James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I hope no raccoons will be caught in the energy wall because that is the sort of place that raccoons like to frequent. Again, I thank my colleagues for their participation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I am very deeply touched by the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness and for his very much appreciated comments about my service on the committee and my work over the many years. I do recall the hearing that the gentleman chaired. He opened the hearing to the subject of photovoltaics. I remember that the gentleman did an enormous amount of homework, and he came to the hearing and surprised me with a recitation of the evolution of photovoltaic cells and the different types of materials that go into the production of photovoltaic cells and their application in a wide diversity of uses. The gentleman deserves enormous credit in his own right for his studious and thoughtful leadership on the committee and the several responsibilities that he has held, economic development and railroads and in the public buildings and grounds arena. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker, as a second-term Member of the House and serving on the Public Works Committee, as it was called then, and the Subcommittee of Public Buildings and Grounds, I heard an extraordinary presentation about the use of photovoltaics in public buildings and how, as a result of this study, energy could be saved, burning of fossil fuels could be avoided, and the Federal Government could save enormous amounts of energy costs by using a then-new technology known as photovoltaics. I was so enthralled by the idea, I drafted legislation which I shared with my then-colleague in the Senate from the State of Minnesota, Senator Hubert Humphrey, who introduced the companion bill in the other body; and together we got the legislation enacted, signed by President Carter, funding for the first 3 years of a 3-year investment by the Federal Government in converting Federal civilian office space to photovoltaic energy. Unfortunately, President Carter lost the election. President Reagan came in and decided that the alternative energy program was an unnecessary investment of the Federal Government, and the entire alternative energy budget was deleted. Years passed. Interest in photovoltaic cells continued. Research and development and testing and application in the private marketplace, as well as by government agencies, continued and the cost of photovoltaics dropped from $1.75 a kilowatt hour in 1977 to about 25 cents a kilowatt hour today, compared to 7 cents produced by conventional fossil fuel power centers. Well, I thought the time was ripe again for us to make another effort at having the Federal Government lead the way and being the template, being the exemplar in the marketplace for alternative energy use and deployment and reducing its cost. So the bill that is before us today, it was reported, we had a hearing and markup in the subcommittee and markup in the full committee to use the Department of Energy headquarters as the exemplary facility for the Nation in use of photovoltaics. The Department of Energy building, just down the street from the Capitol, on Independence Avenue and what is also known as the Forestall Building. In 1999, our then-Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, conducted a national competition to get the best architectural firms to develop a conceptual design for a photovoltaic system to be installed on the south wall of the Department of Energy. Solarnet, the winning design, will transform that south wall, which was deliberately built in a solid face with no windows and no doors. It will transform that rather ugly, nondescript wall into this very attractive piece that is depicted in the panels before us in the well of the House. But that solar wall will generate 460,000 kilowatts of energy. It is 300 feet long, 130 feet high, will contain 24,750 square feet of power-generating panels. The Federal Government is the largest single consumer of energy in the country. We are in a unique position to show the rest of the Nation how to conserve energy, how to be efficient in doing it, and to do so with our trust of management of Federal civilian office space. The Department of Energy estimated in 2005 that the cost of energy consumption of all forms by Federal agencies was $14.5 billion; $5.5 billion of that was spent on buildings and facilities, meaning electricity. GSA, General Services Administration, manages 387.7 million square feet of non-military, non-postal civilian office space. It ought to set the stage, it ought to set the standard for the Nation in being energy efficient and reducing the cost to the taxpayer of operating these Federal buildings. We ought to, also, change our management of Federal office space both in the construction and in the leasing of those office facilities to life-cycle cost considerations, not just the lowest initial cost of construction; but we are going to be the tenant, we are going to be the owner of those facilities, tenant in the leased operations and owner in those that are outright owned by the Federal Government for as long as we are in there, and we ought to do the best that we can for the taxpayer, and we ought to set the stage and help create a marketplace for production of photovoltaics that will, in volume production, reduce their cost. Photovoltaics are very simple devices. The sun strikes a panel that has lines of filament that create resistance, transmit that resistance across a grid and collectively produce direct current electricity that is then converted into alternating current electricity. It can run all the lights, the elevators, the escalators, everything, computers, everything that uses