James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the very outset, I want to, on this historic day and historic occasion, express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, for the time that he has devoted and the close cooperation that we've enjoyed in crafting this legislation. We reached an agreement at the very outset of this session that we would take up the work of the last 6, really 7 years on three previous Congresses on the Water Resources Development Act and limit action in this Congress to only those measures that were in the previous three Congresses and not take up new measures, not take up new initiatives by Members, not even adjusting the cost of previously approved projects on which cost escalation may have occurred, and limit the scope of the legislation to the work of three previous Congresses, and also to comply with the rules of the House in getting sign-offs from Members on both sides as the ethics rules require. We crafted our sign-off sheet in advance of that done by any other committee in the House, got it approved by the Ethics Committee and by the Parliamentarian. We went through all these sign-off sheets, did everything according to the book, and in roughly 6 weeks from the beginning of the session, we were ready to go to the floor in March with the House version of the Water Resources Development Act. Regrettably, it took quite some time thereafter for the other body, because of the difference in procedures and rules in their body from those in ours, for them to get to this point, but they eventually moved through committee and through the other body their version of WRDA. We've concluded a conference, and I have to say, in 6 years, this is a very extraordinary, historic accomplishment, and I'm very grateful for the cooperation we've had and the participation every step of the way on the Republican side on this committee in the historic tradition of our committee, a very bipartisan approach. I express great appreciation to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources. She devoted an enormous amount of her time in working through all of the 900-plus projects that come to the floor in this conference report, the 600-plus projects that were in the original House bill; and to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who equally devoted an enormous amount of his time to the subject matter before us. It's that kind of time and effort and consideration that brought us to the point where we have a bill that I expect will pass with an overwhelming vote. I will make a further observation, and that is, for me, as I said at the opening meeting of our committee on January 17, a very historic and nostalgic moment. I started in this body 44 years ago as clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, and now I'm chairman of the full committee. That's not happened before in the House nor the other body, and I feel very privileged, very honored, very deeply moved to be here at this moment to see passage of this impressive legislation that will make significant changes in Corps policy and programs, review of Corps projects that will deal with the restoration of the wetlands in the gulf from Texas through Louisiana and Mississippi; restoration of the Everglades, one of the Nation's greatest water resource treasures; will deal with locks and dams on the Mississippi River to expedite passage of our agricultural commodities and international trade in which grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. It now takes 820 hours round trip for a barge tow to move from Clinton, Iowa, to New Orleans, the world's most important grain export facility. We can take 60-plus hours of time off that transit and make our agriculture commodities more competitive in the international marketplace. We can restore the efficiency of commerce on the Great Lakes by accelerating the dredging of the Great Lakes during this period of drought where we have harbor depths that are down 58 inches in Cleveland, 18 inches in St. Mary's Canal, 54 inches in Ashtebula Harbor, preventing the movement of iron ore to the steel mills, coal to the power plants at competitive prices. We're having to make two, three, four more voyages per vessel in the Great Lakes because the Corps has not been doing the dredging it needs to do. It will do that under the provisions of this legislation. We address the issues of invasive species in the Great Lakes, and the east and the west coast and the gulf coast parts are now being invaded by species brought in from waters foreign to our lands. Mr. Ehlers, for whom I have a great admiration and respect, has been such a strong advocate. There's much, much more in this legislation. We need not be exhaustive in discussing it. I just say I'm very grateful to all our colleagues on the committee for this very special moment, and especially to the committee staff on both sides who have worked so diligently. And in particular, I want to express my great admiration for Ryan Seiger, for he has steered the ship of state for us on this matter; John Anderson on the minority side who was has been diligent and forthright and helpful with his years of experience. great lakes navigation The conference report includes language to address the backlog of maintenance dredging needs in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and ensure the long-term viability of the lakes for the movement of goods and services. The Great Lakes region is home to 25 of the Nation's top 100 ports, when measured on the basis of tons of cargo, as well as many smaller and rural ports. Unfortunately, over the past few years, declining water levels in the lakes and a lack of adequate maintenance dredging has hindered the overall efficiency of the Great Lakes system, and has made the movement of goods through the Great Lakes more difficult, with ports throughout the lakes being between 18 and 84 inches below their authorized depths. These shallow depths have caused three out of every four vessels loaded in the Great Lakes over the last 5 years to have been forced to ``light load'' to safely travel through the reduced depths of the Great Lakes and navigation channels. ``Light loading'' forces shippers to take on less cargo, and reduces the overall efficiencies and cost- savings related to the movement of goods by ship--increasing the overall cost of goods. Section 5014(a) provides authority for the Corps of Engineers, ``Corps'', using available appropriations, to address these