James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 99, the Congressional Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2008. I am extremely pleased that the budget proposed by Chairman Spratt recognizes the critical importance of meeting our nation's infrastructure investment needs, even while achieving a balanced budget by the year 2012. Increased investment in our transportation infrastructure has far- reaching effects on our nation's economy, our competitiveness in the world marketplace, and the quality of life in our communities. Yet, too often, capital investments are shortchanged due to a more immediate need to finance day-to-day operations. This budget does not make that mistake. Rather, it assumes full funding for programs financed by the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds. These programs are funded by highway and aviation system users and do not contribute to the deficit. Specifically, the proposed budget fully funds highway, transit, and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the surface transportation reauthorization act, commonly known as SAFETEA-LU. It rejects the Administration's proposal to cut highway and transit funding below the guaranteed levels by $631 million and $309 million, respectively. The Administration's proposal to cut transit funding was particularly ill-advised. The Administration proposed that Capital Investment Grants receive $1.4 billion, compared to $1.7 billion authorized by SAFETEA- LU. Of the $1.4 billion requested for Capital Investment Grants, the Administration proposed to fund 11 existing Full Funding Grant Agreements, seven projects that are currently in final design, and three other projects currently in preliminary engineering. However, the Administration's request ignores the significant pipeline of new start projects seeking funding, including 11 projects that are currently in preliminary engineering, as well as another eight projects that are very close to approval to enter preliminary engineering. Furthermore, within the $300 million reduction in Capital Investment Grants proposed by the Administration, $100 million was to have come from the small starts program. The small starts program is authorized in SAFETEA-LU to receive $200 million in fiscal year 2008. The Administration proposed to provide just $100 million, to fund four small start projects. There are, however, at least 11 other small start projects around the country which may be ready for project development approval in fiscal year 2007. Given that traffic congestion has become a major national problem costing motorists more than $63 billion in wasted time and fuel each year, the Administration's proposal to cut funding for transit investments is just plain wrong, and I am pleased it is not included in the Concurrent Resolution before us today. Beyond highways and transit, the Concurrent Resolution lays the groundwork for reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration programs by allocating the full amounts recommended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). As requested in the Committee's Views and Estimates, the proposed budget provides an allocation for AIP of $3.8 billion in FY 2008, $3.9 billion in FY 2009, $4.0 billion in FY 2010, and $4.1 billion in FY 2011. In contrast to the Administration's proposal to cut AIP funding to $2.75 billion in FY 2008, the increased funding levels provided by this Resolution will allow the AIP program to keep pace with inflationary cost increases, and begin to address the investment gap in airport safety and capacity needs. I commend Chairman Spratt for bringing this Resolution to the Floor, and look forward to working with him on continued improvements to our nation's infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 99.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This legislation is vitally important. It is long-standing. Actually, transportation security legislation in the aftermath of September 11 originated in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where the gentleman from Alaska, then the chairman, and I worked on a wide range of transportation issues. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), then the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I worked on what became the Transportation Security Administration, the TSA, the aviation portion of it. So we have a long-standing interest and involvement and in-depth engagement in this issue of transportation security. And now that the Homeland Security Committee has been created, we share aspects of this jurisdiction with that committee under the able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the able chairman of the committee. We are very grateful for the opportunity we have had to work together to align our interests and achieve a memorandum of understanding that has been incorporated into the Rules of the House on the shared jurisdiction. Over a decade before September 11, 40-plus percent of terrorist incidents were carried out against rail systems and transit buses; and events of recent note show that those kinds of attacks continue. The transportation systems covered under this legislation cover over 11 billion passengers. In the United States, every day 14 million people use public transportation for some 10 billion plus transit trips annually. This legislation gives us new authority and new funding to address the needs of those transit systems, to protect them against attacks, reduce their vulnerability and improve the security of passengers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and yield to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is correct. This clarifying language comes in large part as a response to court opinions that have misapplied principles of Federal preemption which has prevented people injured by the negligent acts of railroads from being compensated. The bill does not change any of the current law, but only adds to it to clarify the meaning of what is already in public law.