electricity in the Department of Energy building, and have excess power at the end of the day to turn back into the Potomac Electric Power Company grid so that the electric meter will run backwards at the Department of Energy at the end of the day. That is what we ought to be doing. We can do that. It is within our authority of this committee to set the stage for advances in technology. Already some 25 buildings of the Federal Government nationwide use photovoltaics in one way or another. The Department of Agriculture does, also just down the street, Independence Avenue. The Park Service, the Forest Service, NOAA, on their weather buoys, the space program all use photovoltaics to gather information, transmit. The Highway Departments, on traffic monitoring signs, use photovoltaics, gathering electricity during the day, storing it in batteries and run those signs at night off solar power. We are only addressing one project today, but that could be multiples in the future. And we are here doing what we can within our ability. It is not going to solve all of the problems of global climate change, but we have an obligation to do our part and to do what we can within this committee. Toward that end, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his participation through the subcommittee and then to the full committee. I thank our full committee ranking member, Mr. Mica, for his support and initiative on this matter and moving us to this point where we could pass this bill in the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his thoughtfulness. And I recall our very pleasant visit to his district on transportation and economic development issues many years ago when we saw so much of the progress that has been done through the Economic Development Administration, the need for highway investments, for which the gentleman has been a strong advocate. And I also remember a very special feeling, the presentation by the Fort Smith Chamber of Commerce of a unique award: a noose. I don't know what happened to it. I never did take possession of it to bring back with me, but someday I will make a return visit to Fort Smith. There is a long story we need not describe in this setting about Fort Smith and its role in the early days of territories and frontiers. The sun wall design, as these posters describe it, will be a very attractive facility aesthetically but attractive energywise and more than a statement, a demonstration by the Federal Government, the leadership role that it can play and it should play in moving the Nation toward energy independence. The Department of Energy conducted an analysis some time ago of the potential for photovoltaics and demonstrated that in a 100-mile by 100- mile square area of the Arizona desert, all the energy needs of the United States could be produced by photovoltaics. Well, we are making a start on that commitment with this legislation, moving in the right direction. It is long overdue, but we are making that step in the right direction. I thank my colleagues on the committee, Chairman Mica for his willingness to move ahead with this legislation; and the gentleman from Ohio for his thoughtful and studious advocacy of the legislation; and Ms. Norton, the Chair of our Public Buildings and Economic Development Subcommittee, for their participation in bringing the bill to this point. If there are no further speakers, if the gentleman yields back, we will yield back our time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 798) to direct the Administrator of General Services to install a photovoltaic system for the headquarters building of the Department of Energy.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 798.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 342.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 342) to designate the United States courthouse located at 555 Independence Street, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr., United States Courthouse,'' as amended.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 342, to designate the U.S. courthouse at 555 Independence Street, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse. Judge Limbaugh was a leading figure in the legal profession, not only in Missouri, not just in the United States, but worldwide. He practiced law for over eight decades. At the age of 104, at the time of his death, he was still practicing law and was in fact the oldest practicing attorney in the United States. He argued over 60 cases before the Missouri Supreme Court, tried cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Labor Board and the Internal Revenue Appellate Division. He was city attorney for Cape Girardeau from 1917 to 1919. In 1923, he started a law firm that bears his name to this day. From 1942 through 1946, he was Missouri counsel for the War Emergency Pipelines, which transported gasoline from Texas and Louisiana to the east coast as part of our war effort. He was president of the Missouri Bar from 1955 through 1956, and served on a committee that drafted the Missouri Probate Court. In the early days of the independence of India, the State Department sent Judge Limbaugh to that country to be an Ambassador for the U.S. legal system. He was active in civic aspects of life; elected to the Missouri State legislature in 1932 and 1933, where he advocated for the formation of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. He was president of the State Historical Society for Missouri from 1956-1959. He was a Sunday school teacher; active in the Boy Scouts of America, his Centenary United Methodist Church, and the Salvation Army. He died at his home on April 8, 1996. Judge Limbaugh will be remembered as a brilliant attorney and a great American. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his comments; he added several items of which I was not aware about Judge Limbaugh's distinguished career. I, too, do join in expressing our appreciation in the committee to Representative Jo Ann Emerson for her steadfast advocacy for this naming of the courthouse, and also to Representative Russ Carnahan and Representative Lacy Clay, who also expressed their strong support for the legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 238) to repeal a prohibition on the use of certain funds for tunneling in certain areas with respect to the Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project, California.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill will repeal a prohibition on the use of Federal transit funds for tunneling in certain areas for construction of the San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project in Southern California. Many of us can remember the tragedy over 20 years ago caused by an explosion due to the buildup of methane gas, which ignited after accumulating over a long period of time, on the Third Street Corridor in the Wilshire-Fairfax District of Los Angeles. It just rocked the entire area. The explosion damaged a building structure, injured 22 people. A preliminary investigation pointed to the ignition of underground pockets of pressurized gas. The incident raised a great many safety concerns related to tunneling in the area to build the Metro Rail system. The Los Angeles City Council created a task force at the time to investigate the explosion to determine the cause of the accident, to make recommendations to avoid further incidents. The results of the investigation identified two methane risk zones to assure that the safety concerns on construction of that segment of the Metro Rail were fully addressed. A provision was included in the fiscal year 1986 transportation appropriations bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds until safety concerns had been properly addressed. The gentleman who took that cause to the committee, to the House, the gentleman from California, my colleague, we were elected in the same year, 1974, Mr. Waxman, has been vigilant on this issue and vigorous in his pursuit of safety for the people of Los Angeles County. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to supplement the remarks of the gentleman from California, my colleague from Missouri, the ranking member on the subcommittee, that we now believe that the city council has resolved the issues. The mayor has put in place the process by which the tunneling can continue in all safety to both those doing the tunneling and those above ground and now advance the urgently needed transit project in Los Angeles into the San Fernando Valley area. So I urge the passage of H.R. 238.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to say, once again, what a great privilege this is to author this legislation, bring it from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which I have the honor to chair, and bring it to the House floor and pay tribute to a truly great heroic American who served his country in war, in peace, on the bench and in the hearts of our fellow citizens. In addition to my statement on the Floor today, I want to include in the Congressional Record this passage from ``Unending Struggle: The Long Road to an Equal Education in St. Louis'' by Judge Gerald W. Heaney and Dr. Susan Uchitelle: Unless additional resources are provided to the St. Louis public schools, they will fail, leading to a demand by some parents for alternative educational opportunities. . . Excellent public schools are essential in a democracy. Experience has demonstrated that urban city schools educate and will continue to educate most school-age children. Moreover, public schools have an obligation to educate all children--rich and poor, black, brown, and white, gifted or special. Unless children are well educated and well trained, they will be unable to take their place as full participants in our vibrant democracy. Segregated housing, a long history of discrimination in education and employment, and the historic lack of opportunity for African Americans to participate fully and equally in all aspects of life make the task ahead a challenging one. This is but one simple passage from the works of Judge Heaney. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 187. H.R. 187 is a bill to designate the federal building and United States Courthouse located at 515 West First St., Duluth, Minnesota as Judge ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse.'' Gerald Heaney was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on November 3, 1966. He took senior status on December 31, 1988, and retired on August 31, 2006, after over 40 years of distinguished service to his country and the citizens of Minnesota. I rise in strong support of this bill. Judge Heaney was born on January 29, 1918 in Goodhue, a rural community in the southeastern part of Minnesota. As a child growing up in a farming community Judge Heaney learned the value of a close family, honesty, and hard work. These qualities have marked not only his personal life but also his life as a public servant. He was educated at the College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, and received his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941. Gerry Heaney is a decorated WorId War II veteran. He was a member of the distinguished Army Ranger Battalion and participated in the historic D-Day landing at Normandy. He was awarded the Silver Star for extraordinary bravery in the battle of La Pointe du Hoc in Normandy. He also received a Bronze Star and five battle stars. At the end of the war Judge Heaney returned home and entered private practice in Duluth. During that time he was instrumental in improving the state education system, and