James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 343, commemorating the marinas of the United States and expressing support for the designation of National Marina Day on August 11, 2007. There are more than 12,000 marinas in the United States. They provide services and access for millions of recreational boaters to the lakes, rivers, and bays of the United States. In my State of Minnesota, marinas provide boaters access to thousands of lakes and the headwaters of the Mississippi River. Each weekend, millions of Americans take to the water from marinas to enjoy fishing, kayaking, sailing, and just cruising down the river enjoying the water. Marinas make all of this happen. They employ more than 140,000 people whose sole purpose is to help boaters enjoy their time on the water safely. On August 11, 2007, National Marina Day will focus on the role marinas play as safe, family-friendly gateways to boating, and the invaluable service marina operators and owners perform as stewards of the environment. Activities include fishing tournaments, boating safety demonstrations, water sports, and environmental demonstrations. We also recognize that the role of the marina operator has changed since September 2001. They are helping the Coast Guard and others keep an eye out for suspicious activities on the waterways. Marina operators are on the water every day. They know what is routine--and what looks suspicious. They are keeping a lookout for aggressive behavior, unusual diving, suspicious packages on bridges or terminals, and other activities that appear out of place. Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recognize the waterways of the United States as an important component of our national transportation system. However, these waterways also serve another important purpose: They allow people to have fun on the water. Marinas allow these types of recreational activities to occur. I thank the gendeman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 343.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join the Majority Leader (Mr. Hoyer) and Ms. Norton, along with Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Wynn in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 79, to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. I especially want to acknowledge the dedication of Mr. Hoyer, who faithfully introduces this resolution each year to authorize use of the Capitol Grounds for this wonderful event. This annual event encourages all boys and girls, ages eight through 17, to construct and operate their own soap box vehicles. The Washington event, which attracts a great number of spectators and extensive media coverage, has grown in size and has become one of the best-attended events in the country. The winner in each of three age divisions wins a trip to the national race in Akron, Ohio. The Washington Soap Box Derby is supported by hundreds of volunteers and parents. The principles of aerodynamics are combined with fun and excitement for all participants and their families in the Greater Washington area. It is an excellent opportunity for parents to have direct involvement in their children's activities. The derby's mission is to provide children with an activity that promotes technical and social skills that will serve them throughout their lives. This year, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby is scheduled for June 16. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 79.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 386, recognizing the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and other boating safety organizations for their efforts to promote National Safe Boating Week. National Safe Boating Week is really about educating boaters. In 2005, there were 697 boating fatalities in the United States. The leading cause of death in a boating accident is drowning. Of the 491 people that drowned in 2003, almost 90 percent were not wearing a lifejacket. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of these deaths could have been prevent by proper use of a Personal Flotation Device. The Coast Guard Auxiliary, and its 27,000 members, are on our Nation's waterways every day conducting voluntary safe boating examinations and educating the public about safe boating practices. In addition, the Auxiliary conducts harbor patrols, assists in search and rescue and marine environmental protection, and conducts boating safety courses; volunteering more than 2 million hours annually to benefit their fellow boaters. Boating safety organizations, such as the National Safe Boating Council, educate recreational boaters about safety issues. As the summer boating season begins, they have some simple recommendations for boaters: Do wear a Life Jacket. They Float. You Don't. Don't mix alcohol and boating. Do observe the nautical rules-of-the-road. Don't stand in a small boat. Do check the weather forecast before getting underway. Don't overload your boat. Do keep a good lookout. Mr. Speaker, this House should help educate the boating public about prudent safety measures that can help save their lives. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 386 and help bring more attention to the importance of boating safety.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, on May 3rd, I joined with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Baker, and ten of our colleagues, to introduce the ``Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007.'' Twenty-six years ago, Congress voted to deregulate the Nation's railroad industry and enacted the Staggers Rail Act. The railroad industry was in crisis: Years of low profits, deferred maintenance, and ill-conceived regulatory policies had resulted in a very debilitated industry. We were assured that deregulation was the cure. We were told that economic regulation had outlived its usefulness; that it was preventing the industry from competing effectively with trucks, barges, and pipelines; and that there were a sufficient number of rail carriers to provide significant rail-to-rail competition. Congress voted to deregulate the industry. Deregulation did produce some of the benefits predicted: America's railroads are financially much stronger today than they were in 1980. Industry rates of return that hovered in the 1-2 percent range in the 1970s were up in the 6-9 percent range in the 1990s. Today, U.S. railroads account for 42 percent of intercity freight ton-miles, more than any other mode of transportation. U.S. Class I railroads