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is correct.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will pursue this issue in future hearings of the subcommittee of relevance.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The situation that needs to be cured is not that the statute preempts negligence claims requires a change. The situation needing remedy is the misinterpretation of the statute by some courts. That is precisely what this clarifying language is intended to accomplish. This matter will be further reviewed as we proceed with reauthorization of the Federal Rail Safety Act in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I would look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from North Dakota, the Chair of the subcommittee, and ranking member of the subcommittee to address the judicial interpretation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very vigorously in our committee over decades to achieve the bipartisanship, and we have done so. But I think the gentleman is a little misguided in his recitation of history, because there were the Federalists and the Democrats at the outset and they didn't do much bipartisanship at the beginning of this Congress of ours. I just refer to section 3 of the manager's amendment, line 2: No Preemption of State Law. Nothing in section 20106 of title 49 U.S. Code preempts a State cause of action, or any damages recoverable in such an action, et cetera. So, in fact, the preemptive language specifically recognizes that existing law preempts positive laws, regulation, or orders by executive or legislative branch officials, expressly address railroad safety or security. And, not to be concerned, we will address the broader issue as we go forward with the rail safety authorization.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I want to express my great appreciation to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee with whom I have worked very diligently and cooperatively. He is a man of great personal integrity and legislative honor and has worked vigorously to produce a splendid rail and public transportation security bill. There has been some discussion about how the grants will be administered. We had testimony before our committee from the Nation's transit agencies and through their national organization. The American Public Transit Association told our committee they prefer to work with the DOT and Federal Transit Administration and grant administration. They have had experience with them. FTA knows the operational aspect of transit. They know the security side of transit. They can combine the two with less complexity and more efficiency than the Department of Homeland Security, which is just getting started, with a huge new bureaucracy, as we have learned, with over 206,000 people. So that part is working well and will work well in the language that we have agreed upon. Again, let me just come back to the preemption issue. Read the words, believe the words, ``no preemption of State law.'' That's what it says. That's what it means. I strongly support the manager's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee for yielding. And I respect very much the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). He is a very devout fiscal conservative. But, unfortunately, this language, as I read his amendment, would make very vulnerable those persons who travel Amtrak routes that don't yield as much revenue to Amtrak as those on the east coast or the west coast. The Silver Service Palmetto carries 457,000 passengers. The Silver Meteor goes from New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, all the way to Ft. Lauderdale, 273,000 passengers. The Capitol Limited, Chicago to Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, nearly 200,000 passengers. The City of New Orleans, from Chicago to New Orleans, 175,000 passengers a year. You are saying that they should be vulnerable, but not others in more densely run lines. I think that is inappropriate.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to yield, but unfortunately I have committed time to the gentlewoman from Florida, Chair of the Rail Subcommittee to whom, the gentlewoman controls the time, if I may yield further to her.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the godfather of security dogs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), would probably be surprised at this debate unfolding this afternoon. When I was Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, we were doing a major security act, he came to me with this idea of using dogs as a supplement to security, and I agreed to it. We included the language, and it has proceeded now to this stage of breeding special dogs that have staying power and the ability to cleanse their system of previously inhaled items in order to sustain the work of security. The gentleman's amendment is misguided.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 753, a bill to re-designate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal Building''. Odell Horton was appointed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by President Jimmy Carter on May 12, 1980. He was the first African-American Federal Judge appointed in Tennessee since Reconstruction. Judge Horton was born in Boliver, Tennessee. He grew up during the Depression and World War II in an environment he described as ``typically rural Southern and typically segregated, with all the attendant consequences of that.'' He was the oldest of five children to hard-working parents. During his childhood, he and his brothers and sister picked cotton to help support the family. Horton graduated from high school in 1946 and enlisted in the Marine Corps ``as a vehicle to find a way out of Bolivar.'' Ten months later, he took advantage of an early discharge program designed to reduce the number of men in the military, and enrolled in Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, using Federal aid under the GI bill to finance his tuition. The Korean War was underway by the