James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. We have agreed that the technical issue raised by representatives of the other body is of a nature that can be resolved by the administration upon passage of this bill. It is better for us to pass this bill now to address the substantive issue, release of funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and not delay progress in cleanup. For that reason, we will pass the bill intact and let the administration deal with whatever issue comes up. Should any additional change be necessary of a technical nature, it can be dealt with at a later time. I thank the gentleman for his understanding, for his patience, and for yielding me the time. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, June 7, 2010. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe. On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the Federal response effort can continue without interruption. Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100 million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the Trust Fund. The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all available and appropriate resources to bear in response to this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however, the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response to this tragic oil spill. We appreciate your support in moving this critical legislation forward in the coming days. Sincerely, Peter R. Orszag, Director.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support this legislation extending Build America bonds and marketable distribution of highway funding. Build America bonds allow taxable bond access for State and local governments, create new types of investors, and attract them to infrastructure from pension funds and tax-exempt organizations. This bill also provides $521 million in highway funding for highway and transit for more equitable distribution of Federal funding than was adopted under the Senate language in the HIRE Act. The Senate revisions earmark funding under two major discretionary programs--Projects of National Regional Significance and the National Corridor Program--for a small select group of States. Under our distribution, we revise and make equitable the Senate revisions which skewed the highway formula. Under this provision in this bill, every State receives its fair share, apportionment share, of the funds available under these programs. Thirty-seven States will receive more highway and transit funding through this modification, which will produce thousands of jobs across all these States, 18,000 jobs. In contrast to the gentleman who just recently was before me and said, oh, the stimulus hasn't produced jobs, every month our committee has held a hearing--I have chaired 19 hearings--every month to hold States accountable for the jobs produced under our stimulus program: 1,300,000 jobs, 34,000 lane miles of highway improved, 1,262 bridges repaired, replaced or rebuilt, 10,000 transit buses acquired by local transit agencies, $409 million in taxes paid by workers on job sites. That is a success. That is putting America back to work. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4213, the ``American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. The American Jobs Act includes two major provisions to increase investment in our nation's infrastructure: (1) an extension of authority for Build America Bonds and (2) provisions to require a more equitable distribution of certain categories of Federal highway funding. H.R. 4213 extends the Build America Bonds program for 2 years, through 2012. Build America Bonds were first authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to assist State and local governments in accessing credit markets in the wake of the financial crisis. Specifically, Build America Bonds allow State and local governments to access the taxable bond market, thereby reaching new types of investors such as pension funds and tax-exempt organizations. By giving State and local governments a choice between accessing the tax-exempt municipal bond market and the taxable bond market to meet their financing needs, Build America Bonds allow State and local governments to select the bond market that provides the lowest financing cost, and the biggest bang for the buck. Build America Bonds have proven to be an important tool for State and local governments to finance much-needed infrastructure improvements. As of April 30, 2010, State and local governments have used Build America Bonds to finance more than $96 billion in infrastructure projects, including improvements to schools, hospitals, water and sewer utilities, highways, transit, and airports. I strongly support the extension of this program. H.R. 4213 also provides an additional $521 million of highway funding to allow for a more equitable distribution of certain categories of Federal highway funding than the distribution of highway funding provided under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. In March, the majority of the House voted to pass the HIRE Act based, in part, on an express commitment by Senate Majority Leader Reid that the Senate would pass subsequent jobs legislation to distribute highway funding more equitably--according to the House formula. The highway formula provisions in this jobs bill implement Majority Leader Reid's commitment. I thank him, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Hoyer for their tireless work to resolve this issue and provide each State and highway program with a fair share of highway formula funding. I would also like to thank the 55 Democratic first- and second-term Members, led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), and the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, led by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), for their instrumental work in spearheading efforts to marshal support for enactment of the highway formula provisions included in H.R. 4213. In addition, I thank the Members of the Illinois, California, and other affected State delegations for helping us reach the compromise that we bring to the Floor today. The Senate revisions of the HIRE Act earmarked funding under two major highway discretionary programs--the Project of National and Regional Significance, PNRS, program and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement, National Corridor, program--for a small, select group of States. Under this distribution, four States received 58 percent of the funding and 21 States received nothing. The treatment of these programs in the Senate revisions of the HIRE Act skewed the highway formula, significantly benefitting four States with a permanent windfall due to these earmarks. The provisions in H.R. 4213 revise the distribution of PNRS and National