move three times more freight than all of Western Europe's freight railroads combined. The 40 Class I railroads that existed in 1980 have consolidated into just seven Class I railroads serving the entire United States, four of which control over 95 percent of the railroad business. This unprecedented consolidation has resulted in entire States, regions, and industries becoming captive to a single Class I railroad. Example: Laramie River Station is served by a single railroad--BNSF-- that delivers 8.3 million tons of coal annually from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to Laramie River Station, a distance of approximately 175 miles. When a long-standing contract for that service expired in 2004, BNSF published new rates for the same service that more than doubled the prior rate. Without Federal intervention, these increased rail rates are estimated to cost consumers $1 billion over the next 20 years. Example: Dairyland Power Cooperative, a generation and transmission cooperative located in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, has experienced similar problems. The Cooperative asserts that failure by the Union Pacific Railroad to deliver 25 percent of scheduled shipments of Utah coal resulted in Dairyland's overall fuel budget increasing by roughly 10 percent. Dairyland is also bracing for a 49 percent increase in rail rates later this year. Example: Montana grain producers advise me that their counterparts in Nebraska--where a limited amount of rail competition exists--pay less in transportation costs than do Montana farmers to ship grain to Portland, Oregon, despite the 200 miles in additional distance the Nebraska grain must travel. The Montana farmers estimate that this disparity has cost them about $60 million a year. This lack of competition has resulted in record profits for railroads. North American railroads earned $42 billion in revenue in 2006. In 2006, BNSF achieved $15 billion in revenues, a 15 percent increase over 2005, exceeded $5.10 in earnings per share, and attained $712 million in free cash flow after dividends. The railroad's net income was $1.89 billion, compared to $1.53 billion in 2005. BNSF's 2006 intermodal revenues increased to a record $5.14 billion, an 18 percent increase from 2005's then-record levels. Consumer products revenues climbed to $5.61 billion, a 14.6 percent increase. Agricultural products revenues were up 14 percent to $2.43 billion. Industrial products revenues increased by 15 percent to $3.60 billion. And coal revenues rose $480 million--or 19 percent--to $2.92 billion. Union Pacific Railroad achieved $14.9 billion in revenues in 2006, a 15 percent increase from 2005 revenues. The railroad's net income was $1.6 billion or $5.91 per diluted share, versus $1 billion, or $3.85 per diluted share, in 2005. Energy revenues increased by $376 million, or 15 percent, to $2.95 billion. Agricultural revenues were up 22 percent to $2.4 billion. Industrial products revenues were up 13 percent to $3.17 billion. And intermodal revenues were up 14 percent to $2.81 billion. CSX's revenues for 2006 were $9.57 billion, a 12 percent increase over 2005 revenues. CSX's net income was $1.31 billion in 2006, a 14 percent improvement from 2005, and the $2.82 earnings per share is a 31 percent improvement over 2005. Metals revenues were up 18 percent to $673 million. Forest products revenues were up 8 percent to $773 million. Coal, coke, and iron ore revenues were up 14 percent to $2.38 billion. Norfolk Southern's net income for 2006 was a record $1.5 billion, or $3.57 per diluted share, an increase of 15 percent compared with net income of $1.3 billion, or $3.11 per diluted share, for 2005. General merchandise revenues for 2006 climbed to a record $5.1 billion, an 11 percent increase from 2005's then-record levels. Coal revenues increased 11 percent to a record $2.33 billion. Intermodal revenues rose 9 percent to a record $1.97 billion. All of these gains for the railroads have come at a price for captive shippers, who look to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for help. They quickly realize that they can't afford the $178,200 filing fee or the millions of additional dollars necessary to fight their rate cases. Shippers see that the Board is more concerned about the financial health of the railroads than with the financial health of railroad customers, and they decide it's not worth the effort and cost to protest a rate case. Instead of alleviating the problems shippers face, the STB is actually discouraging captive shippers from filing rate cases. This is hardly the competitive environment envisioned when Congress voted to deregulate the railroad industry, and when Congress tasked the STB's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, to ensure that rail rates remain reasonable when there is an absence of effective competition. That is why I introduced legislation in the past four Congresses to reform STB's policies and procedures. Other Members of Congress, including Congressman Baker, introduced similar legislation to reform railroad regulation. But to date Congress has failed to act upon these bills. The ``Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007'' will preserve existing rail-to-rail competition in areas of the United States where competition is working, and take action to reduce impediments to competition that adversely affects rail customers. The bill provides directives to the STB for implementing current law. It requires the STB to: (1) Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, effective competition among rail carriers at origins and destinations; (2) ensure reasonable rates for rail customers in the absence of competition; and (3) ensure consistent, efficient, and reliable rail transportation service for rail customers, including the timely provision of rail cars requested by rail customers. The bill will also: Eliminate ``bottlenecks.'' Under the bill, on the request of a shipper, the carrier must establish a rate for any two points on the carrier's system where traffic originates, terminates, or can be interchanged. In addition, the reasonableness of the rate would be subject to challenge. This bill will give shippers access to competitive rail service even if a single carrier has monopoly control over a short, bottleneck portion of a route. Create competitive rail service at switching points. The bill requires rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements where the STB finds that such agreements are in the public