time he graduated in 1951, and he returned for a second tour of duty in the Marines. During his second tour, he graduated from the U.S. Navy School of Journalism. After returning home, Horton entered Howard University Law School in Washington, D.C. He received his law degree in 1956 and moved to Memphis, Tennessee, where he started a private law practice. In 1962, Horton became Assistant United States Attorney in Memphis. He remained in that position until his appointment to the Shelby County Criminal Court by Governor Buford Ellington. In 1968, Judge Horton ordered the desegregation of Bowld Hospital. A year later, he received the L.M. Graves Memorial Health Award for his efforts to advance the cause of health care in Memphis. Judge Horton stepped down from his Federal judgeship to serve as President of LeMayne-Owen College, a predominately African-American liberal arts college. He returned to Federal service upon his appointment as reporter for the Speedy Trial Act Implementation Committee by the Western District Court of Tennessee. He later served as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge from 1976 to 1980. Judge Horton also served as Chief Judge for the Western District of Tennessee from January 1, 1987, until December 31, 1993. On May 16, 1995, he took senior status and retired two years later. Judge Horton was a member of the American Bar Association and Chair of the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services. Morehouse College honored him with an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws. In 2000, the Memphis Bar Association awarded Judge Horton with a Public Service Award. Judge Horton died February 22, 2006, at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and was buried in Elmwood Cemetery in Memphis. In honor of Judge Horton's outstanding contributions to the legal community in Memphis and his exemplary professional career, it is both fitting and proper to designate the courthouse located on 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal Building''. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. La TOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1019, a bill to designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''. Don Rafael Martinez Nadal was born in the city of Mayaguez on April 22, 1877. He received his college degree in Philosophy and Letters from the Provincial Institute of Secondary Education in San Juan. He pursued studies in Barcelona, Spain, and Paris, France. He returned to Mayaguez in 1904 and began studying the cultivation of coffee. Simultaneously, he pursued his interest in media and politics and joined the Puerto Rican Republican Party. In 1908, he founded the political newspaper El Combate. In 1912, he obtained his law degree, and became one of the most prominent men of the Puerto Rican political arena. He was considered one of the most famous criminal lawyers in Puerto Rico of his time. In 1914, he was elected as a member of the Chamber of Delegates for the city of Ponce by the Puerto Rican Republican Party. In 1920, he was chosen by the same party to serve in the Senate and was re-elected in the next five general elections. Nadal left the Puerto Rican Republican Party and launched a political movement that became known as the Historical Constitutional Party. Later, he founded the Republican Union, working to advance the cause of Puerto Rican statehood. In coalition with the Socialist Party, the Republican Union triumphed in the general elections of 1932 and 1936. In both terms, Martinez Nadal presided over the Senate. Before the election of 1940, because of a serious illness, he returned to his Guaynabo residence. He died on July 6, 1941. In honor of Rafael Martinez Nadal's outstanding contributions to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it is both fitting and proper to designate the courthouse located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speak, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1138, a bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ``J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. J. Herbert W. Small is a life-long resident of Elizabeth City, North Carolina. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia Engineering School, and the University of North Carolina Law School at Chapel Hill. He began practicing law in 1949 and continued in his chosen field for more than five decades. During his professional career, he was a member of the First Judicial District Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the North Carolina Bar Association. He began his career as Special Counsel to the Congressional Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Judge Small later served as County Attorney for Pasquotank County. In 1979, Judge Small was elected Judge of Superior Court of the First Judicial District and served as senior resident judge for 17 years. Judge Small is an active volunteer, serving on the Board of Director of the Albemarle Hospital and the American Red Cross. He has received numerous awards and honors from the Jaycees, the Boy Scouts, the Volunteer Fireman, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Rotary and Elks clubs. Further, Judge Small was a World War II veteran and served in the U.S. Navy for three years. Judge Small is an outstanding mentor and volunteer. For more than five decades, he has been an exceptional jurist and civic leader. It is fitting and proper to honor his outstanding contributions with this designation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I especially want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs for his leadership, absorbing so quickly in such a short period of time the complexities under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his partnership and working so diligently to bring this important legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this is an international issue. In fact, just moments ago, just before arriving to the floor, I had a meeting with a representative of the transportation