Corridor program funding so that every State receives a fair share of the funds made available under these programs. Specifically, H.R. 4213 provides each State with a share of the PNRS and National Corridor funds equal to the greater of that which the State received under the HIRE Act or under H.R. 4213, the American Jobs Act. Thirty-seven States receive more highway dollars based on the modification to the distribution of highway formula funding included in H.R. 4213. This new highway funding will produce thousands of jobs across these States--jobs that are critically important to the construction sector currently suffering from 21.8 percent unemployment. Under the Recovery Act, we have clearly seen States demonstrate their ability to put highway and transit dollars to work quickly to create and sustain jobs--322,000 direct, on-project jobs in the first year of the Recovery Act and 49,000 direct jobs last month alone. In total, these highway and transit funds have created and sustained more than 1 million jobs over the past year. In December, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials reported to our Committee that States currently have a backlog of 7,497 ready-to-go highway and bridge projects totaling $47.3 billion. Given the States' extraordinary performance under the Recovery Act and the overwhelming highway investment needs, we can expect that the highway funding provided under H.R. 4213 will result in hundreds of projects under contract--with shovels in the ground--within 90 days. Based upon Federal Highway Administration estimates, the $521 million of additional funding provided under H.R. 4213 will create more than 18,000 family-wage jobs. The HIRE Act also distributed ``additional'' formula funding (provided in lieu of additional Congressionally-directed projects) among only six of 13 current State highway formula programs. In doing so, it effectively designated seven programs--the Appalachian Development Highway System, Rail-Highway Grade Crossing, Equity Bonus, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, Coordinated Border Infrastructure, and Metropolitan Planning programs--as ``second tier'' programs, providing them less funding in FY 2010 and FY 2011 and weakening their standing during the ongoing authorization process. The highway provisions in H.R. 4213 appropriately recognize the standing of all of the current highway formula programs: distributing ``additional'' formula funding through all current State highway formula programs, rather than just six. This modification is critically important to the Appalachian Development Highway System, Metropolitan Planning, and Safe Routes to School programs. Today narks the third time that the House will vote on language to revise the HIRE Act's highway funding distribution, which this chamber has twice passed language to amend. With the rock-solid commitment of the House Democratic Leadership and Senate Majority Leader Reid, I look forward to enacting the highway formula modifications included in H.R. 4213 and providing every State with a fair share of the funds distributed under these programs as they begin to move forward with their summer highway construction seasons. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4213, the ``American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. Attached is a state-by-state highway funding table outlining the additional funding provided by H.R. 4213. Highway and Bridge Formula Funding by State Under Surface Transportation Extension Acts HIRE Act VS. H.R. 4213, the ``American Jobs Act Of 2010''--May 27, 2010 37 STATES FARE BETTER UNDER THE AMERICA JOBS ACT THAN UNDER THE HIRE ACT [No State receives less under the American Jobs Act than under the HIRE Act] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.R. 4213, Increase/ State HIRE act \1\ American jobs act (decrease) Under \2\ H.R. 4213 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................................ $1,160,135,018 $1,178,768,813 $18,633,795 Alaska................................................. 700,070,601 703,484,406 3,413,805 Arizona................................................ 1,119,833,846 1,137,317,569 17,483,723 Arkansas............................................... 780,938,284 780,938,284 0 California............................................. 5,548,334,984 5,548,334,984 0 Colorado............................................... 808,562,089 808,562,089 0 Connecticut............................................ 771,124,583 774,468,106 3,343,523 Delaware............................................... 254,115,413 258,166,183 4,050,770 Dist. of Col........................................... 241,637,283 241,637,283 0 Florida................................................ 2,901,459,068 2,948,516,503 47,057,435 Georgia................................................ 1,991,725,595 2,023,498,871 31,773,276 Hawaii................................................. 258,011,916 262,133,940 4,122,024 Idaho.................................................. 436,473,412 443,558,991 7,085,579 Illinois............................................... 2,133,468,322 2,133,468,322 0 Indiana................................................ 1,454,478,216 1,473,826,863 19,348,648 Iowa................................................... 721,928,309 731,252,426 9,324,118 Kansas................................................. 582,189,917 591,518,358 9,328,441 Kentucky............................................... 1,012,890,986 1,027,305,950 14,414,964 Louisiana.............................................. 1,045,633,419 1,045,633,419 0 Maine.................................................. 280,240,625 284,757,226 4,516,601 Maryland............................................... 918,077,359 930,393,685 12,316,326 Massachusetts.......................................... 935,232,711 950,187,222 14,954,511 Michigan............................................... 1,628,896,250 1,649,577,451 20,681,201 Minnesota.............................................. 969,838,993 969,838,993 0 Mississippi............................................ 730,280,701 740,066,612 9,785,911 Missouri............................................... 1,422,349,455 1,444,428,478 22,079,023 Montana................................................ 595,326,967 604,421,087 9,094,120 Nebraska............................................... 439,714,255 446,827,117 7,112,863 Nevada................................................. 509,981,437 517,716,094 7,734,658 New Hampshire.......................................... 255,499,273 259,619,857 4,120,584 New Jersey............................................. 1,522,180,325 1,522,180,325 0 New Mexico............................................. 