emergency dredging needs. The Corps should immediately begin work on addressing this dredging backlog, and restore the authorized depths for the Great Lakes and connecting channels to sustain commercial navigation throughout the lakes. Second Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Mi The conference report also ensures that the Corps will finally build the second lock at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. The Soo locks are situated on the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. The St. Marys River, a water bridge connecting Lake Superior with Lake Huron, is a critical link in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system. Over 80 million tons of commercial commodities pass through the Soo lock annually. The primary commodity group is iron ore and taconite, comprising more than 50 percent of the total annual tonnage. The Corps estimates that the water route provided by the Soo locks reduces transportation costs by an average of more than $4.90 per ton based on fourth quarter 1998 cost levels. Based on 1998 tonnage, this represents an annual transportation cost savings to the Nation of approximately $420 million. Of the four U.S. locks, only the Poe lock is capable of handling vessels with beams in excess of 76 feet. Any disruption of service at the Poe lock would result in delays to the system's largest vessels and could cause serious disruption to the industries and companies that rely on the Poe-restricted vessels for shipment of raw materials, especially iron ore and coal. In 1985, the Corps studied the construction of a replacement lock at the sites of the Davis and Sabin locks, and recommended a replacement lock at 1,200 feet by 110 feet. The project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1990. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorizes the construction of the second lock funded at Federal expense. The revised cost of the project, in accordance with the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004, is $341,714,000. Section 3091 provides the Corps sufficient authority to carry out this project at the authorized dimensions. The Corps should budget for this project in the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request, and immediately proceed to construction of this project, without regard to administrative policy. St. Lawrence Seaway Currently, two independent studies are close to completion on the infrastructure needs of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system, specifically the engineering, economic, and environmental implications of those needs as they pertain to the marine transportation infrastructure on which commercial navigation depends. Both of these studies have identified huge capital needs for restoration, operation, and maintenance of the seaway. According to the seaway, approximately $135 million in unmet operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the existing Eisenhower and Snell lock related facilities and related navigational infrastructure is necessary to ensure the continued, long-term viability of the system. Over the past 50 years, since completion of the seaway, there is about $83 million in deferred maintenance costs that have left large portions of the infrastructure in poor condition and in immediate need of repair, replacement, or upgrading. The conference report authorizes the Corps to assist the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation by carrying out projects to address the capital infrastructure and dredging maintenance needs of the seaway, either through appropriations of the Seaway Development Corporation or through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Funding for projects under this section should not come from the budget of the Corps. Programmatic Changes The conference agreement includes important programmatic changes that address concerns with the existing Corps' study, design, review, and mitigation processes. Independent peer review The Independent Peer Review requirements provide that project studies shall be subject to peer review by an independent panel of experts. The conference agreement is a combination of independent peer review proposals passed by the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. The conference agreement improves upon both the House and Senate proposals to create a strong, workable, and independent process for review of project studies carried out by the Corps. For example, the conference agreement authorizes the independent peer review to run concurrent with the project study period, and requires that the peer review panel remain beyond the release of the independent peer review report to allow the expertise gained during the review period to be utilized by the Corps up to the release of the draft report of the Chief of Engineers, ``Chief.'' There are two categories for independent peer review--project studies for which independent peer review is mandatory, and project studies for which such review is discretionary. The criteria for mandatory review of project studies includes an estimated total project cost of more than $45 million, project studies for which the Governor of an affected State requests an independent peer review, and project studies that the Chief determines are controversial. The conference report also provides for discretionary independent peer review of project studies for which the head of a Federal or State agency charged with reviewing the project study determines that the proposed project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other natural resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of the proposed mitigation plans. The conference agreement also includes a. narrow provision for the Chief to exclude a very limited number of project studies from independent peer review. The expectation is that project studies that could be excluded from independent peer review are so limited in scope or impact, that they would not significantly benefit from an independent peer review. Project studies subject to independent peer review based on the request of the Governor of an affected State may not be excluded from review under any condition. The conference agreement directs the Chief to contract with an external entity, such as the National Academy of Sciences or a similar independent scientific and technical advisory organization to establish the panel of independent experts. The bill ensures that independent experts with