James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. The collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis on August 1 while I was at this very microphone managing a conference report on water resources amendments stunned the Nation, stunned this House. It startled my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation and our colleagues on the committee. But shortly after that, the Federal Railroad Administration and the GAO warned that many of the Nation's 76,000 railroad bridges may also be at risk. FRA on September 11 issued a rail safety advisory on railroad bridges, reporting that 52 accidents over the period 1982 to 1986 were caused by the catastrophic structural failure of railroad bridges. The most recent accident was the M&B Railroad near Myrtlewood, Alabama, where a train of solid-fuel rocket motors derailed when a timber trestle railroad bridge collapsed under that train. Several cars, one carrying a rocket motor, rolled onto their side. Six people were injured. Bridge failures do not account for the majority of train accidents, but FRA noted and updated their guidelines and reported that they have found instances ``where lack of adherence to the FRA's bridge safety policy resulted in trains operating over structural deficiencies in steel bridges that could easily have resulted in serious train accidents.'' We deal with that issue, among others, in this manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to point out that in the manager's amendment, we strike section 301, the whistleblower provision, and section 616, the preemption provision, which was included in the security bill. And I note those two because they are two of the five objections the administration raises in its statement of administration policy, so they are objecting to two items not in the bill nor in the manager's amendment. Therefore, I urge support of the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think it's clear the amendment does not apply to containerized facilities. They still are subject to the Federal preemption. The only question is whether there's infringement on preemption with open facilities, open solid waste storage facilities. That is a matter on which I think with further discussion we can reach an amicable resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes. This is a proposal that really does have a thousand fathers. The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is an advocate for this initiative; I believe the Governor of his State is an advocate for it, as the mayor of Los Angeles is an advocate for it. I know the City of San Diego and their planning organization are for this kind of initiative, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach is an advocate for this. And I am an advocate for it. And I think that in this initiative we have found the ideal solution to intermodalism, to movement of goods, reduction of noise, of pollution, of accidents, of intersection of goods, people, and vehicles by adopting the maglev technology. This was an idea that I advocated well in advance of ISTEA in 1991. We got first funding in the ISTEA legislation for study of maglev technology. And then in TEA-21, under then Chairman Shuster, advocating experimental projects. It took years of development, but finally General Atomics, under contract with the Department of Transportation, perfected the technology. And then it was the Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles that said we would like to move containers with it before you start moving people. The ideal solution. I wish I had thought of it myself. But it was the port that came to the idea, and then the gentleman from California working with the port authority and with the State embraced this idea. This can be a very exciting, successful initiative. We have a paying customer, containers. And with a combination of some Federal grant funding and loans from the railroad infrastructure loan program to whatever the sponsoring authority may be, it can be a State, it can be a railroad, this project can be very successful. We can have one not only in California but in discussion with the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee, Ms. Brown, the Port of Jacksonville would be interested in such an initiative. So I just want to point out that while the gentleman advances the cause, it is not limited only to California. The language of the amendment says, authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to design and develop a pilot electric cargo conveyor system for the transportation of containers from ports to depots outside of urban areas. A brilliant solution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Chair of our Subcommittee on Rail, Ms. Brown.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Earlier, I said this project has a thousand fathers. I should have said a thousand parents, because there are mothers and fathers in the presence of the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentlewoman from California, the newest member of our committee, Ms. Richardson. And I love the gentleman's enthusiasm. Mr. Rohrabacher has from the time we began discussing this project been a very vigorous and knowledgeable supporter of the project. He has also worked to bring local interests in to work with the Governor of California. I think with this enthusiasm and with this broad bipartisan and bicoastal interest, the Pacific Coast and the Atlantic Coast, that we will see something happen. There is going to be a project resulting from this when we get this legislation enacted. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The only thing I can say for it is that I wish the gentleman had been here in 1995 when the Republican majority forced upon National Airport and the Washington Metropolitan Area Government Authority, Airport Authority, the changing of the name to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. And they did so, I say to the gentleman from Idaho, with their finger in the nose of the authorities, saying either you make the changes and you spend the money or we'll take your money away from you. And they said it right here on this floor. What was the purpose of changing the name of that airport? No useful benefit. We are creating a new safety emphasis for the Federal Railroad Administration. In 1996, this committee and this Congress created a Motor Carrier Safety Administration. I didn't hear anybody jump up on the floor and say, Oh, my God, it's going to cost money to change the stationery of the agency. Baloney. It doesn't cost any money at all. You just use up the existing stationery you have and print new ones. It doesn't cost you any new money. This is bogus. I have no idea where people get such ideas as this. But when it comes to some priority that some people on the other side of the aisle had in previous Congresses, they shove it down the throat of the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority and say, You will change the name on all the facilities. You will change, they said to the National Park Service, signs leading to the airport, and you will do it at your expense, at the Federal Government expense. Here it's going to be a change of stationery. You run out of the existing stationery they have and print new ones that says ``safety'' on it. Maybe he's getting at something more sinister. Maybe the gentleman doesn't want ``safety'' to be in the title of this agency. Maybe the gentleman doesn't want, and anyone who votes for such an amendment, doesn't want ``safety'' to be in the name of the agency that regulates safety in the public interest. Vote against this amendment. This is nonsense. I yield back.