interest or where agreements are needed to ensure rail service is competitive. The bill also prohibits the STB from requiring that the petitioning carrier show conduct inconsistent with antitrust laws. Eliminate ``paper barriers.'' These barriers are contractual agreements that prevent short-line railroads that cross two or more major rail systems from providing rail customers access to competitive service on one of these systems. The agreements require the short-line railroads to deliver all or most of its traffic to the major carrier that originally owned the short line facilities. Under the bill, the STB must terminate these restrictions, upon request, unless the STB finds that the termination would be inconsistent with the public interest or materially impair the ability of an affected rail carrier to provide service to the public. Establish a new regulatory process for ``Areas of Inadequate Rail Competition.'' The bill allows the STB to designate a State or substantial part of a State as an Area of Inadequate Rail Competition (AIRC), upon petition of a Governor or Attorney General of a State, or the Rail Customer Advocate of the Department of Transportation. Upon the designation, the STB has 60 days to provide remedies authorized by current law to resolve the anti-competitive conduct. The bill also requires the Rail Customer Advocate to conduct an oversight study of AIRCs within 1 year of the date of enactment. Address rail service problems. The bill clarifies the railroad's obligation to provide reliable and efficient service, and allows rail customers to hold railroads liable for damages sustained due to poor service. The bill also requires the STB to post on its website a description of each complaint from a customer about rail service, and how and when the STB ultimately resolved the complaint. The STB is also required to submit an annual report to Congress regarding rail service complaints, and the procedures the STB took to resolve them. Create an arbitration process for certain rail disputes. The bill allows one party to submit a dispute over rail rates, rail service, and other matters involving any agricultural product, including timber, paper, and fertilizer under the jurisdiction of the S11B for ``final offer'' binding arbitration. Reduce fees for filing rail rate cases. Shippers are now required to pay a $178,200 fee for filing a rate case. This rate is expected to rise again this year. Under this legislation, filing a rate case would cost the same as filing before a federal district court, about $500. Improve the rate reasonableness standard. The bill prohibits the STB from using their current practice of requiring shippers challenging rail rates to submit estimates of the costs, or constructing and operating a new, hypothetical railroad that carries only the commodity that the shipper transports. The STB currently compares the expense of the hypothetical railroad with existing rates to determine whether the challenged rates are reasonable or not. Under the bill, the STB would be required to adopt a new method based on the railroad's actual costs, including a portion of fixed costs and an adequate return on debt and equity. Create an Office of Rail Customer Advocacy in the Department of Transportation. The Rail Customer Advocate would accept rail customer complaints; collect, compile, and maintain information regarding the cost and efficiency of rail transportation; and participate as a party in STB proceedings. The Rail Customer Advocate may also petition the STB for action. Direct the 5TB to investigate complaints over service. Our bill directs the STB to follow up on complaints over rail carrier service, and suspend the action in dispute if it finds the allegation has merit. I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in introducing this bill. Together, we will work to ensure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding this precious time. Mr. Speaker, I heard our colleagues from Oregon, from Idaho and Montana speak about the disasters that are striking their area and the need for funding and assistance from this legislation. As we speak, there is a 22,000-acre segment of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest in the heart of my district on fire; 470 firefighters are out there trying to put the blaze out. We need help every bit as much as do the people in Iraq for water and sewer and infrastructure investment. We need that help right here at home. If we don't have a strong and vibrant economy at home, we can't support our troops overseas. We can't support other countries and their needs. We have got to rebuild America. We have got to protect our land here at home. And this is only today's fire. We had just a year-and-a- half ago a huge blaze that ripped through the Boundary Areas Canoe Area. We need this assistance, we need it now, and we need it in this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to reauthorize the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, and improve the safety of our Nation's railroads. Congress last reauthorized the FRA in 1994; that authorization expired in 1998. Since that time, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held 13 hearings on rail safety. In the first four months of the 110th Congress alone, we have held 4 hearings on rail safety, including 1 field hearing in San Antonio, Texas. At these hearings, we received testimony from the Federal Administration, FRA, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, Members of Congress and other elected officials, the railroads, rail labor, and numerous safety organizations and experts. This bill is the product of what we have learned through these hearings. According to the FRA, the total number of train accidents, including collisions and derailments, increased from 2,504 in 1994 to 3,325 in 2005. In 2006, the number of train accidents decreased to 2,835. Although I am encouraged by improvements in the 2006 rail safety statistics, I believe we still have a long way to go. Serious accidents resulting in fatalities, injuries, and environmental damages continue to occur. The Department of Transportation predicts that rail traffic will more than double over the next 20 years. That increase, coupled with the fact that there are far fewer workers having to meet more demands on the railways than ever before, will only exacerbate the situation. In 1980, 459,000 rail workers were responsible for moving 919 billion railroad ton-miles of freight, or 2,002,787 ton-miles per employee. By 2005, 182,000 workers moved 1,760 billion ton-miles of freight, or 9,670,329 ton-miles per employee. Over the last 25 years, overall rail productivity has risen 168 percent while the workforce has decreased by 40 percent. That has a significant impact on safety, in particular worker fatigue. According to the FRA, about 40 percent of all train accidents are the result of human factors; 1 in 4 of those accidents result from fatigue. The FRA has launched a number of initiatives focused on reducing accidents caused by fatigue and other human factors. I appreciate the FRA's hard work in this area, but the FRA can only do so much when it comes to fatigue. The FRA is the only agency within the Department of Transportation, DOT, that does not have the regulatory authority to address hours-of-service. Hours-of-service for railroad employees is set forth in statute. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, ``the current railroad hours-of-service laws permit, and many railroad carriers require, the most burdensome fatigue-inducing work schedule of any Federally-regulated transportation mode in this country.'' A comparison of the modes is revealing. A commercial airline pilot can work up to 100 hours per month; shipboard personnel, at sea, can work up to 240 hours per month; a truck driver can be on duty up to 260 hours per month; and train crews can operate a train up to 432 hours per month. That equates to more than 14 hours a day for each of those 30 days. Despite widespread agreement that the hours-of-service law is antiquated and in need of updating, it has been almost 40 years since substantial changes to the law have been made. In previous Congresses, I introduced legislation to strengthen hours-of-service. The railroads fought against it, stating that hours of service should be dealt with at the collective bargaining table because I believe that the safety of railroad workers and the safety of the general public, which all too often are the victims in these train accidents, should not be relegated to a negotiation between management and labor. I am again introducing legislation that strengthens hours-of-service and reduces rail worker fatigue. My bill will: provide all train crews and signal personnel with a minimum of 10 hours of rest a day and at least 24 consecutive hours off duty in a seven consecutive day work period; prevent the railroads from disturbing their workers during rest time, keeping them from obtaining their full 10 hours of rest; limit the number of days signal personnel can exceed their hours-of-service during emergencies, consistent with dispatcher limits of not more than three days in a seven consecutive day work period; ensure that signal personnel cannot be forced to exceed their hours-of-service to conduct routine inspections, repairs, and maintenance of signal systems; eliminate so called ``limbo time.'' Limbo time is a term used to describe the period of time when a train operating crew's hours-of-service have expired, but the crew is awaiting transportation back to their point of final release; meaning, the off duty location or terminal point where they can go home or obtain food and lodging at an away from home terminal. During limbo time, crewmembers are required to stay awake, alert, and able to respond to any situation. Limbo time can and has kept railroad operating crews effectively on-duty for well over 12 hours, and in the case of the Union Pacific engineer involved in the 2004 Macdona, Texas accident, 22 hours (12 hours on-duty and 10 hours in limbo); require railroads to submit fatigue management plans to the Secretary for review and approval, and; provide the Secretary with the regulatory authority to reduce the maximum number of hours an employee can remain or go on duty and increase the minimum number of hours of rest. This Act also addresses a number of long-standing open NTSB recommendations that will help prevent accidents caused by human factors, such as fatigue. Specifically, the Act requires all Class I railroads to develop and submit to the Secretary for review and approval a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2014. Implementation of positive train control has been on the NTSB's list of most wanted safety improvements since its inception in 1990. Since that time, the Board has issued numerous recommendations to the FRA to implement positive train control after several high- profile accidents, including a 2004 accident in Macdona, Texas, and a 2005 accident in Graniteville, South Carolina accident; yet the FRA has thus far failed to do so. The Act also requires railroads to install automatically activated devices, independent of the switch banner, along main lines in nonsignaled territory to enable train crews to determine the position of a switch far enough in advance to stop a train if they discover that it is in the wrong position. In the absence of such switch position indicators, the Act requires railroads to operate trains in nonsignaled territory at speeds that will allow them to be safely stopped in advance of misaligned switches. According to the FRA, misaligned switches are the number one cause of human factors accidents. In 2006, track-related accidents surpassed human factors-related accidents as the leading category of rail accidents. Recent accidents in Oneida, New York, Pico Rivera, California, Home Valley, Washington, Minot, North Dakota, and Nodaway, Iowa, raise serious concerns about the condition and safety of track on our Nation's railways. On April 18, as a result of the accident in Oneida, the FRA conducted an audit of CSX tracks in upstate New York and found 78 track defects and 1 serious violation. To help address these concerns and additional concerns raised by the NTSB, this Act provides funding for the Secretary to purchase 6 Gage Restraint Measurement System vehicles and 5 track geometry vehicles. This will enable to the Secretary to deploy one Gage Restraint Measurement System vehicle and 1 track geometry vehicle to each of the 8 FRA regions. The Act also directs the Secretary to issue regulations within 1 year after enactment that requires railroads to manage their tracks to minimize accidents due to internal rail flaws. At a minimum, the regulations must require the railroads to conduct ultrasonic or other appropriate inspections to ensure that rail used to replace defective segments of existing rail is free from internal defects, as recommended by the NTSB; require railroads to perform integrity inspections to manage a service