potential conflicts of interest in a project are excluded from serving on the peer review panel. The conference report requires independent peer review to occur during the period beginning on the date of the signing of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement, and will be conducted concurrent with the development of the project study. Having the independent peer review carried out concurrently with the development of the project study will allow the independent peer review panel to receive relevant information from the Corps, on a timely basis, and allow the independent peer review panel to provide ongoing input into the development of the project study. The conference expects that this process will provide the independent peer review panel with sufficient information to conduct its review, as well as allow the peer review panel to recommend mid-course corrections to the ongoing project study, and avoid the potential for significant issues or delay to arise at the end of the project study period. As noted in the statement of managers, the managers recognize that the recommendations of the independent peer review panel are advisory; however, the managers expect the Corps to give full consideration to the findings of the independent peer review panel. The independent peer review panel should conclude its peer review, and submit a report to the Chief, not more than 60 days after the close of the public comment period for the draft project study. The Chief may extend the period for the peer review panel to conclude its peer review if the Chief determines that additional time is necessary. The conference has included language to terminate the peer review panel on the date of the initiation of the State and agency review, which is conterminous with the release of the draft Report of the Chief of Engineers for the project, and which is after the issuance of the peer review report. Recognizing that the Corps intends to allow a member or members of the peer review panel to participate on the Civil Works Review Board, which requires District Commanders to present their final reports and recommendations for review, the bill requires the independent peer review to remain impaneled beyond the issuance of the peer review report and allows a member of the panel to participate on the Civil Works Review Board, and to be available as experts, if needed, for additional consultation on the project study. The conference agreement applies the review process to project studies initiated in the two years prior to enactment and for any study initiated in the seven years following enactment. The two-year look back applies to projects where the array of alternatives has not been identified. In including this language, it was our intent that ``array of alternatives'' be interpreted as when the alternatives are identified for public comment in a draft feasibility report. This should be quite late in the study process, resulting in the maximum number of ongoing studies being subject to the independent review process. In the prospective application of the independent review process, all established independent review panels will not end after seven years. If a project study is initiated any time during the next seven years, the entire study process is subject to independent review, no matter how long it takes to complete the study. Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses Typically, Corps' projects impact more wetlands than any other agency or entity in the country. Various organizations, including the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have raised concerns with the mitigation conducted by the Corps related to their projects. This legislation ensures that potential impacts from Corps' projects are provided timely and adequate mitigation. In addition to mitigating the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, the conference agreement amendment to section 906( d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 intends for the Corps to mitigate for any potential loss of flood damage reduction capabilities for activities impacted waters, including wetlands. The conference agreement specifically amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to specify the elements that must be identified in a mitigation plan required under that section. Mitigation requirements now require mitigating losses to fish and wildlife, and mitigation must now include losses to flood damage reduction capabilities of the project area. The specific mitigation plan must provide a description of the physical action to be undertaken. The plan also must include a description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a determination that such lands are available. The conference agreement requires the mitigation plan to identify the quantity and type of lands needed, and include a determination that lands of such quantity and type are available for acquisition. The plan also must include the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat to be restored. The plan must include success criteria based on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics. Finally, if monitoring is necessary to determine success of the mitigation, the plan must include a monitoring plan and to the extent practicable, identification of the entities responsible for monitoring. As monitoring is part of operation and maintenance of a project, in most cases the entity responsible for any monitoring will be the non-Federal sponsor. Such person must be identified no later than entering into partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest. The conference agreement supports more specificity in Corps reporting documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. This section also directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the status of mitigation concurrent with the submission of reports on the status of project construction, as part of the President's budget submission. The conference agreement also directs the Secretary, when carrying out water resources projects, to first consider the use of a mitigation bank if the bank has sufficient and appropriate (including ecologically appropriate) credit to offset the impact, and the mitigation bank meets certain criteria. To the maximum extent practicable, the service area of the mitigation bank shall be in the same watershed as the project activity for which mitigation is required. The intent term ``watershed'' is to be