ministry of the European Union. He is the deputy in charge of the Transport Ministry of the European Union, and we were discussing the MARPOL legislation and the need for international participation and cooperation on these issues. In fact, the European Transport Ministry has established a new section dealing with maritime pollution issues which go beyond that of the subject of this legislation to include pollution at sea from accidents to maritime vessels, the first most serious of which was the Torrey Canyon disaster in the English Channel in 1967, which alerted all of the maritime sector to the need for double-hulled vessels, to the need for international standards on shipping. We have moved beyond the water pollution issue, ocean pollution issue, which continues to be a matter of great concern, to that of air pollution, which is the subject of this legislation, the discharge of nitrogen oxides from maritime diesel engines, the sulfur content of diesel fuel, ozone-depleting substances, volatile organic compounds and standards for shipboard incinerators, fuel oil quality, platforms for drill rigs at sea. All of these are the subject of this legislation and of the International Maritime Pollution Convention. At the beginning of next week, our committee will travel to Brussels to meet with members of the European Transport Ministry and members of the European Parliament Transport Committee to discuss this issue and other issues including emissions from aircraft at altitude, which are the subject of the ongoing discussions in the international community on emissions trading and steps that the international community together can take to reduce impact on factors that are accelerating global climate change. This legislation, in other words, is not just a relatively noncontroversial matter that we attempted to accomplish in the last Congress; but for various reasons, we were not able to do so with the other body. But this is one step in a global issue of international concern that brings the United States and its maritime partners into cooperation on matters that involve air quality at sea. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his diligent work, and Mr. LaTourette and Ranking Member Mica for their participation and working with us to bring this legislation to the floor. I hope that the other body will cooperate promptly and move this bill to the President. We have incorporated recommendations by the administration in this legislation to accommodate their interests.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, although it has been discussed previously before I reached the Chamber, I just want to be sure to emphasize the important change to allow EPA to enforce the standards in addition to the Coast Guard. These are changes requested by the administration. The Coast Guard acknowledging that EPA has far more experience than does the Coast Guard on air quality emission standards. It is important for EPA to develop standards jointly with the Coast Guard because, on the Coast Guard side, they have more knowledge and understanding and expertise in vessel safety issues that have to be incorporated into any air quality emission standards that may be promulgated. I want to emphasize this role of EPA, an important step forward, and I am very pleased the administration was emphatic in asking for an EPA role, and Coast Guard similarly has been very insistent on including EPA in this process. I think this will, overall, strengthen the result of the legislation that we are considering today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 802, the ``Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007''. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and I introduced this legislation in February to provide the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') with the legal authority they need to implement Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Global climate change is a critical issue, not only for the United States, but for every man, woman, and child that live on this planet called Earth. The international maritime community has recognized this problem and developed an international convention to help address air pollutants from diesel ships. For many years, the International Maritime Organization, an organization of the United Nations, has been developing international standards to prevent pollution from ships that ply the world's oceans. The international convention is called the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. The United States has implemented these environmental laws by enacting and amending the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (``APPS''). On May 19, 2005, Annex VI of that Convention came into force internationally. Annex VI limits the discharge of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel engines, governs the sulfur content of marine diesel fuel, prohibits the emission of ozone-depleting substances, regulates the emission of volatile organic compounds during the transfer of cargoes between tankers and terminals, sets standards for shipboard incinerators and fuel oil quality, and establishes requirements for platforms and drilling rigs at sea. In April 2006, the Senate ratified this treaty by unanimous consent. H.R. 802 is the necessary implementing legislation for Annex VI of that Convention. This legislation will give the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency the authority they need to develop the U.S. standards and to enforce these requirements on the thousands of U.S.- and foreign-flag vessels that enter the United States each year from overseas. Everyone here recognizes the challenge that the world faces in combating global climate change. We must pursue all avenues in the effort to turn around the rising temperatures on this planet. I am pleased that the International Maritime Organization stepped up to the plate and developed amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships to regulate air pollution from ships. Last year, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 5811, the MARPOL Annex VI Implementation Act of 2006, favorably to the House. This bill was subsequently added to H.R. 5681, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and passed the House on October 28, 2006. H.R. 802 is very similar to H.R. 5811, but includes changes to allow the EPA to enforce the standards, in addition to the Coast Guard. These changes were requested by the Administration. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the EPA has far more experience than they do on air quality emission standards. However, it is important for the EPA to develop the standards jointly with Coast Guard because of the Coast Guard's expertise over vessel safety issues. During Committee consideration of the bill, the Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that clarifies that MARPOL Annex VI will only apply to vessels in the United State's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone when the Executive Branch determines that MARPOL Annex VI is customary international law. In addition, the amendment clarified that MARPOL Annex VI will not apply to public vessels owned by the U.S. Government until the head of the agency that operates the vessels agrees with the EPA Administrator that MARPOL VI should apply to that agency's vessels. The amendment in the nature of a substitute that the House considers today further clarifies that the application of MARPOL VI to the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial sea takes effect when it becomes customary international law; requires EPA to consult with a State when establishing an emission area; and requires the regulations regarding reception facilities to be jointly prescribed by EPA and the Coast Guard. I would like to take the opportunity to thank our new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, for his help in developing this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1195, a bill to make technical corrections to the surface transportation act, SAFETEA-LU. H.R. 1195 makes technical corrections to the surface transportation act, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005. This is a non- controversial, bipartisan bill that is intended to correct drafting errors, make technical fixes, and clarify Congressional intent on several provisions of the SAFETEA-LU. This legislation is very similar to the two bills that passed the House last year, but were never considered by the Senate. Although H.R. 1195, as amended, only addresses changes to previously authorized projects, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, per my direction, has required Members of Congress to submit earmark disclosure certifications pursuant to Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. In addition, the bill, as amended, complies with pay-as-you-go budget rules. SAFETEA-LU has been very successful and effective. Building on previous surface transportation acts, SAFETEA-LU provides the programmatic framework and investments necessary to begin addressing the nation's growing surface transportation needs. However, as with legislation of this magnitude, there were inadvertent drafting errors. The changes in this bill are required to ensure that all policies, programs, and projects embodied in the authorization act are implemented as intended by Congress. In particular, this bill makes critical fixes to the transportation research program authorized in SAFETEA-LU. Errors were made in the research program funding calculations that resulted in lower than intended funding levels in several research programs. These technical fixes will recapture critical research funds for many essential programs, including: The Future Strategic Highway Research Program, a concentrated, results-oriented research program focused on solving the top problems of highway safety, reliability, capacity, and renewal; and The University Transportation Center Program which advances U.S. technology and expertise in the many disciplines comprising transportation through the mechanisms of education, research, and technology. The bill also clarifies section 1928 of SAFETEA-LU regarding the Sense of Congress concerning Buy America requirements for Federal-aid highway bridge projects. Congress does not believe that the Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') is implementing the Buy America Act consistent with the statutory intent. Specifically, the ``additional cost test'' should be conducted on the basis of an entire bridge project, not on separate components of the bridge project. Regrettably, FHWA has applied the test to separate components of a bridge project if the project is broken into several components for contracting purposes. The original Sense of Congress, as well as the amendment included in this bill, is intended to clarify Congressional intent and to provide guidance to the FHWA in its implementation. Finally, H.R. 1195 modifies the Repeat Intoxicated Driver Law to allow for the use of ignition interlock devices. This change gives States more flexibility to either continue with the current one-year license suspension requirement for repeat offenders, or permit a 45-day license suspension, after which limited driving privileges are reinstated provided an ignition interlock device is placed on the offender's vehicle. Repeat offenders are a significant part of the United States drunk driving problem, representing about one-third of all Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests each year. It is estimated that between 50 and 75 percent of repeat offenders whose licenses have been suspended continue to drive illegally. An ignition interlock device prevents offenders who have alcohol in their system from operating their vehicle, but allows them to continue to drive to work, school, or an alcohol treatment program. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1195. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters between Mr. Gordon and myself regarding this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, DC, March 26, 2007. Hon. James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and Technology in matters being considered in H.R. 1195, to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes. The bill amends research portions of H.R. 3, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59), which are within the Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction. The Committee on Science and Technology acknowledges the importance of H.R. 1195 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology and that a copy of this letter and of your response will be included in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor. The Committee on Science and Technology also asks that you support our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bart Gordon, Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding time rather than turf. And the gentleman is quite right. I greatly appreciate the participation that we had, the partnership between our two committees. And I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts and the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and the Republican members on our committee who have all worked together to see to it that this critical piece of legislation dealing with addressing the housing needs still outstanding, 18 months after Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast, to see that they can be carried through, that we can deliver the needs of the people in the entire gulf coast area. We have worked out some concerns that we had on our side through the jurisdiction our committee has over FEMA to address the problems of people to ensure that we provide new assistance and speed up the help from the existing programs, make sure that that money flows more vigorously to the people and readily. I have been engaged with FEMA since the mid-1980s when the then- Reagan administration proposed to revise funding under, what we now call FEMA was then Civil Defense, as to reduce to zero the Federal support for almost every disaster except a very few, and then there would be only 25 percent Federal support. With the help of a Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, a Republican, and the ranking Republican on my Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, we exposed this failing to the public. We rallied support, created the framework which is today FEMA, and that Member of Congress from Pennsylvania then introduced a bill we developed in committee. We got it enacted. And many years later, he was selected by President Bush to be the first Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. So bipartisanship on this issue goes back very deeply to the very beginning of this issue. And one of the things I wanted to talk about that was initiated through our committee and with the Clinton administration was the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, critical funds that help get homes and properties out of storms' way, saving properties, saving lives. Over $7 billion has been invested under FEMA in the mitigation program to over 1,000 federally declared disasters. An independent study of the Institute for Business and Home Safety found: ``Mitigation produces significant net benefits to society as a whole, to individuals, States and communities in reduced future losses and savings to the Federal Treasury in future reduced tax revenues and hazard-related expenditures. For every dollar spent on mitigation,'' the study found, ``the society saves an average of $7.'' After the 1993 Mississippi River floods, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds removed homes, removed entire communities from the flood zone. After tornadoes, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds created tornado-safe rooms in what is known as ``Tornado Alley.'' We have used those funds to great benefit. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, early on, proposed to terminate hazard mitigation funds. We restore that authority in this and previous legislation and will do so in subsequent legislation. But this is not the last bill in the House to deal with the devastation caused by Katrina, and I hope by the end of next week we will bring the Water Resources Development Act to the House floor from our committee, some nearly $14 billion in flood control, navigation, environmental restoration projects. Of long standing, over 6 years we have waited in our committee to bring this bill to the floor. We passed it three times. It has never gotten through the Senate; never gotten to conference over it and, again, a bipartisan bill. But it will begin reconstruction of the coastal Louisiana flood plain and of the Mississippi area flood plain. It will authorize construction of the Morganza Flood Control Project in central Louisiana to protect people from flood damage and from future hurricanes. It will close the Mississippi River gulf outlet that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) well understands caused salt water intrusion and destruction of the marsh land that was the buffering and protective entity against floods that came from Lake Borne in and overtopped St. Bernard Parish, washed homes away. We will close that off and rebuild it. So I would cite those few things. This bill is critically important. It deals with very specific aspects. All of us have to continue working together to craft the needed protection, both by restoring wetlands and putting in place the structures of flood control and wind surge damage to the gulf area and particularly to the New Orleans area. I have been there many, many times; and I can say that it is disheartening to see how slow the progress is coming along in certain areas of that city, those that desperately need it. This bill, and I take my hat off to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and to the gentlewoman from California for leading the charge and making a powerful statement that we are going to address these needs, this bill will effectively do that.