failure rate of less than 0.1 per track mile; and encourage railroad use of advanced rail defect inspection equipment and similar technologies as part of a comprehensive rail inspection program. New safety regulations are also required for all classes of track for concrete ties, as recommended by the NTSB. In addition, the Act strengthens safety on our Nation's grade crossings by requiring railroads to establish, maintain, and post a toll-free number at all grade crossings to receive calls reporting malfunctions of signals, crossing gates, and other devices, or disabled vehicles blocking such crossings, and to clear vegetation that may obstruct the ability of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators to see oncoming trains at grade crossings. The Act also requires regular reporting of current information on grade crossings to the FRA to enable States to determine where to best dedicate their resources for grade crossing improvements. The Act also addresses some concerns highlighted in a recent audit of the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, which I requested after a series of New York Times articles alleged problems with railroad accident reporting and investigations at grade crossings. The Inspector General found that railroads failed to report 21 percent of reportable crossing collisions to the National Response Center, NRC. Railroads are required to report crossing collisions involving fatalities and/or multiple injuries to passengers or train crewmembers, and fatalities to motorists or pedestrian involved in grade crossing collisions to the NRC within 2 hours of the accident, according to FRA and NTSB regulations. Immediate reporting allows the Federal Government to decide whether or not to conduct an investigation shortly after a crossing collision has occurred. The DOT Inspector General's analysis showed that 115, or 21 percent, of 543 reportable grade crossing collisions that occurred between May 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 were not reported to the NRC. Although the 115 unreported crossing collisions, which resulted in 116 fatalities, were reported to the FRA within 30 to 60 days after the collision, as required, that was too late to allow Federal authorities to promptly decide whether or not to conduct an investigation. This Act requires the FRA to conduct an audit of all Class I railroads at least once every 2 years and all non-Class I railroads at least once every 5 years to ensure that all grade crossing accidents and incidents are reported to the national accident database. The Inspector General's audit also found that the Federal Government investigates only a small number of grade crossing collisions. From 2000 through 2004, FRA investigated 47 of 376, or 13 percent, of the most serious crossing collisions that occurred--those resulting in 3 or more fatalities and/or severe injuries. No Federal investigations were conducted for the remaining 329 crossing collisions. The GAO seems to agree with the Inspector General's findings. According to the GAO, the FRA is able to inspect only \2/10\ of 1 percent of all railroad operations each year. Compare this to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): In 2004, the FAA conducted on-site investigations of 1,392, or 93 percent, of the 1,484 general aviation accidents that the FAA had responsibility for investigating in 2004. Unlike the FRA, however, the FAA has an Office of Accident Investigations staffed with 8 full-time investigators whose mission is to detect unsafe conditions and trends and to coordinate the process for corrective actions. In addition, the FAA uses personnel from other disciplines to conduct investigations, including 2,989 inspectors from its Office of Aviation Safety. Currently, the FRA relies on just 421 Federal safety inspectors and 160 State safety inspectors to monitor the railroad's compliance with federally mandated safety standards. This Act will increase the number of Federal safety inspectors to at least 800 by fiscal year 2011. The Act makes additional improvements to the FRA, modeled after similar legislation passed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and subsequently enacted into law that created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Specifically, the Act: reorganizes the FRA as the Federal Railroad Safety Administration; requires it to consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest priority; creates a new position (or a Chief Safety Officer; requires the Secretary to develop a long- term strategy for improving railroad safety, which must include annual plans and schedules for reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving railroads; improving the consistency and effectiveness of enforcement and compliance programs; identifying and targeting enforcement at, and safety improvements to, high-risk grade crossings; and improving research efforts to enhance and promote railroad safety and performance; requires regular reporting of statutory mandates that have not been implemented and open safety recommendations made by the NTSB or the Inspector General regarding railroad safety; and strengthens transparency in the FRA's enforcement process. I invite my colleagues to join me and Congresswoman Brown, Chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, in our efforts to improve rail safety by cosponsor this important legislation and working together to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report, but not the rescission of highway contract authority which this bill uses to offset non-highway spending elsewhere in the conference report. The report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program. No offset is needed for that emergency relief. Nonetheless, the conference report rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the States. Now, the rescission does protect highway safety programs, but it leaves transportation environmental programs vulnerable. The rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House. These types of rescissions adversely affect the Federal aid highway program, specifically the ability to ensure that the Nation's transportation system has modal choices. More than a dozen States have applied these rescissions disproportionately to cut contract authority for critical transportation and environmental programs, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement and the Transportation Enhancement Program. CMAQ funds are only 4 or 5 percent of highway apportionment every year, but they have accounted for 20 percent of the funds rescinded in recent years, and particularly in the State of Texas. In fiscal year 2006 States rescinded $888 million in CMAQ funds. One out of every $4 rescinded by States in 2006 came from CMAQ programs. In 2006 also the States rescinded 602 million of enhancements funds in which Texas cut $223 million of enhancement funding and completely suspended its program. The House, I think, will have an opportunity to reconsider the rescission issue in a future supplemental. And we, with all the environment problems that we have and the climate change problems, this is one area that we should not allow to be cut.