the immediate, localized watershed in which the impact occurs and not the much larger watershed or watersheds that might be included in the service area of a mitigation bank. This is especially critical to address potential impacts in higher order streams, including headwater streams, where the mitigation activities should be proximate to the impacted areas. Principles and guidelines The conference agreement also directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake a review and revise the principles and guidelines used by the Corps for formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. The current principles and guidelines focuses predominantly on the national economic development (``NED'') benefits of Corps projects, requiring a project to achieve a positive economic benefit cost ratio before projects are recommended. In many cases, however, the Corps has struggled with utilizing a traditional NED analysis in the evaluation of projects within environmental restoration mission of the Corps. The NED analysis works well on traditional Corps projects such as navigation and flood damage reduction, but is not always appropriate in the development of benefit cost analyses for environmental restoration products. The Corps demonstrated its awareness of this issue through the issuance of regulatory guidance materials that encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the inclusion of the national ecosystem restoration (``NER'') benefits for ecosystem restoration projects. The conference agreement directs the Corps to revise its existing principles and guidelines to incorporate the unique needs for evaluating environmental restoration projects into its current master planning guidance. This is intended to enable the Corps to build better projects. As is evident in this legislation, many of the recent Reports of the Chief of Engineers recommend multipurpose projects that appropriately address multiple concerns in a single project. A revised principles and guidelines should enable the Corps to better weigh the values of the different components of a multipurpose project. Earmark Disclosure In the preparation of the table of Congressional earmarks that accompanies the Statement of Managers for the conference report, a limited number of earmark disclosures were inadvertently deleted from the table. The following Members of Congress have provided the Committee with earmark disclosure forms for the following projects: Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) for section 5158(253) Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Zeibach Counties) and Perkins and Meade Counties, South Dakota. Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08) for section 5003(a)(12) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. Representative Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) for section 3150 Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas. Representative Charles W. Dent (PA-15) for section 5003(a)(14) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Representative Barbara Lee (CA-09) for section 3182(b) Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, California. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey. Representative Rush D. Holt (NJ-12) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey. The following Member of Congress was inadvertently listed in the earmark disclosure report for the Statement on Managers for the conference report: Representative Robert Andrews (NJ-01) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for his splendid cooperation, his heartfelt earnestness on getting this legislation through and understanding the great significance it represents for all of us. I want to emphasize once again, we exercise great discipline in this body in shaping the legislation, keeping the costs within containment, within the previous 6, almost 7 years of projects that had already been vetted through the House, passed by this body and yet, unfortunately, didn't make it through the Senate. I read with heavy heart the administration statement of veto. I think that it's a misunderstanding on their part. We will do our part, we will do our role, and the other body will do its part. Then we will see whether, in fact, a veto comes forward. If it does, we will deal with it just straightforwardly, without rancor, without discussion. These are the right investments for America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and thank her once again for the splendid work.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Railroad Subcommittee, Ms. Brown from Florida.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney). And I thank the gentleman from Texas for his kind remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes, and ask if the gentleman would yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I compliment the gentleman on his statement and his recognition of underscoring the importance of the Mississippi River- Illinois-Ohio River system as the water highway for our midcontinent grain producers. If you look at a map of the north and south hemisphere, the furthest point of Brazil sticks out of the South Atlantic Ocean, and that is Recife. From that port are exported soybeans. That is 2,500 miles further out in the Atlantic than New Orleans. They market to the same destinations that we do for soybeans, we in the great Midwest, to east and west Africa, and to the Pacific rim. They have a 5-day or 6-day sail advantage. If we don't do the modernization on the locks, we continue to lose market share in the world marketplace. As I said earlier, grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. So we have to do this, and it is going to be done. It has waited far too long.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), whose district I mentioned earlier on the transportation bill had a terrible tragedy this afternoon.