558,845,157 564,388,783 5,543,626 New York............................................... 2,585,021,983 2,601,114,874 16,092,891 North Carolina......................................... 1,600,085,980 1,625,905,549 25,819,569 North Dakota........................................... 376,542,187 382,541,944 5,999,758 Ohio................................................... 2,046,630,272 2,071,931,711 25,301,439 Oklahoma............................................... 958,778,621 958,778,621 0 Oregon................................................. 747,025,067 747,025,067 0 Pennsylvania........................................... 2,533,737,942 2,561,421,751 27,683,809 Rhode Island........................................... 328,209,791 333,303,797 5,094,006 South Carolina......................................... 960,038,143 962,956,224 2,918,081 South Dakota........................................... 423,697,858 430,371,013 6,673,155 Tennessee.............................................. 1,286,665,098 1,286,665,098 0 Texas.................................................. 4,835,326,375 4,912,212,474 76,886,099 Utah................................................... 482,941,887 490,736,905 7,795,018 Vermont................................................ 299,846,556 304,031,221 4,184,665 Virginia............................................... 1,550,364,905 1,550,364,905 O Washington............................................. 1,021,098,782 1,021,098,782 0 West Virginia.......................................... 660,653,936 660,653,936 0 Wisconsin.............................................. 1,135,046,618 1,138,278,090 3,231,471 Wyoming................................................ 389,303,475 395,692,926 6,389,451

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5128, as amended, a bill to designate the United States Department of the Interior Building located at 1849 C Street, Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, as the ``Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building''. I knew Stuart Udall personally, and I have great admiration for the man. He was a great conservationist and environmentalist, and as fine a champion of this country's natural and cultural resources as the nation has ever produced. Steward Udall served in the U.S. House of Representatives before President Kennedy appointed him Secretary of the Interior, a position he held from 1960 to 1969. In this role, he spearheaded the enactment of a broad range of groundbreaking conservation laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Trail System Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In the arena of historic preservation, Stewart Udall sought to make the Federal Government a partner--not an adversary--in the preservation of America's historic resources. He was instrumental in the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the most far-reaching preservation legislation ever enacted in the United States. Programs he helped shape include the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Historic Preservation Fund. This framework supports nearly every aspect of historic preservation today. Stewart Udall was a naturalist, a conservationist, and an environmental activist: during the energy crisis of the 1970s, he advocated the use of solar energy as one means to remedy the country's growing dependence upon fossil fuels. As a member of the National Resources Defense Council, Udall defended the Environmental Protection Agency against closure due to budgetary cuts. In 2008, High Country News published ``A Message to Our Grand Children'' signed by Stewart Udall and his late wife. A few excerpts from that document are illustrative of Udall's views: ``Americans must finally cast aside our notion that we can continue the wasteful consumption patterns of our past. We must promote a consciousness attuned to a frugal, highly efficient mode of living. . . . Foster a consciousness that puts a premium on the common good and the protection of the environment. . . . The lifetime crusade of your days must be to develop a new energy ethic to sustain life on earth . . . Go well, do well, my children. Cherish sunsets, wild creatures and wild places. . . .'' Given Stewart Udall's lifetime commitment to championing, conserving and appreciating the earth's natural resources and beauties, I find that it is entirely fitting and appropriate that we designate the main office building for the Department of Interior as the ``Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5128.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1337, a resolution to express the sympathy and condolences of the House of Representatives to those people affected by the flooding in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi in May 2010. I express my heartfelt condolences to families and communities who have lost loved ones from these devastating floods in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. I also express my sympathy for those whose homes were damaged or destroyed. Unfortunately, several times in recent years, I have come to the floor to express sympathy and condolences in the wake of nature's wrath and floods are the most common type of disaster our nation faces. I would also like to express my appreciation for the men and women who have responded to this disaster, and those who are aiding in the recovery including police officers, firefighters, emergency managers, and emergency medical personnel. Twenty four hours a day, every day of the year, all over this country, when any type of tragedy enters our lives, from a medical emergency facing a neighbor to a large-scale natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other incident, our nation's emergency responders and charitable organizations are the first on the scene to provide professional services, expert help, aid, and comfort. These well-trained, highly-skilled individuals are truly on the front lines in preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating damages from a variety of hazards. As the waters recede, we will begin the inevitable and necessary process of rebuilding these homes and communities. As we do, it is important that we re-build safer and better to reduce the risk to lives and property. This is known as ``mitigation''. In the case of a flood, we can mitigate future risks by elevating the structure or key elements such as furnaces and electrical panels, or in some cases by acquiring the property and converting the land to open space. Mitigation is an investment. According to two Congressionally- mandated studies, for every dollar invested in mitigation there is a return of at least three dollars. This is an investment that not only benefits the Federal Government, but State and local governments and citizens as well. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, previous mitigation investments have already been shown to pay off in the areas of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi that were flooded in this disaster. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1337.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H. Res. 1284, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), which supports the goals and ideals of International Learn to Fly Day, and recognizes the contributions of flight instructors, flight schools, aviation groups, and industry in promoting and teaching the nation's next generation of pilots. As an effort to increase interest in flying, and to encourage the aviation community to get others involved in aviation, International Learn to Fly Day was established on May 15, 2009. Learn to Fly Day was announced at the Experimental Aviation Association's AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with the support of aviation groups, industry partners, flight schools, and flight instructors. The day was founded to cultivate a new generation of pilots to act as role models and to ensure that airlines are able to meet future needs for airline travel. On Learn to Fly Day, flight schools, airports, and independent flight instructors will offer free or discounted flight instruction courses and other educational aviation events. The aviation community will lend its time and expertise to increase public interest in flying. Many of the nation's heroes have been pilots, including the Wright brothers, Amelia Earhart, and most recently, Captain Chesley ``Sully'' B. Sullenberger III and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles. Flight has always been a national and international source of fascination and inspiration. To continue the significant legacy of flight, the United States needs to ensure that it can attract the next generation of commercial and recreational pilots. International Learn to Fly Day will be an important day to promote the experience of learning to fly. This year will be the first year that the day will be celebrated, with events taking place across the country, and some internationally. International Learn to Fly Day will be observed each year on the third Saturday of May. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1284.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, S. Con. Res. 61, which recognizes the many contributions of the private pilots and the general aviation industry to the Haiti earthquake relief efforts and encourages the continued generosity of general aviation pilots and operators in ongoing humanitarian relief efforts in Haiti. On January 12, 2010, the Republic of Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake, leaving up to an estimated 300,000 dead and 300,000 injured. It is also estimated that more than 4,500 relief flights were conducted by general aviation aircraft during the 30-day period following the earthquake. Business aircraft transported approximately 3,500 passengers and delivered more than one million pounds of cargo and supplies to the Haitian people. All of this was accomplished through the generosity of individual pilots and aircraft owners. General aviation aircraft were vital for getting help to smaller communities that were impacted in the Haitian countryside. Light planes landed on shorter airstrips and distributed urgently-needed supplies to medical professionals and people on the ground, bypassing the congested Port-au-Prince airport. General aviation aircraft and pilots assisted in delivering supplies, including water purification kits, tarps, medical supplies, blankets, and towels. Medical staff and relief personnel were also transported on these aircraft from the United States to Haiti to conduct relief work. Companies, business aviation and private pilots, nongovernmental relief organizations, aviation groups, and others banded together in the earthquake's aftermath to assist in the Haiti relief effort. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. Con. Res. 61.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1278, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), which expresses support and recognizes April as National Safe Digging Month. H. Res. 1278 also celebrates the third anniversary of 8-1-1, the nationwide telephone number that all homeowners and contractors must use before conducting digging or excavation activities. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), excavation damage continues to be a leading cause of serious pipeline incidents. More than 256,000 underground utility lines are damaged during excavation each year in the United States; 35 percent of those incidents are due to homeowners and contractors not calling 8-1-1 before they dig. We created this one-call notification system in 2002 in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 107-355), which directed the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission to establish a three-digit, nationwide toll-free telephone number for excavators to call to dispatch companies that operate underground utilities in the area to mark the exact location of their utilities. This helps excavators avoid hitting the utilities when digging and any fatalities, injuries, environmental damage, or loss to critical infrastructure and services that could occur. According to PHMSA, 8-1-1 has helped reduce the number of excavation damages caused by failure to locate underground utilities prior to digging from 57 percent in 2004 to 35 percent in 2009.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 263, introduced by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), which authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. This is a premier event in the region that highlights the athletic accomplishments of disabled children and young adults. Thanks to the tenacity of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and the Kennedy family, thousands of Special Olympians see their self-confidence, self-esteem, and health nurtured by participating in the Special Olympics. Each year, nearly 50 Federal and local law enforcement agencies in the Washington, DC area, participate in the torch run to show their support for the DC Special Olympics. This torch relay event on the Capitol Grounds is a traditional part of the opening ceremonies for the Special Olympics. This year's torch run will be a 2.3-mile trek from the U.S. Capitol building to Ft. McNair. Since its inception, more than 15,000 District of Columbia citizens with disabilities have participated in the Special Olympics and more than $1 million has been raised. Funds raised from the Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics help support year-round training and programs for the DC Special Olympics, which include basketball, bowling, tennis, and motor activities training. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 263.