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rescission of $683 million of highway contract authority that is included in the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007. The Conference Report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal Highway Administration's (``FHWA'') Emergency Relief Program. Section 4952 of the Conference Report designates this appropriation as an emergency requirement, for which no offset is required. Despite the fact that no offset is required, the Conference Report rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the States. This rescission is highly gratuitous, as it is neither required nor effective as an offset for the supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Relief Program. Rather than offsetting the supplemental appropriation for the Emergency Relief Program, the $683 million rescission of highway contract authority offsets other spending under the FY 2007 discretionary budget authority cap. A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of the bill. The Senate amendment provided an emergency supplemental appropriation of $389 million for the FHWA's Emergency Relief Program, and rescinded $389 million in highway contract authority. On April 23, 2007, I wrote to the conferees, strongly objecting to this unnecessary rescission of highway contract authority, and urged them to strike the rescission in conference. Instead, the conferees increased both the appropriation and the rescission to $683 million. Madam Speaker, the rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This rescission violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House. Programmatically, I am concerned because of the effect these types of rescissions have on the Federal-aid Highway Program and, specifically, the ability to ensure that our nation's transportation system provides modal choices. In recent years, the Appropriations Committees have increasingly relied on highway contract authority rescissions to finance non-highway spending in appropriations acts. In addition, more than a dozen states have chosen to apply such rescissions disproportionately to cut contract authority for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program, the Bridge program, and transportation enhancement funds. I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the CMAQ program under these types of rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and maintenance areas). Although CMAQ funds represent only about 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 states rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds. Almost one of every four dollars rescinded by the States in FY 2006 came from the CMAQ program. Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further illustrates the disproportionate cuts of these rescissions. In FY 2006, rescissions as a percentage of the total amount made available for programs are: CMAQ--55 percent. Interstate Maintenance--12 percent. National Highway System--7 percent. The Transportation Enhancements program has also received disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience. In FY 2006, states rescinded $602 million in Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' actions, which are facilitated by these contract authority rescissions, are directly contrary to our federal efforts to develop a balanced, multimodal surface transportation system. During consideration of the FY 2004 Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill, the Committee faced a similar effort to cut transportation enhancements funding. The bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, included a provision that would have prohibited funds from being used for the ten percent set aside for transportation enhancements under the Surface Transportation Program. Subcommittee Chairman Petri and I offered an amendment to strike the anti-enhancements provision from the bill and the House overwhelmingly passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 327-90. This vote illustrates the tremendous support that exists among Members of Congress for transportation enhancements, the type of program that is disproportionately harmed by highway contract authority rescissions such as the one included in the Conference Report before us today. Therefore, for both policy and procedural reasons, I oppose the rescission of highway contract authority as a means to offset non- highway spending elsewhere in the budget. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will have an opportunity to reconsider this decision in a future Supplemental Appropriations bill and I would like to make clear that, with the urgent climate change issues that our nation faces, I strongly oppose efforts to allow the continued raid of CMAQ and Enhancements funding.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, it was shortly after the election in which Juanita Millender-McDonald was elected to the Congress, she called on my office. I was the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. She came to see me about service on our committee. I had learned a little about her background, and I was surprised. I thought she would be more interested in Judiciary or International Relations, but when I asked why she wanted to serve on this nuts and bolts committee, she said, well, I have the Alameda Corridor in my district. And if I heard Alameda Corridor from her once, I heard it 50 times. It was incessant, it was a refrain, it was a passionate advocacy. I, of course, did support her candidacy for the committee. Then, when the assignments were given out, she came calling again, said, I want to know more about what this committee does. What are all these responsibilities? What does this subcommittee's work mean on public buildings and grounds and economic development? When I laid out the