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman very much for his kind words, for his prayers and his thoughts about our fellow Minnesotans and the tragedy that's occurred this evening; and I join my prayers with his and those of my colleagues who spoke earlier this evening on that bridge collapse. We certainly keep the members, the family members and the victims in our prayers as we go forth this evening. We reach a milestone this evening with this legislation. I said at the outset and I say it again, this is a historic moment. We have accomplished in 7 months what it has taken 7 years to put together, but it is a good bill, and it is evidence that this body can and does work together constructively for the common good, for the purpose of building a better Nation, for moving people and goods efficiently and effectively in the domestic economy. Getting us to this point was not easy. The staff had to put in long hours, as the gentleman from Florida already expressed. I want to specifically mention Ryan Seiger, Beth Goldstein, Ted Illston and Mike Brain on the Democratic side; John Anderson, Geoff Bowman, William Collum and Tracy Mosebey on the Republican side; Rod Hall, Chairwoman Johnson's staff member; Stewart Crigler, staffer for Ranking Member Baker. From the Office of Legislative Counsel: David Mendelsohn, Curt Haensel, Heather Arpin over in the Senate, and Rosemary Gallagher. And from the Senate staff: Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushford, Angie Giancarlo, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Quiello and Let Mon Lee. All worked very closely together to craft this legislation, spending enormous amounts of time, weekends. While Members were back home in their respective districts, staff were here in this oppressive heat of Washington, although, I think, comforted by air conditioning at least, but putting in extraordinarily long hours to craft this bill, bridge the gaps, reach agreements, report back to Members so that we could be here this evening. It is a significant moment for America, for this Congress to have this comprehensive water resources bill together. And, again, I express great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the time that he has spent and the cooperation that we have had; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for the time that she has devoted, for her care, concern, and energy; and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who put his heart and soul into this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the conference report on H.R. 1495.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Corps has long had authority to terminate dams, but it has been reluctant to use it. In the conference report, we make that authority explicit with the intention that the Corps will be invigorated to evaluate dams in a broader context. But I think it is important for us to hold hearings so that the issues are aired fairly, equitably, scientifically, and engineeringwise, so rather than just have these things go on and conducted by bloggers and in some other unscientific way, let's put the issues on the record, and we will consult with the gentleman and the gentleman from Oregon on appropriate subjects and witnesses as we go through and proceed toward these hearings.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in light of the discussion, the exchange that took place between the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Oregon, I just want to observe that the committee will hold hearings on the issue of dams. Tomorrow, in full committee, we will take up a bill to give the Corps new authorities and direction to conduct inspections of dam safety. But on the broader issue of dams that has been in our work portfolio for quite some time, we will have hearings and explore the broad issue in terms of what the gentleman raised and in terms of what the gentleman from Oregon raised. Mr. Speaker, this is not something that will be taken lightly or swept under the rug in any way or forgotten when this bill was passed.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3248) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous and tabular material.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I recall very well when crafting SAFETEA- LU, the project that the gentleman has raised, it was never the intention of the committee nor the intention of the language to restrict the scope of the project only to the interchange when it is clear from the thrust of the project that it was intended to cover other improvements along the Route 34 corridor. Along with Mr. Mica, I will work with the Speaker to make adjustments. It is a little late for us to get it into this bill. If we had known about it sufficiently in advance, we certainly could have made an adjustment. But there will be other vehicles where we will be able to accomplish that, and we will work with the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that has not only bipartisan but bicameral agreement among all the committees of jurisdiction over the Nation's highways, highway safety and public transportation programs. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works, Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs and Commerce, Science and Transportation, all of us met, discussed, agreed on these technical corrections. In fact, in the last Congress, we were so much in agreement that we passed this bill five times in the House. They passed it a couple of times in the other body. But somehow it just never got to the point of being sent to the President. We took it up again this year. We were going to include it in the Water Resources Development Act, but at the last moment, technical glitches arose in the other body. So we are taking it up separately in this body in order to pass it and send it over to the other body. Hopefully, they will be able to act on it before the end of the week and send it to the President for the President's signature. There are over 400 technical corrections, really, truly technical in nature, waiting for 2 years to be adjusted and to be enacted. Tonight we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to observe a very tragic occurrence that happened just 2 hours ago in Minneapolis. The bridge on Interstate 35 over the Mississippi River near the University of Minnesota collapsed just 2 hours ago, dropping at least eight cars and a truck in the water. A school bus that had just barely missed crashing into the water was damaged, and students on board were bloodied and injured. The crumbled wreckage of the bridge is on the east bank and in the water. The concrete roadway is in the river gorge. It is a 40-year-old bridge, and it is a tragic occurrence, and I make that observation during the midst of technical corrections as an indication of how vitally important it is for us to continue our vigilance on the integrity and condition of the Nation's roadways. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Of course.

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