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I tip my hat also to the Member of Congress whom I call ``Ms. Amtrak,'' ``Ms. Passenger Rail,'' whose passion is evident; who works tirelessly day and night, week after week, to advance the cause of passenger rail in this country, and has been very successful at it, mobilizing public opinion, igniting public imagination. And I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has been a very constructive and enthusiastic partner in shaping passenger rail. I would say to the gentleman, while the Bush administration twice submitted bankruptcy budgets for Amtrak and twice proposed putting Amtrak up for sale in the private marketplace, there were Members on both sides of the aisle who joined together, including the gentleman, to restore funding for Amtrak to keep it going. The gentleman's fingerprints are all over the Amtrak authorization bill that President Bush signed. That same President Bush, who once said we should terminate Amtrak, signed the bill with a whole new future for Amtrak. And Mr. Mica as well, who is, unfortunately, not here on the floor but who nonetheless played a very significant role in shaping a new future for Amtrak and, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, opening the door for private investment in each of the corridors that we crafted in the Amtrak authorization. The Pacific Railway Act over 148 years ago really is the beginning point for our discussion today and for all discussion on passenger rail. That was the day that President Lincoln signed the legislation that gave the Central Pacific Railroad the right to build rail lines from Sacramento east and chartered the Union Pacific to build rail lines from the Missouri River west. I would recommend to anyone who is interested in passenger rail to make a trip to Sacramento, to the rail museum in that city. It is a splendid panorama, a stunning sweep of history, of development of both freight and passenger rail, how the railroads were built, the people who built them, the ethnic diversity of those who worked on the laying of the track, and the competition going from west to east and east to west. It is a striking march through history. It gives the viewer a deeper appreciation of our rich history of freight and passenger rail. The joining of the two just 7 years later, in 1869, was in those times a remarkable timeframe. I think today with modern equipment we might have built those two lines a lot faster. But 1,776 miles of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific joined at Promontory Summit in Utah. Not long after, the first transcontinental trip took 83 hours and 39 minutes from New York City to San Francisco. By 1910, which was really the peak time for passenger rail, 95 percent of all intercity travel was by rail. By 1920, the railroads carried 1.2 million passengers. The automobile was making its way into our consciousness and taking over and giving Americans a difference of travel and experience and freedom of access. It is interesting that in 1920 cars accounted for 50 miles of travel a year for the average citizen and 450 miles per year for trains, but 10 years later, that had just turned around. Americans were driving over 1,600, nearly 1,700 miles a year in their cars and only 219 miles on average by train. That continued to progress until after World War II, the railroads saw more advantage in freight, passenger traffic was dropping off, and the railroads joined with the U.S. Post Office to take the overnight mail off the passenger service. The RPOs began to disappear. That reduced revenue to the railroads. The railroads could then petition the ICC for discontinuance. By the end of the decade of the 1960s, passenger rail was on life support, and Congress created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, which we know today as Amtrak. There is now a rail revival happening all across the land. And that is what this resolution is intended to do, support the goals and ideals of National Train Day. Everywhere I travel, in almost every city that ever had a rail service there is either a caboose or an old locomotive at the entrance to the community. People celebrate their rail history. But they also want to bring back active service. Just as in transit, Americans are voting with their feet. A million new transit riders a day. And so with passenger rail. We all remember the tragedy of September 11, 2001, when the only way you could travel intercity, apart from your automobile, was on Amtrak. And the revival of interest in both transit and in intercity passenger rail has just gone apace since then. President Obama made a commitment to intercity passenger rail, putting $8 billion on the table in the stimulus package. That was more in 1 year than Amtrak had received in several years. It's a down payment, as he said, and as Chairwoman Brown had said and others have observed. Now we are seeing the implementation of those funds by the various corridors to which those stimulus dollars were allocated. It is up to us, and our committee will continue to hold oversight hearings observing the implementation of those funds to ensure they are wisely invested, that the commitments made are followed through. We will move America along. We are starting slowly. Goodness, there is passenger rail track that is part of this that's only 35 miles an hour today because that's passenger rail going on freight rail track that has been allowed to deteriorate. There are other corridors where freight rail has been built up, and the investment in the corridor has been robust, and where there is room for passenger rail, but we have to separate the two. And we recognize that we have to have passenger rail partnering with freight rail. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been quite a strong advocate for that. And we all recognize we need to move more goods by rail for the economy's sake, for the environment's sake. By the way, I would say to the gentleman that 436 miles a ton on a gallon of fuel was updated yesterday for me by the Association of American Rail. They say it is now 483 miles on a gallon of fuel for a ton of freight. Locomotives are improving in their efficiency. The track beds are improving. And we are going to do even more in the future. But we are pikers with that $8 billion. The European economic community, European Union, the transport ministry has a $1.4 trillion, 20-year investment plan, they are halfway through doing it now, to build 7,000 additional miles of high-speed intercity passenger rail, real high-speed, 200 miles an hour. We will get there eventually. We are almost back where we were in 1890 in making the investment in passenger rail, except that those corridors that remain for freight, in which passenger is a lively, active participant, or a