served on the board of regents for the University of Minnesota. He was instrumental in helping develop for the Duluth school system the same pay scale for both men and women. In 1966 he was appointed by President Johnson to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. In that capacity he has been a champion in protecting the rights of the disadvantaged. He was devoted to making sure that every person had an equal opportunity for an education, a job, and a home. He firmly believes the poor, the less educated, and less advantaged deserve the protection of the Constitution. As a hard working, well prepared, and fair minded jurist he left his legal imprimatur on school desegregation cases, bankruptcy law, prisoner treatment, and social security law. His public service is discerned by industry, brilliance, and scholarly excellence. His compassion and dedication to those of us who are the most disadvantaged is unparalled. Judge Heaney is most deserving of this honor. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume For me, today is a very fulfilling, as well as nostalgic, moment to move this bill to designate the Federal building and the U.S. courthouse and customhouse in Duluth for Judge Gerald W. Heaney. He was appointed judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on November 3, 1966. He took senior status in December 31, 1988; finally retired last August after 40 years on the bench. But that is only part of the story. Gerald Heaney was born January 29, 1918, in Goodhue, a rural community in southeastern Minnesota. He grew up in a farming community, learned the values of rural America, went to my college which I attended many years later, College of St. Thomas, where he graduated and went on to the University of Minnesota where he got his law degree in 1941, but then started a new chapter in the life of Gerald Heaney. He enlisted in the Army in World War II. He was trained as a United States Army Ranger, and he was on the landing craft at 6:30 in the morning on Omaha Beach in Normandy. I interviewed Judge Heaney for the Library of Congress project on World War II veterans. They are attempting at the Library to get the personal views of those who participated in World War II, and he told this story: ``We were all herded into the landing craft. At 6:30 we arrived close to the beach. We could not quite get into the beach because of the obstacles that the Germans had placed under water and also had proximity bombs that would blow up ships. They were having trouble getting the vessels in, so they could not get to the beach, but they got into relatively shallow water. And the door went down on the landing craft, and the captain stood up and said, everyone ashore, and he was cut down by gunfire. And the first lieutenant stood up and said, everyone ashore, and he was cut down by gunfire. And then,'' said Judge Heaney, ``that left me, Second Lieutenant Gerald Heaney, in charge, and I looked up and said, we are not going out that door; everybody over the side.'' How many lives he saved we will never know, but they got into water that was too deep for them to touch the bottom. They tried to swim. They were sinking. They all cut off their backpacks loaded with their food and supplemental ammunition and made it to the shore. I was privileged to be in the group of Speaker Hastert on the 60th anniversary of D-Day and stood at that beach, at that shoreline, and looked up at where the German gun implacements were located. It is an awesome crossfire site, fearsome. Men were cut down right and left as they crawled and inched their way up. By 3:30 in the afternoon, they had made progress of just about a mile, circled around the German guns, which was their objective, and with hand grenades and other explosives, explosive packs, took out the German gun implacements, making that segment of the beach safer for more landings. By then they were out of ammunition. Judge Heaney said, I said to my men, and there were only a few of us left, we will go back to the beach; they will have landed supplies, and we can be replenished. So they turned around, and he stopped and choked and said, and that is when I saw the carnage, thousands killed. But they returned, got supplemental ammunition, went back up that beachhead, and their job was to then circle around La Pointe du Hoc, which is a straight, rocky cliff. Rangers are going to scale La Pointe du Hoc from below, and Heaney and his Ranger group were to distract the Germans, take out the gunnery and make it safe, and they did. They attacked. They took out powerful German machine gun implacements and long-range artillery. For that heroism at La Pointe du Hoc, Judge Heaney was awarded the Silver Star, the second highest award our Government gives to our military personnel, but that was not the end. They continued all across France and into Germany. By 1945, they had gotten to the Elbe, and there the British units, Russian units and American units met, but they postponed the formal meeting until the following morning where they would have a flag- raising ceremony. And as Judge Heaney said, he looked over, and the Russians had a flag, the British had a flag; he said, where is ours? They did not have a flag. No one had thought to bring a flag. They just fought their way courageously across Europe. So Judge Heaney, Gerald Heaney, by then Captain Heaney, went into the village nearby and bought red, white and blue cloth and found seamstresses in the village who could sew that into an American flag with 48 stars at the time. He still has that flag. He brought it with him for the Labor Day celebration this year at Park Point in Duluth, and there was not a dry eye in the crowd. That is the man, that is the courage, that is the strength. He went on to be appointed a U.S. circuit court judge by Lyndon