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 478, a bill to designate the Federal building located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) and his colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). Scott Reed was born in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1921. He attended local schools and graduated from the University of Kentucky College of Law in 1945. While at the University, Reed received many awards and honors, including the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medallion for excellence. The first years of Judge Reed's career were spent in private practice during which he distinguished himself as a trial lawyer of great integrity. During this time, he also taught at the University of Kentucky College of Law. From 1964 to 1969, Judge Reed was judge of the First Division of the Fayette Circuit Court. From 1969 until 1976, he served on the Court of Appeals, 5th Appellate District. In 1976, Judge Reed became the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a position which holds equal rank with the Governor. His opinions from the Supreme Court of Kentucky have received national attention for their scholarly content and careful judicial reasoning. In August, 1979, Judge Reed was nominated by President Carter to the federal bench. He was confirmed later that year and served until his death in 1994. During his confirmation hearing, Judge Reed was characterized as possessing a great sense of fairness and objectivity, practical legal experience, and great respect for the law and its responsibility to our Nation's citizens. Both Senator Huddleston and Senator Ford participated in Judge Reed's confirmation hearing. Judge Reed enjoyed a rich and rewarding career. His contributions to the American judicial system are exceptional. It is fitting that the United States Courthouse located in Lexington, Kentucky, bear his name to honor his distinguished career and enduring legacy. I support H.R. 478 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 429, a bill to designate the newly-constructed courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Hugh L. Carey United States Courthouse''. Hugh Carey was born in 1919, in Brooklyn, where he attended local schools. He graduated from St. John's University and, in 1951, graduated from St. John's Law School. During World War II, he fought in Europe with the 104th Division. For his valor, he received the Bronze Star, Croix de Guerre, and Combat Infantry Award. Hugh Carey served the people of New York for almost three decades, first as a Congressman representing Brooklyn and then as Governor of the State. Congressman Carey served seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1960 until 1974. In 1974, he was elected as Governor of New York in a landslide victory. He served two full terms as Governor until being succeeded by his Lieutenant Governor, Mario Cuomo. Carey's public career is highlighted by his handling of the city's economic crisis in the late 1970s. As part of this effort he spearheaded the construction of the Jacob Javits Center, Battery Park City, and South Street Seaport. He was a fierce opponent of the death penalty and, as Governor, prevented the reinstatement of the death penalty in the State of New York. Carey was a master at forming coalitions between business and labor. This ability helped save the city from fiscal crisis in the late 1970s. During that time, he worked diligently to attract businesses to the State mainly by reducing State taxes. Governor Carey, who will be 88 in April, still practices law in New York. This designation will honor the truly outstanding, civic career of one of New York's finest public servants. I support H.R. 429 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 430, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Towns), to designate the United States Bankruptcy Courthouse located at 271 Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Conrad B. Duberstein United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''. This bill has the unanimous support of the judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. At the time of his death, on November 18, 2005, at the age of 90, Judge Duberstein was the oldest serving Chief Bankruptcy Judge in the country. Judge Duberstein is a native New Yorker, born in the Bronx in 1915. He was 17 years old when his father died. As a result, he dropped out of school to support his mother and two sisters. In 1934, he received his high school diploma from the Morris Evening High School. In 1938, he graduated from Brooklyn College and, in 1942, he received his law degree from St. John's University Law School. While a law student, he served on the St. John's University Law Review. Judge Duberstein was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1942. In the same year, he took the oath for admission to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District in the very building which today we designate in his honor. Judge Duberstein was drafted and served with distinction in World War II from 1943 until 1946. He was stationed in Northern Italy, where he was wounded. He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and the Combat Infantry Badge. While in Italy, he had the honor of being granted an audience with Pope Pius XII. In 1981, he was appointed to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District in New York. In 1984, the Board of Judges appointed him as the Chief Judge. His work was noted for its thoroughness, extensive analysis, and scholarly approach. He was a person known by his humility and humanity. He worked tirelessly to enable persons of every faith, race, and origin to achieve a ``fresh start,'' consistent with bankruptcy laws. He was beloved and revered by his colleagues. It is both fitting and proper that the bankruptcy courthouse in Brooklyn, New York, be designated in his honor. I support the bill and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1045, a bill to designate the Federal building at 210 Walnut Street in Des