possibility, have been upgraded, and now we need to make the next step upgrades to class six, seven, and eight rail where we can have speeds in excess of 150 miles an hour. It's going to take a huge amount of capital investment. But Spain has committed $140 billion into their high speed rail system, the Talgo. One hundred forty billion dollars for a country with 42 million people. That is an enormous commitment on their part, and shows visionary steps toward their future. But they will have 186- to 200-mile an hour, 220- mile an hour intercity passenger rail service. We can do no less in America. We must do no less in America. China is completing an 800-plus mile link from Beijing to Shanghai. That is the distance from Boston to Richmond on the East Coast. In that Boston-Richmond corridor are 36 million people. In Beijing-Shanghai there are nearly 100 million people. You will be able to travel that distance, though, in 4 hours on 220-mile an hour steel on steel rail. We can't let China, Japan with the Shinkansen, South Korea with their high speed rail system, and all the European systems get so far ahead of us. They are now, but we will catch up. And when we do, people will look back and say the goals and ideals of National Train Day moved us in that direction. And this Congress, both sides of the aisle, and the partnership that we have formed, keeping vigil over the future investments in passenger rail can rightly take credit for moving America along that path toward a great recapturing of our past and making it a greater future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 247, introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), which authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. This annual event encourages all boys and girls, ages 8 through 17, to construct and operate their own soap box vehicles. The goals of this event are to teach children and young adults the basic skills of craftsmanship, the spirit of competition, and the perseverance to continue a project once it has begun. The event is supported by hundreds of volunteers and parents. In the past, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby has produced winners who went on to the national finals. Many volunteers donate considerable time supporting the event, and providing families with a fun-filled day, which has become a tradition in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 247.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 264, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15, 2010. This memorable event will provide an opportunity to honor the officers who work for States, counties, Federal law enforcement, military police, correction officers, and as peace officers in the United States and its territories and to also honor those officers that have died in the line of duty in 2009. In October 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Each year on this date, we, as a nation, have an opportunity to honor the commitment with which peace officers perform their daily task of protecting our local communities. Today, the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on Capitol Hill has become one in a series of well-attended events during the annual Police Week organized by the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, the Fraternal Order of Police, and Concerns of Police Survivors. The 2010 event marks the 29th time the Capitol Grounds will be used for this noteworthy event. According to the National Peace Officers' Memorial Fund, there are approximately 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving the American public today. Thirty-five states and Puerto Rico had officers killed in 2009. Of the 116 officers killed, 51 were killed during a traffic-related incident, 49 were killed in a firearms-related incident, and 16 were killed in other types of incidents. Although the 116 peace officers that died in action in 2009 is the lowest number since 1959, each officer's death is a tragedy, and we should honor the sacrifices made by those who have been killed in the line of duty. Activities on the Capitol Grounds conducted under H. Con. Res. 264 will be coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol, will be free, and open to the public. It is fitting that we pay tribute the lives, sacrifices, and public service of our brave peace officers and their families today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 264.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5147, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010''. H.R. 5147 ensures that aviation programs, taxes, and Airport and Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority will continue without interruption, pending completion of a long-term Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, reauthorization act. The most recent long-term FAA reauthorization act, the Vision 100-- Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, P.L. 108-176, expired on September 30, 2007. The House passed an FAA reauthorization bill during the 110th Congress, and again last year. I am pleased that the Senate passed its own comprehensive reauthorization bill last month, and I look forward to the passage of final legislation that will provide for the modernization of our aviation system and reauthorize the FAA over the long term. We must ensure in the meantime that the FAA's programs and authority do not lapse. Accordingly, H.R. 5147 is the latest short-term extension act. It ensures continuity of funding and program authority beyond April 30, 2010, when the FAA's current extension expires. H.R. 5147 provides a two-month extension of aviation programs, through July 3, 2010. I thank my Committee colleagues--especially Ranking Member Mica, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Costello, and Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member Petri--as well as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp for working with me on this critical legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5147.