Johnson, and displaying the same courage that he showed for his country in defense of liberty and freedom, he presided over the case to desegregate the St. Louis school system. He wrote the opinion and has written a book about not only the opinion, but the 20 years that he presided over the continuing desegregation of the St. Louis schools in his capacity as circuit court judge. It is entitled, ``Unending Struggle. The Long Road to an Equal Education in St. Louis,'' with Dr. Susan Uchitelle, who was a law clerk for Judge Heaney. He writes, Our involvement in the St. Louis public school case over a period of 18 years convinced us that, after having recused ourselves from further participation in the case, that we should write a history of education in St. Louis. Much has been written about education during the slave years, 1820 to 1865. No one has attempted to pull together the rich material written over the period from 1820 to the 1980s. It is all compiled in this remarkable document of how one court case changed the lives of children, of generations of children, of an entire community, made life better for not only African Americans but all citizens living in St. Louis. I know that as I have traveled to that city from time to time to meet people, Gerald Heaney is nearly revered. He is enormously respected. His courage and standing and his steadfastness, just as he pursued the German forces across France and Germany, he pursued justice in the name of all of our fellow citizens as a sitting judge. It is most fitting that we should designate the courthouse where he spent a great deal of his office hours. Although his cases were heard in St. Louis, in the courthouse there, his office hours were in the Federal building and the courthouse and customhouse in Duluth, a venerable facility that was built during the Depression years and, like Judge Heaney's work, will withstand the test of time for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 187) to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse''.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I, together with Ranking Member Mica, Economic Development Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton, Subcommittee Ranking Member Graves, and many Members who represent communities of the Appalachian region, introduce the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2007. This bipartisan bill improves the programs authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and reauthorizes the Appalachian Regional Commission for five years through FY 2011. I am proud to sponsor this bill, which builds on more than four decades of economic development successes through job creation in some of the Nation's most disadvantaged yet deserving communities. I have witnessed first-hand the triumph that is possible when the Federal Government joins in partnership with states, localities, economic development districts, and private businesses to break the cycle of crippling and pervasive poverty. It is an economic certainty that job deficiencies reduce the tax base, which reduces the ability of governments to provide public infrastructure, which further reduces the ability to create and attract new industries. Generating jobs must therefore continue to be our top priority in communities suffering economic distress, particularly in Appalachia. The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was created by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4) to address economic issues and social problems of the Appalachian region as a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society program. Congress created the ARC in 1965 to assist the Appalachian region ``in providing the infrastructure necessary for economic and human resource development, in developing the regions' industry, in building entrepreneurial communities, in generating a diversified regional economy and in making the region's industrial and commercial resources more competitive in the national and world markets.'' As a regional economic development agency, ARC's primary function is to support development of Appalachia's economy and critical infrastructure to provide a climate for industry growth and job creation. ARC includes all or part of 13 States: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Historically, the Appalachian region has faced high levels of poverty and economic distress resulting from geographic isolation and inadequate infrastructure. Since its creation in 1965, ARC has administered a variety of programs to aid in the development and advancement of the region, including the creation of a highway system, enhancements in education and job training, and the development of water and sewer systems. ARC's funding and projects have contributed significantly to employment, health, public works, and general economic development improvements in the region. The regional poverty rate has been reduced by almost one-half. High school graduation rates have doubled, and the percentage of Appalachian students now completing high school is slightly above the national average. The infant mortality rate has been cut by two-thirds, and ARC funds have helped build more than 400 health facilities serving four million people in Appalachia. ARC projects have also helped to construct 2,496 miles of new Federal-aid highways. In the last five years alone, ARC-funded infrastructure projects have resulted in the creation or retention of 136,000 jobs, and over 183,000 households have reaped the benefits of clean water and sanitation facilities. Yet, our work to ensure the economic viability and vitality of the communities that are part of the ARC is far from finished. Approximately one-fifth of ARC's counties remain in a state of economic distress. One-fourth of Appalachia's counties have a poverty rate that