picture that this committee has jurisdiction over 367 million square feet of Federal civilian office space, she was excited. Well, there are things we can do here. It was just such an enlightenment and so exciting to see a new Member enthused about the work of the committee and wanting to understand it and grasp and understand it. The other thing that I have observed over the years, I have watched, as many of our colleagues have, as have the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who spoke so warmly and touching earlier, I see Members come in and they scratch and claw to get a committee assignment. Then they get on a committee, and they scratch and claw to get their subcommittee assignments. Then when you are there presiding or working, for so many years as the ranking member, you turn around, where are they? You don't see them again. Juanita Millender- McDonald showed up for work, every time. What was also touching was when another committee assignment conflicted, she would come in, sit down, be checked in, look at the committee agenda and the information, then she would come over and say would you please hold me excused, I have to go to another committee because something else is happening. You don't see that happening very often, the conscientiousness that she displayed about her service in the Congress. She took it seriously, learned it well. When we were crafting the Tea-21 legislation, she wanted to be a part of shaping the minority business enterprise provisions. She was on the floor to advocate for them. Her whole career was one of dedication to service, but she was a person, a mother, a wife, a human being, warm and caring. When she walked into a room and offered that smile, clouds parted, lights went on and Juanita Millender-McDonald was there for us. She will always be in my heart, in our hearts.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, a bill long in the making, 6 years in the making, a bill that has ultimately passed the House, not passed the Senate, passed the House, passed the Senate, not gone to conference. We tried in the closing hours of the 109th Congress to wrap this measure up, then-Chairman Don Young and I, working with our counterparts in the other body, attempting to reach an agreement, but it just proved insurmountable, too insurmountable an obstacle to get there. In this 110th Congress, we resumed on the base of the legislation that has built up over 6 years, over three Congresses, and working with the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we spent a great deal of time together thinking through how to proceed with this legislation. We agreed on basic principles that we would start with the bill that passed the House. There was no conference ever consummated in the 109th Congress. So we decided that the benchmark bill for this Congress would be only those measures that were in the bill of the 109th Congress, and we started from there. And then we have worked our way through myriad issues, Members who wanted new projects or amendments or additions to existing projects; and in all cases, we made very, very difficult, but I think honest and consistent, decisions about the legislation we bring before you today. I want to assure Members that are concerned, that have issues that have arisen since the 109th Congress, that those issues that need to be addressed by projects of the Corps of Engineers will be addressed in subsequent legislation. As soon as we are able to move this bill through the House, through conference with the Senate, which I am confident can be done before the middle of June, maybe earlier if the other body will be able to free itself to work with us in conference, we can get this done very quickly, and then begin on the next round of water resources projects which I guarantee is not going to take 7 years. We are going to deal with somebody, maybe in the next 7 or 8 months after the conclusion of this legislation. Again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for consistently working to move this critically important legislation. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is the proud inheritor of a long tradition of work, of investment in America's transportation needs, water resources, where the very first concerns of the new Nation in 1789 and the first act of the first Congress, 1789, was to authorize the establishment of a lighthouse, at the entry to Hampton Roads in Virginia. Starting from that point, this committee continued the direction of the Constitution to build and maintain post roads. Well, not all roads were built just for the postal service; but, again, it was the spirit of the Constitution, the spirit of the new Nation that we needed mobility. The Nation was founded along the waterways, the salt water coasts, the inland waterways. It has been our task to assure mobility, movement of people and goods through waterways, and then the highways, later the railways, and then the airways. Here we come with this massive bill, because the President, because Congress hasn't done its work; and the last time a President signed a Water Resources Development Act was in 2000. Well, we hope that the next one will be this year, which we fully expect. There are many issues that have arisen in the intervening years, some that were weighing heavily upon us when we began this process in 2000 of crafting the current WRDA bill on the Great Lakes. Invasive species are threatening our native aquatic species, biota and flora, as well as a new issue called a deadly fish virus, a hemorrhagic virus that destroys the fisheries and is carried in ballast waters from one region of the Great Lakes to another. We have language in this bill that will initiate an emergency program by the Corps of Engineers to protect the vital food supply and the quality of the waters. Lake Superior, because of a drought in the Great Lakes watershed, has seen the water level drop 8 inches in the past 3 years and will drop another 2 inches this year with the beginning of the major shipping season. It will be at nearly its lowest level in history. That has meant that vessels carrying iron ore from the upper lakes to the lower lakes steel mills have gone out 7,500 tons light. It means two or three extra voyages per vessel per season, raising the cost of iron ore, raising the cost of steel, affecting our competitiveness. We have legislation, we have language in this legislation that will direct the Corps to undertake an accelerated dredging program making up for the 15 years they