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing ``America's Commitment to Clean Water Act,'' legislation to reaffirm the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation's waters, including wetlands. These waters support our nation's economic well-being, enable our quality of life, and sustain our environment for generations to come. Over its thirty-seven-year history, the Clean Water Act has restored countless rivers, lakes, and streams, protected drinking water supplies, and preserved water quality and water-related habitat essential to waterfowl, wildlife, and fisheries. In 1972, Congress set a goal that the Nation's waters would be fishable and swimmable by July 1, 1983. Great progress toward that goal has been made, but 40 percent of our waters still do not meet the goals and standards of the Act. In 2001 and 2006, two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court threw the Nation's clean water programs into turmoil, creating confusion and uncertainty for communities, developers, and agricultural interests, and placing at risk the Nation's ability to restore, protect, and maintain water quality and the water-related environment. Turmoil, confusion, and uncertainty are no way to run a program. The result has been increased processing times and backlogs as the agencies struggle to interpret the court decisions. That is why I developed legislation to restore the common understanding of the scope of the Clean Water Act based on decades-old interpretations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill will ensure that the Clean Water Act can cover the same waters as it did under the regulatory decisions in place in 2001. These decisions were based on a common understanding developed over the 29 years of the Act as to defining its appropriate scope. By restoring the common understanding and practice of protecting the Nation's waters and wetlands as existed prior to 2001, we can provide much-needed certainty to the regulated community, and avoid costly litigation over responsibility for protecting clean water. We can also restore bedrock protections for our citizens and our neighborhoods from polluters who place families and communities at risk. Clean, safe water is a basic right for all Americans. Yet, unless we act, the Clean Water Act cannot ensure that right. The New York Times reports that as a result of the Supreme Court decisions companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters without being prosecuted. EPA regulators working on those cases, estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years. Data from 2008, the most recent year available, show there were over 20,000 beach closings and advisories that year due to pollution, and studies in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10 percent of beachgoers report getting sick after swimming in beach waters open for swimming. Drinking water protection areas that contain one or more small or intermittent streams that would be vulnerable to pollution under the Supreme Court decisions provide drinking water to more than 117,000,000 people in the United States. These examples demonstrate why we must act. Two years ago I conducted a thorough hearing where I heard from two dozen witnesses on five panels of everything that was good and bad about my prior legislative proposal. I invited suggestions from any and all interested parties. The bill I introduce today is a new bill that responds to those comments. It more clearly and specifically targets its one objective-- addressing the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, decisions I believe were wrongly decided. Among the significant changes from my earlier bill: To avoid the possible need for new regulations, the bill uses the current regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' to establish the scope of the Act. The bill codifies an exemption for prior converted croplands. The bill codifies an exemption for waste treatment systems. The bill explicitly states that ground water is considered separately from ``waters of the United States.'' The bill explicitly states that it does not affect the authority of EPA or the Corps as that authority existed prior to SWANCC in 2001. The bill places limits on Federal jurisdiction by specifying the Constitutional authority for the Clean Water Act, and preserving the Federal/State cooperation that is the hallmark of the Act. The bill removes all language related to ``activities''. That term created unnecessary confusion on what would require a Clean Water Act permit. Since enactment in 1972, permits are required only for discharges. The bill preserves the exemptions, limitations, and practices under the Act. The bill includes multiple clarifying changes to emphasize that the bill will reaffirm and restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act, and not expand its geographic scope. Opponents of legislation to restore the Clean Water Act characterize the restoration as a mammoth expansion of Federal power. Restoring the Clean Water Act is only an expansion to the extent the Supreme Court ignored the intent of Congress and 30 years of precedent by narrowing the Act. Opponents argue that the Federal government should not require a permit for everything you do that might affect a wet area. I agree. The Clean Water Act never required such permits and I do not offer legislation that would do so. Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be regulated with the enactment of the legislation. Some people have opposed the Clean Water Act for decades, and it should not come as a surprise that these same groups are using recent Supreme Court decisions as justification to roll back protections under the Clean Water Act. For the sake of future generations, progress must not be rolled back. We must advance the cause of clean water by sustaining the original purpose of the Act. In 1972, Congress voted overwhelmingly to overturn President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Since that time, Americans have overwhelmingly expressed their support for protecting our Nation's waters and keeping them safe from polluters. The bill will restore America's commitment to clean water.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4715 and include extraneous matter in the Record.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) deserve very special recognition and appreciation for their collaborative work taking the lead on this legislation to bring new focus and new energy and new legislative authorities to the National Estuary Program under the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010. Without that concerted effort, we would be losing an extraordinary opportunity to protect and to restore the Nation's estuaries, among our most valuable natural resources. This legislation was approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote. We have solid support on both sides of the aisle on a bill that was carefully crafted over many months by participation, input, and recommendations from both sides, all of which suggestions have been incorporated into this final legislative product. Estuaries are very unique bodies of water. They are the places where fresh and salt water meet, the places where new forms of life are created, not just in the United States but all throughout the world. Estuaries are critical mixing points for the basic ingredients of life, including new life itself. Estuaries are the most ecologically diverse, the most economically productive natural resource areas on our entire planet. Estuaries and their associated