is more than 150 percent of the national average. Additional Federal investments are necessary to build upon the progress made to date. Specifically, this bill directs ARC to designate as ``at-risk counties,'' which are counties in the Appalachian region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed; establishes the maximum Federal share for Appalachian Regional Commission non-highway grant amounts for designated at-risk counties as 70 percent; authorizes additional appropriations to the Commission through FY 2011 to carry out Appalachian regional development; and extends, for five years, the termination date of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (with exceptions for the Appalachian development highway system and certain definitions). During the 107th Congress, the House passed the Appalachian Regional Development Reauthorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-149), which built upon past successes of the Appalachian Regional Commission, made several amendments to existing law, and extended the authorization for an additional five years. ARC's authorization expired at the end of FY 2006. During the 109th Congress, the Committee's bipartisan leadership introduced H.R. 5812, a bill reauthorizing ARC through FY 2011. Although the Senate passed S. 2832 to reauthorize the ARC, the Senate-passed bill did not include the anti-earmarking provision of H.R. 5812. The House did not pass S. 2832 and no further action was taken on H.R. 5812. This bill includes the anti-earmarking provision that I insisted upon in the 109th Congress. The ARC, and the critical investments that it provides, are far too important for further delay. Congress should show its commitment to the people of Appalachia by getting this bill to the President's desk early in the 110th Congress. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today, together with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, to introduce the ``Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007''. For many years, the International Maritime Organization, an entity of the United Nations, has been developing international standards to prevent pollution from ships that ply the world's oceans. The international convention they developed 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. This bill is the necessary implementing legislation for Annex VI of that Convention. This legislation will provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency the authority that they need to develop U.S. standards and 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 favorably reported H.R. 5811, the MARPOL Annex VI Implementation Act of 2006. This bill was subsequently added as an amendment to H.R. 5681, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and passed the House on October 28, 2006. The bill that Mr. Cummings and I introduce today is very similar to H.R. 5811. Pursuant to requests by the Administration, the bill allows the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and the Coast Guard to enforce the standards. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the EPA has far more experience than it does 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 regarding vessel safety issues. I am hopeful that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will report this bill to the House very quickly and that the House will have an opportunity to consider the bill in the coming weeks. 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 contributions in developing this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to direct the Administrator of General Services to install a sun wall photovoltaic system, known as the ``Solar Net'' on the headquarters building of the Department of Energy. There is no more appropriate or symbolic federal building with which to demonstrate the power and promise of photovoltaics than the Department of Energy headquarters building, known as the Forrestal Building, located in Washington, DC. Our energy needs continue to increase, but as a nation we have not done enough to try to meet these needs with new technologies and alternative fuels. As a result, our dependence on fossil fuels--and foreign oil in particular--continues unabated. As the nation's largest single energy consumer, the Federal Government is in a unique position to promote energy conservation and efficiency, particularly in the operation of Federal buildings. By applying the principles of sustainable, green design, agencies have the ability to reduce energy usage, reduce life-cycle costs, and reduce environmental impacts in the construction and operation of federal facilities. A photovoltaic system turns light energy into electricity. Photovoltaics reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and offer distinct advantages over diesel generators and primary batteries. These systems are highly efficient panels and have no moving parts, so the need for maintenance is virtually non-existent. Photovoltaics have tremendous potential. As an example, estimates have shown that the electricity needs of the entire U.S. could be met by installing photovoltaic panels in a 100-mile by 100-mile area in the Southwest. The Federal Government owns or leases approximately 500,000 buildings. According to U.S. Department of Energy estimates, in FY 2005, the cost of energy consumption by Federal agencies totaled $14.5 billion--more than $5.5 billion of which was spent on buildings and facilities. The General Services Administration, through its Public Building Service, manages 218.9 million square feet of owned office space and 168.8 million square feet of leased space. Imagine the benefits if this space utilized photovoltaics and solar power. More than 25 Federal buildings nationwide already utilize photovoltaics in some capacity. These