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 725) recognizing the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution, H. Res. 725.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we meet on the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act from 1972; a bill that started out in the House, made its way through the Committee on Public Works, as it was known then, through the House, to the Senate Committee on Public Works, and then through a 10-month House-Senate conference, a remarkable meeting of Members of the House and Senate which, in a time very different from the times we experience recently, where Members actually participated, sat across the table from one another, not separated by staff, although I was a member of the staff at the time, not relegating their responsibilities to others, but actually participating vigorously with informed judgment, with strongly held views in shaping what everyone in that conference knew was going to be a new future for the waters of the United States. That legislation was considered against a backdrop of 14 years of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, crafted by my predecessor, John Blotnick, who was Chair first of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors and then Chair of the Full Committee on Public Works, to clean up the Nation's waters. In that year, 1955, and then following, in 1956, John Blotnick wanted to acquaint himself with the new responsibilities of being a chairman of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, and managing the inland waterways of the United States and the locks and dams and the harbors of this country, of the saltwater coast and the fresh water of the Great Lakes. So he journeyed down the Mississippi, part of the Ohio- Illinois river systems. He was a biochemist by training, and a teacher of biochemistry, and observed that by the time he got to New Orleans, there was so much trash, discharge, waste, feces and raw phenols bubbling in the Mississippi River by the time they reached New Orleans, he was appalled. And he said the purpose no longer became how can we move goods through the inland waterway system and barges of this Nation, but how can we, what must we do to clean up this resource of fresh water. On return to Washington that spring, he visited the Tidal Basin, the cherry blossoms in bloom, and he observed all of the debris and all of the foul smell in the Tidal Basin and called it the best dressed cesspool in America, and crafted a three-part program to deal with this problem of cleaning up America's waters. And he undertook what was then a unique activity: a Dear Colleague letter. It's very common. We see them by the hundreds today. But it was very rare in 1955 and 1956 to do something of that nature, and reserved the Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office Building, which can seat over 600 people, because he thought so many would want to come and participate in this great enterprise of protecting America's waters and restoring our rivers and lakes. And three people showed up: John Blotnick; Congressman Bob Jones from Alabama, who was elected in 1946, the same year as John Blotnick; and Murray Stein, an attorney in the U.S. Public Health Service whose office was, as John Blotnick described it, in the 7th sub-basement of HEW, the Health, Education, and Welfare building. And there they crafted broad outlines of what became the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Research, engaging the best minds in this country to understand what are the limiting factors in our waters that, if removed, would restore good health. Nitrogen, phosphates, toxics, phenols, how do you get them out of the water once they're in? How do you prevent them from getting in? The second point, treatment. Treating our wastes before they get into the receiving waters. And, third, an enforcement program to bring the States together to resolve common problems of enforcing a program of cleaning streams before they get into the receiving waters. It was signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1956. It had $30 million in Federal funding, 30 percent Federal grants to municipalities to build sewage treatment facilities. It was supported by the garden clubs of America. They were the first ones, the leaders, seeing the need for a national program of clean water. The next 3 years saw broad acceptance of this legislation, a need for increased funding. So John Blotnick proposed a successor to increase to $50 million Federal funding and 30 percent Federal grants and a stronger enforcement and more money for research. And that bill was vetoed by President Eisenhower with a veto message that read in its last sentence: ``Pollution is a uniquely local blight. Federal involvement will only impede local efforts at cleanup.'' But that was an election year. John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate, committed to an expanded program of clean water. And he came in and signed a bill that moved through our committee for $100 million in Federal funding with 50 percent Federal grants and an expanded research and development and much stronger enforcement. And over the succeeding years, the program grew, and so did our understanding of the broader needs and the broader reach of a Federal program to go beyond point sources but to get to the watershed, to go beyond the point of discharge, to reach further out into the country. At the same time, great suds, mounds of suds, were floating down the Ohio River system and the Illinois River system and the Mississippi. And people were turning on their faucets and finding soap coming out instead of clean water. And then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1968 in the town of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the Nation was galvanized into action. That led to increased funding for the clean water program and a recognition that we need to have a much broader scope program. So in 1970 the committee began extensive hearings on a much wider reach of the program. And in 1971 I was chief of staff of the Committee on Public Works when we began this much broader scope program. The result of all these efforts was the Clean Water Act of 1972, whose opening paragraph reads: ``The purpose of this act is to establish and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,'' not just the navigable waters, which had been the signature word of previous legislation but the Nation's waters, going beyond what you can paddle in a canoe, going to the source of pollution. That massive bill was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. But the veto was overridden by a 10-1 vote in the House and a similar 10-1 vote in the United States Senate and has remained our cornerstone act for maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters. It