coastal resources are major economic forces, as well, for our country. Commercial and recreational fishing annually accounts for $185 billion in revenue, 2 million direct jobs. Commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species-- striped bass, shad, salmon, sturgeon, shrimp, crabs, lobster, clams, oysters, muscles, and bay scallops--all depend on the estuary for stages of their life cycle. Estuaries are habitat for three-fourths of all of the commercial fish catch and 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch. And that is true not just for the fresh and salt water meeting places of estuaries, but also for the riverine and lake meeting places of estuaries on the Great Lakes. Beyond fishing, estuaries produce significant economic value for our fellow citizens in tourism, energy production, navigation, cultural and recreational opportunities, boating, fishing, swimming, surfing, birding. Ports and harbors are located in our estuaries, including our ports of Duluth Superior, which I share with my dear friend and colleague from across the water, Mr. Obey, in northwestern Wisconsin/ northeastern Minnesota. The University of California and the Ocean Foundation have reported that, annually, beach going generates $30 billion of economic value, and wildlife viewing generates up to $49 billion, also, in economic value. But, unfortunately, estuaries, by definition, are downstream. Each estuary is the repository for all of the pollution discharged into the rivers and other bodies of water that drain into estuaries from upstream. As the pollution loading increases, the estuary, the repository of those pollution deposits, deteriorates. The water becomes degraded. The animal and plant communities suffer. Chesapeake Bay is a powerful example of that degrading and deterioration. Only 1 percent of the historical oyster population remain in Chesapeake Bay. An impaired estuary is bad for commercial and recreational fishing, results in depleted fisheries, decreased tourism revenues, and deteriorated property values. In addition, because of deterioration of the estuary and the borderland around it, we've seen increased flooding, shoreline erosion, damaged infrastructure, particularly when storms occur, which happens every year. The Federal Government has a number of authorities at its disposal with which to control water pollution, and typically we have used a permit-based system to regulate pollution discharge into our waters. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act provided a new authority in the National Estuary Program. We are reauthorizing that program today in this bill. It's a nonregulatory program. It includes 28 separate estuaries, and each of these estuary initiatives is run by a non- Federal entity. Some are run by States, others by nongovernmental organizations, and a few others by universities. A central feature of each program is a management plan developed on a consensual basis; not a top-down, not imposed, but a cooperative, inclusive initiative where all elements of government and private sectors and, sort of, stakeholders--a term I don't particularly like, but that's a good inclusive term covering all of those who have a share or a responsibility in the watershed--all develop a bottoms-up process to manage the discharges into and the use of the estuary. It has been very popular and it has been also very effective in improving the health of our estuaries. This bill does four things: increased transparency and accountability for each of the estuary programs; increased Federal coordination in restoration, protection of the estuaries; third, programmatic changes to the natural estuary program; and, fourth, increasing the authorization level for the program from $35 million to $50 million. Not very much. Not very much especially considering the erosion of the value of the dollar over the years since this program was established. We set the minimum level of $1.25 million a year for each of the 28 approved estuaries. The program was last authorized in 2000 and erosion of the dollar would have required an increase over those years to an estimated $44 million. We take it just a little bit higher to $50 million in order to account for other estuaries that are important that may be added in the coming management of this program. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my great appreciation to our subcommittee chair, Ms. Johnson of Texas, who has done a superb job of holding the hearings that led up to the creation of this legislation and bringing together the parties on both sides of the aisle; Mr. Boozman for his splendid participation in the deliberations of the subcommittee and then at the full committee level; and also my great appreciation to Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the full committee, with whom I have a splendid partnership in all of the work of our committee. Before I recognize and yield time to Ms. Johnson, I just wanted to say, it's true, as the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, that the funding level has been well below the new authorization we propose, and I know these are tight budgetary times. Our job as an authorizing committee is to set what is the reasonable, responsible level of funding for programs under the jurisdiction of our committee, set that forth, put it into law, and then we will have to fight with the rest of the budget for their fair share of the funding level.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds. But if we don't raise that level from time to time to keep pace with inflation, keep a target out there, then they will continue to be underfunded. At least they can go in and compete and advocate with other Federal Government programs for the amount of funding and have to justify themselves to do that. And, furthermore, we have a half dozen programs that have a poor rating. The accountability provisions of that bill are targeted to raise their level of performance and to hold them up to public scrutiny. And I think that justifies us--and also they haven't had the funding level they have needed to do the right job. So if we believe in the program, we believe that estuaries are important for new forms of fish and shellfish and aquatic life, we ought to protect them and enhance----

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds. Then we need to increase the funding level but also increase their accountability, also increase their responsibility to the public. That's, I think, a very important and new initiative in this legislation. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) who coauthored this bill with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has made a splendid contribution to this bill, and thank her for her contribution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.