projects have demonstrated that we have the technology and ability to provide electricity for the Federal Government office buildings with photovoltaic rays. We have the ability to keep our public buildings running on clean and quiet sources of energy, and still produce extra electricity to put back into the power grid. The bill I introduce today addresses only one project, but it is a necessary and important step in the overall effort to increase energy efficiency in public buildings. Located in our Nation's capital, the Solar Net project will serve as a model for the entire country, as the largest building-integrated solar energy system on any federal building in the country. The design for the sun wall project was selected in 2000 after an open competition. It is an attractive and energy- efficient design that can generate a maximum of 200 kW of electricity and includes a solar thermal installation for hot water and hot air. A similar provision to this bill was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58). While the Energy Policy Act authorized funding for fiscal year 2006, no funding was appropriated for that year. Today, this bill specifically sets aside federal building repair and alteration funding for construction of the sun wall project in fiscal year 2007. The time is long overdue for the Federal Government to lead in the development and promotion of energy-efficient technologies and alternative and renewable fuels. The plans are ready to go. The needs and the potential impacts on our nation's energy use are great. All that is left is to do is to provide the funding needed to purchase and install the proper equipment. This bill does just that. I thank Mr. Mica, Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ms. Norton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, for joining me on this critical, bipartisan initiative. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 798.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. I commend Chairman Obey and our House Leadership for bringing this Joint Resolution to the floor. While a Resolution such as this is not the ideal way to fund Government programs, the failure of the last Congress to complete its work left us with no viable alternative. In a very limited amount of time, the Appropriations Committee has done yeoman's work to bring the FY 2007 appropriations cycle to a close in the Resolution that is before us today. Many difficult choices had to be made in this Joint Resolution. I am pleased that one of those choices was to fund highway, transit, and highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Under H.J. Res. 20, highway programs will be funded at $38.962 billion, an increase of $3.411 billion over FY 2006 enacted levels; transit programs will be funded at $8.975 billion, an increase of $470 million over FY 2006; motor carrier safety programs will be funded at $520.5 million, an increase of $30 million over FY 2006; and highway safety programs will be funded at $821 million, an increase of $14 million over FY 2006. These programs are funded by highway user revenues that have been deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, where they are held in trust for the purpose of meeting our surface transportation infrastructure needs. These needs are reaching crisis proportions. Congestion has worsened dramatically in recent years. In 2003, traffic congestion cost motorists $63.1 billion in terms of wasted time and fuel. In addition to meeting our infrastructure investment needs, the highway and transit funding levels set by this Joint Resolution will create an additional 192,000 family-wage construction jobs. I would also like to mention one aviation-related matter. Under the previous Continuing Resolution, there was a technical anomaly that had the effect of reducing the amount of Airport Improvement Program contract authority well below the intended program level. I am pleased that H.J. Res. 20 corrects this anomaly, and further, ensures that the full amount of contract authority that is authorized for the Airport Improvement Program in FY 2007 remains available. This will set the stage for a successful reauthorization of Federal aviation programs later this year, and I thank the Appropriations Committee for their assistance in this matter. All too often, long-term investments in our nation's infrastructure are short-changed in the face of the more immediate need to fund day- to-day operations. This Joint Resolution avoids such a short-sighted approach. Instead, it takes a longer-term view and recognizes the far- reaching effects transportation infrastructure investments have on our nation's economy, our competitiveness in the world marketplace, and the quality of life in our communities. Again, I applaud Chairman Obey and House Leadership for recognizing the value of fully funding highway and transit programs, and I urge my colleagues to support the Joint Resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, in 1972, the passage of the Clean Water Act secured the nation's commitment to rescuing our waters and expelling the pollutants that were killing our water supply and the wildlife that depended on it. Today, Mr. Young, former Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, and I introduce bipartisan legislation that definitively renews our commitment to these waters and authorizes increased funding for wastewater infrastructure through a reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program. The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 authorizes $20 billion in Federal grants over five years to capitalize Clean Water State Revolving Funds. These funds provide low interest loans to communities for wastewater infrastructure. This bill also provides additional subsidies, including principal