA's formula and bus grant programs, $17.4 million more than the funding level provided in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act. FTA does not have the ability to utilize these funds this year. Although the $107 million that would be rescinded by H.R. 5604 cannot be used at the present time, there are two ways this $107 million could be used to increase spending in the future if it is not rescinded now. First, a future appropriations act could increase the obligation limitations that control spending for these highway safety and transit programs, thereby allowing this $107 million to be spent. Second, a future appropriations act could rescind this $107 million and use that rescission to offset increased spending on other programs. There are skeptics who claim that this bill will not reduce spending. They are closing their eyes to the budgetary shell game played out in this body over the past decade. It has become somewhat routine for appropriations bills to rescind surface transportation contract authority in order to offset other spending that no appropriations committee proposes. In fact, H.R. 4899, the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010'', that passed the House earlier this month, rescinds $25 million of the highway safety contract authority that would be rescinded by the bill before us today. The Supplemental Appropriations bill also rescinds $2.2 billion of Federal-aid highway contract authority. The Committee on Appropriations includes such rescissions in appropriations bills because they offset other spending that the committee supports. Even if a contract authority rescission is ``scored'' as only reducing budget authority, not outlays, a budget authority offset is often all that is needed to facilitate additional spending in an appropriations bill. To the extent that this bill takes $107 million off the table and makes that amount unavailable for rescission, or use, by some future appropriations bill, it will indeed result in ``real'' savings. H.R. 5604 is one step in a continuing effort to find savings within programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. While these savings may seem small relative to the size of our budget deficit, it is a start. Even the longest journey begins with a single step. I want to again thank Mr. Perriello and Mr. Schauer for their hard work on behalf of the American taxpayers in introducing this legislation. This proposal is a common sense step toward improving the Nation's fiscal foundation and ensuring that the nation's Federal surface transportation funds are invested as efficiently as possible. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5604.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield to me for just a moment?