Moines, IA, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building.'' Neal Smith was born on March 23, 1920, in his grandparents' home near Hedrick, Keokuk County, IA. He served in the United States House of Representatives from 1959 until 1995, and has the distinction of being the longest serving Member of the House of Representatives from Iowa. Congressman Smith is a World War II veteran, having served in the United States Army Air Force as a bomber pilot. His plane was shot down during combat and he received a Purple Heart, nine Battle Stars, and the Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters. He received his undergraduate training at the University of Missouri and Syracuse University. In 1950, he received his law degree from Drake University. Neal Smith is one of Iowa's most respected and distinguished elected officials. His interests while serving in Congress were varied, but he especially focused on agriculture, small business, and the environment. He became a champion for those issue areas and authored legislation establishing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Meat, Poultry and Egg Inspection Acts, and Small Business Development Centers. Congressman Smith also sponsored legislation to authorize construction of the Big Creek and Rathbun Dams. Further, he was instrumental in creating the Red Rock Watershed Conservation District and a National Wildlife Refuge that was named in his honor. In the 1980s, he was especially active in helping to jump start Iowa's stagnant economy. In 1996, Smith published his autobiography, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: From Eisenhower to Clinton. It is most fitting and proper to honor the long, distinguished civic career of Congressman Neal Smith with this designation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1045.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes and rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. It has been a long time coming to this point. We have labored within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for at least 11 years, maybe just a few months longer than that, to bring forth a bill to replenish the State revolving loan funds so that municipalities can continue the work of aggressively expanding their capacity to handle wastewater, treat that wastewater, return it to the receiving waters in good quality. We have been delayed over the last 6 Congresses, not by unwillingness within our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but because of external factors within the House. Now that those external factors have been removed, we are bringing this bill to the floor with good and sustained bipartisan support. I appreciate very much the support of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer scheduling this legislation early on in the session; and I particularly appreciate the participation and cooperation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our ranking member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources for the long participation that we have had and the splendid agreement and working relationship we had between our staffs on the Democratic and Republican sides, with one notable exception that will be debated at length here and which we debated extensively in subcommittee and full committee. I especially want to express my great appreciation to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). For years now, she has worked as our ranking member on the Water Resources Subcommittee, learned the issues, mastered the subject matter, and is now Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee and has played a leading role in bringing this legislation to the floor. The bill started out as $20 billion to replenish State revolving loan funds; but due to concerns by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, we scaled the legislation back to a $14 billion bill, paying for it through an additional revenue source, as within the authority of this committee. The CBO has said that municipalities in raising municipal bonds that are tax exempt will cause a loss in revenue to the Treasury, and, therefore, the revenue in this bill has to be offset by another source. We have done that in a bipartisan agreement, and this bill is at $14 billion, fully paid for. We will not have the debate that we have had on two other bills that were extraneous to the subject matter because we have covered this issue. Unfortunately, the administration has steadily reduced funding for the State revolving loan fund over the past several years, and in the budget request for 2008 has a $200 million reduction, down to $687.5 million. That is totally unacceptable. There was a time when we were investing $6 billion a year in Federal funds, matched by State and local dollars, to build sewage treatment facilities, raise them to tertiary treatment, removing nutrients, adding oxygen, returning clean water to the receiving waters. We are not doing that any longer. We are not keeping pace with the pressure on the Nation's water and wastewater systems nor our sewage treatment systems. The only debate that we really have is, What shall be the wages paid to those who work on building these facilities? And I listened with great interest and concern to the debate on the rule. The manager of the rule said that cities will start looking to Washington for these projects to take care of their water system needs. That is almost the same language that Dwight Eisenhower used in 1960 to veto the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments when he said: Pollution is a uniquely local blight. Federal involvement will only impede local efforts at cleanup. That was wrong then, it is wrong now, it was wrong when Richard Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act of 1972. We have had a partnership of State and local government. They have invested billions of dollars at the local level. We need to continue that partnership into the future. This bill will do that. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.