is our legacy to pass on to other generations that all the water there ever was in the world or ever will be is here now, and we have the responsibility to care for it. This Clean Water Act is our guarantee that it will be done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his splendid statement, comprehensive, thoughtful overview of the needs of the Clean Water program, and also for his very generous comments about my service in the Congress. I will also point out that the gentleman from Tennessee chaired the Water Resources Subcommittee for 6 years and led the committee in vigorous hearings on the issue of clean water, and we are the better for it. I yield now such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the author of the resolution recognizing the 35th anniversary, and thank the gentleman for his splendid service to the Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, first to observe that Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee, would have been here to manage this bill were it not for the death of her mother. And we join with her in mourning that loss. I know that she and her mother were very, very close. She spoke so warmly of her mother so often, and we join in prayers for both of them. We have engaged in spacecraft missions to the Moon, to Mars, to Saturn, to the asteroid belt in quest of water. The very first effort is to look for water on distant planetary objects in our system, for primitive life forms that may exist in that water, and yet we have not looked closely enough at the water here on Earth. This recognition of the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act will give us that opportunity to stop, to reflect upon the journey that we have made over these three and a half decades, and the journey yet ahead of us to clean up that remaining one-third, to protect that other two-thirds of water, to pass on to the next generation this priceless heritage of fresh water, that we do not have to go wandering in space looking for water that we may have destroyed on Earth so that we may bring it from some extraterrestrial planetary system to replenish our fresh water on Earth. No, let us be custodians of that fresh water that we have. It's only 2 percent of all the water on Earth. Let us resolve and renew our efforts. Let's resolve to maintain the purpose of that Clean Water Act, to protect the waters of the United States.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 704, I call up the bill (H.R. 3246) to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 reauthorizes two existing commissions and establishes three new commissions. The two existing commissions, one, the Delta Regional Commission, was created through the appropriation process, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission was established some time ago, but we establish three new regional economic development commissions: The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission. The purpose of the regional commission approach to economic development is a recognition that economic difficulties don't stop at political dividing lines, county lines, State lines, that they transcend our political boundaries, that the economic development problems are grouped by region. By economy, if you will. Some years ago, we had the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission linking the upper peninsula of Michigan, the upper counties of Wisconsin and the northern tier of Minnesota. They had in common forestry, wood, wood fiber industries, fisheries, travel/tourism and Great Lakes ports connected to the international economy through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Projects conceived by the Upper Great Lakes Commission were to be linked to the commonality of regional economic difficulties the three States experienced. The same with Appalachia coal; the attendant difficulties of the coal sector of our economy stretched across State boundaries and linked the entire Appalachian region with their forestry difficulties as well and also with their need for surface transportation development. That is the principle that is extended to the three new commissions, the Southeast Crescent, the Southwest Border and the Northern Border Commission. The Delta Regional Commission is one that has unique problems, exacerbated and at the same time underscored by the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. All of the counties, or I should say most of the counties, and parishes in Louisiana, in that region suffered common economic problems. Creating an economic development structure on a regional basis will join the resources and the forces of these States, the counties and the parishes, to bring forth new ideas that will benefit not just one community, not just one parish, but a commonality of parishes, a commonality of counties and a commonality of the States. In this legislation, we establish a structure, a common framework for administration and management modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission but also modeled after the difficulties we experienced in previous regional economic development commissions in the sixties and seventies and early eighties. We need standard procedures. We need a voting structure. We need standard procedures for staffing, standards that establish conditions under which conflicts of interest can be evaluated and avoided. Commonality establishment of local economic development districts, a consistent method for distributing economic development funds, a uniform set of procedures that will apply to all of the commission, and, finally, with commonality then we can have uniform evaluation standards of the results of these commissions. And it will be the purpose of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to hold intensive oversight hearings as these commissions get under way with their work, they are funded, and we will want to hold them accountable, we will want to see their record of success, and I am quite confident, given the grassroots-up nature of establishment of planning and mission of these commissions, that there will be great success stories. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the very distinguished Chair of our Subcommittee on Economic Development and other subject matters, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia who presided over the hearings and whose steady hands shaped this legislation. I am greatly appreciative of her splendid work.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will then yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and admiration for the time that he devoted personally and committed to the hearings, both in the past Congress and in this Congress, and for his consolidation of the interests of the various Members on the Republican side. We really developed a very strong bipartisan initiative as a result of the gentleman's diligent efforts. And to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who also worked within the Louisiana and Mississippi delegations, did extraordinary yeoman's work bringing disparate issues, interests and personalities together which have resulted in this successful initiative we have today. I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.