haven't done the dredging because we have had high waters on the Great Lakes. We authorize locks, improved extended locks on the Mississippi River system, seven extended locks to take the 600-foot locks to make them 1,200-foot locks. A barge tow leaving Clinton, Iowa, round-trip to New Orleans, back to Clinton, Iowa, takes 820 hours. New Orleans is the world's most important grain export facility. We can cut 60 hours off that round-trip by extending the locks at 1,200 feet so the tows that are 1,200 feet don't have to be broken in half, sent through 600 feet at a time, lashed together, go through the next lock and do it all over again. We are in a world competitive market on which grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. Every time you have to spend those extra hours going through the locks, you are raising the cost of our commodities, which makes us less competitive with, say, Brazil, which is mounting a massive soybean export facility at Recife, which is 2,500 miles further out in the Atlantic Ocean than New Orleans is. We have legislation here, language in this legislation to deal with the restoration of the Everglades, a matter of great interest to the gentleman from Florida, for which he has been an eloquent advocate. They are in a state of disrepair. The buffer to protect them from storms is weak because of our inaction, and we are going to deal with that issue, as well as the wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, all the way on to Florida. We are insistent on addressing the needs of the Everglades, the needs of the Louisiana coastal region and in Louisiana, New Orleans area, the Mississippi River gulf outlet, which allowed salt water intrusion to come up from the gulf, kill the wetlands. It allowed the overtopping of St. Bernard Parish. We have got to restore that wetland, and this legislation will do that at the request and insistence of the Louisiana delegation. There are many other important features in this legislation. In all, 56 chiefs' reports, we had a request of over 1,500 projects. There are over 700 projects in this legislation. More than 300 Members of the House have a direct interest in the legislation. We welcome their interest in this participation. We bring to this body a very critical and supportable piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my great appreciation again to the gentleman from Florida for his thoughtful discussion. I join him in his statement on the administration's statement of policy. I think they have it wrong, and the gentleman stated it just right. Over the past 6 years, if we had passed the water resources bill in a timely fashion, it would have been in the range of $2 billion a year. That is normal. So what we are dealing with is a huge, pent-up backlog. Again, as the gentleman said, this is an investment in America, and Members of Congress representing their constituents, their businesses, their water resources, know what they need. They have come forward with thoughtful recommendations, and this bill reflects those recommendations. We have served as a filter to weed out those in our best judgment that did not measure up on cost-benefit analysis. So we have set a standard for the future and we have, in accordance with the rules of the House, made all of the Member projects available, and will continue to do that. I would like to acknowledge the splendid work of the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. She has devoted years of her service in the Congress to consideration of water resources vital to her State of Texas. She has taken ownership of these issues and led the subcommittee hearings. Even this afternoon, she has hearings going on in our committee room while she is here to help manage the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an alumnus of the committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Could the Chair advise the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. The question of the Fox River has been on the agenda of the committee for over 20 years. And the gentleman has stated the issue very well: that 6-foot channel depth is simply not viable for today's barge traffic. And there is also the issue of PCB contamination in the lower Fox River. The gentleman has shown real foresight in dealing with the issue both of navigation and of cleanup. So the Superfund really ought to deal with this problem. It is not going to. We are going to be vigilant on the matter. If there is an opportunity in conference to address the issue in an appropriate manner, we will do that. If not, we will do it in a subsequent water resources bill. And I look forward to coming to Green Bay to see the gentleman's district and the lower Fox River.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the distinguished ranking member, and we are committed to working together either in conference or subsequently in resolving this matter. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), former ranking member of the subcommittee, who devoted an enormous amount of his time, along with Mr. Duncan, in shaping this bill in the previous Congress and now leads us on aviation as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is an old saying among seafarers: ``No helmsman is tested in fair water.'' The gentleman from Louisiana was tested in the aftermath of Katrina, and I saw him at the helm in Baton Rouge when our committee made a tour of the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. I was impressed then and continue to be by his composure, his grasp of facts, grasp of the magnitude of the problem, and his willingness to address the issues in a coordinated and bipartisan manner. I salute him for his continued leadership and service not only to the State, but to the Nation. Again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for similarly taking the helm in a time of turbulence when we had this work of 6 years thrust upon us, trying to sort it out, do the right thing and serve our Members, their districts, and our Nation at the same time and measure each project against the yardstick of balance that has historically guided the Corps of Engineers and guided the work of this committee, and I think we have come here with a good product. And I especially appreciate, once again, the splendid work of the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who is the Chair of the subcommittee and who has put her heart and soul into seeing this bill move forward.

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