forgiveness and negative interest loans for communities that meet a state's affordability criteria, for individual ratepayers that will experience significant hardship from potential rate increases, and for the construction and implementation of innovative or alternative processes, materials, or technologies to meet the nation's wastewater treatment needs. It encourages long-term asset management planning and fInancing that will ensure sustainable systems and the potential to reduce overall capital and operation and maintenance costs and it promotes communities to consider alternative and innovative processes, materials, and technologies (including ``green infrastructure'') that provide greater environmental benefIts, or the same benefIts using less energy or at a reduced cost. Water quality benefIts are the primary criterion for determining which projects receive funding, and encourages watershed approaches to solving water quality problems, as well as traditional infrastructure. Since 1972, the federal government has provided more than $82 billion for wastewater infrastructure and other assistance. Overall investment in the nation's infrastructure--including that from federal, state, and local sources--has been over $250 billion. Today, twice as many waters are considered fishable and swimmable as they were before the Clean Water Act was passed into law. Our infrastructure systems include 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers, and 200,000 miles of storm sewers. Toxic chemicals and other pollutants have been greatly reduced. Wildlife has returned in abundance to waters that were once declared ``dead''. One in ten tourists is destined for the beach--providing our travel and vacation industries with customers and business. Many of these success stories have occurred, in part, because of a strong commitment to fund necessary projects to improve water quality. Title VI of the Clean Water Act provides for the establishment and capitalization of Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds (``Clean Water SRFs'') to aid in funding the construction of wastewater treatment works and other wastewater infrastructure around the country. Since 1987, individual states and territories have maintained Clean Water SRFs to help provide for low-cost financing for approved water quality infrastructure projects. These advances aside, one-third of our nation's waters are still in deplorable condition. Although federal funding of Clean Water SRFs had been steady at a level of $1.35 billion annually, in recent years, funding for the program has been cut dramatically. From just fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007, the administration's budget request for Clean Water SRFs decreased $199.2 million, dropping from $886.7 million to $687.5 million. These declines come at a time when funding is vital for progress. Our population is booming, putting more pressure on already over-burdened systems. In addition, much of the wastewater infrastructure in this country is rapidly approaching or has already exceeded its projected useful life. These antiquated systems need maintenance and rebuilding to protect our physical, economic, and natural environments. Without increased investment in wastewater infrastructure, in less than a generation, the U.S. could lose much of the gains it made thus far in improving water quality as a result of the 1972 Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, to continue funding our infrastructure, to make repairs where maintenance is needed, and to renew our commitment to our nation's waters.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the issue of embryonic stem cell research places humanity on the frontier of medical science and at the outer edge of moral theology. On the side of science there is much hope, even expectation that extraordinarily effective therapies will be developed to treat--and possibly cure--a wide range of maladies such as diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and a host of others. Progress has been achieved in the laboratory in animal studies and in human application. Much has yet to be learned, however, about adverse outcomes, which is why scientists proceed cautiously without over promising and with respect for the moral considerations of their research. The latter gives me the greatest pause. An editorial in America Magazine said it well: ``The debate over embryonic stem cell research cannot be fully resolved because it is ignited by irreconcilable views of what reverence for life requires.'' Let us recall Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. Her life began in vitro, as a fertilized egg. There are many potential Louise Browns, potential human beings conceived in the laboratory but leftover as cryogenic embryos. Are they to be discarded, or, can they ethically be used for stem cell research? That is the moral theology issue that we must resolve. The reality is that human life is established in creating an embryo, whether in vitro or in utero. Each of us has to decide the morality of this core element of the embryonic stem cell research issue. It is extraordinary research on the farthest frontier of science, experimenting with the very origins of human life. It is research which raises profound questions, anchored in moral theology, about the intrinsic nature of human life--when it begins, when it is infused with an immortal soul, and when it ends. The answers to those questions are not crystal clear; they are not subject merely to scientific formulation; the answers may simply lie in conscience between each of us and our God. For myself, I resolve the uncertainties of this moral dilemma in favor of the most vulnerable: unborn human life, which compels me to vote no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 3).