James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I concur in the gentleman's feelings about this matter. It should not have been an item in a conference report on a transportation bill of this magnitude, but as we all know, these things make their way in. We did not have full information. Our information subsequently is that the base was not closed, but that one runway was shut down, and this language was to open that one runway. There will be a further opportunity in a technical correction to address the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am confident that the chairman will further consult on the matter.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this item which the gentleman has raised was an item requested by Senate conferees on which Senate conferees voted and asked us to consider. We were not aware at the time that it was a BRAC item. We learned about it subsequently. Our review of the matter reveals that one runway at the Air Force base was closed; the other runway is active and still operating as a military facility. This language would simply keep the other one runway operating for a variety of purposes, multiuse purposes, at the airport.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to state my opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan. The language of the amendment is based upon a misinterpretation of the precedents concerning the management and control of the Great Lakes, and section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, in particular. The Great Lakes are not possessed by the 8 states that border them. The United States maintains sovereign power over the Great Lakes under its authority to regulate commerce and to control the navigable waters within its jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court specifically recognized, the United States' ultimate interest in the Great Lakes is greater than those of any state. It is the United States, not the states, that manages the Great Lakes. For example, the Great Lakes' role as a national transportation corridor is vital to the national economy. The Great Lakes navigation system generates more than 150,000 jobs for the U.S. economy, $4.3 billion in personal income, and $3.4 billion in transportation-related business revenue. The United States has sovereign power over the Great Lakes and frequently exercises this power through control of water pollution, reducing the introduction of invasive species, protecting endangered species, and exercising water management functions generally. Mr. Rogers's amendment misinterprets section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act to mean that Congress ceded authority over the Great Lakes to the Governors of the Great Lakes States. Congress did not. The legislative history of section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 clearly indicates that Congress was acting to protect the limited quantity of water available from the Great Lakes system for use by the Great Lakes States and to prohibit any diversion unless that diversion was approved by the Governors of all the Great Lakes States. This ``veto'' authority granted to the Governors of the 8 Great Lakes States was the implementation mechanism for the Federal policy, not a relinquishment of authority. Therefore, it is inconsistent with law and precedent to indicate that Congress recognizes that management authority over the Great Lakes should be vested with the Governors of the 8 Great Lakes States, and the Premiers of the Canadian provinces. For these reasons, I state my strong belief that the amendment erroneously characterizes Congressional policy and law.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the explanation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, for the record, it must be said that the chairman has worked mightily, put in extraordinary hours, and used his enormous powers of persuasion to achieve the agreement in conference with the other body and, when necessary for extensions, to do it simply and cleanly and not have these other expenditures. But this is a 2-body Congress, and we do have to come to agreement with the other body. Despite the chairman's best judgment, in which I totally concur, we are forced into this unfortunate situation, which is not in the best public interests, I must say.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his explanation. We had agreed among the House conferees that initially this would be a simple extension, to pay only the employees of the Federal Highway Administration and not monies for the States. The other body has insisted that States be permitted to approve new contracts; but there will be no Member projects, there will be no specific designations in this agreement. Members have been asking me about that matter, and I have assured them that this is a clean, simple extension for 2 days. But it will mean that close to $200 million of new spending by the States will go out as the Senate has insisted. Contracts that have not yet been awarded by the States can be awarded in these next 2 days, and that could be roughly 1 percent of the annual funding of our Federal Highway and Transit program. Is that the chairman's understanding?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my request is to inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to ask him to take this opportunity to explain the extension that we will soon be considering on the House floor when the papers arrive from the Legislative Counsel's Office.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This legislation fulfills the commitment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to produce water resources legislation for the Nation on a biennial basis. Unfortunately, while the Committee produced a bill in the last Congress, it was not enacted into law. We are now nearly 5 years since the last water resources bill was enacted. That is too long. The Corps of Engineers has served the Nation well for 230 years. During those years it has established itself as the Nation's oldest, largest, and most experienced government organization in the area of water and related land engineering matters. From its early works during the Revolutionary War, to navigation improvements, to the unrivaled efforts to reduce the devastating floods in the Mississippi River valley, to the current efforts to save the Everglades from extinction, the Corps is the entity that the people call upon to solve the problems facing the Nation's vast water resources. Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many responsibilities, had jurisdiction over Yellowstone National Park. The Corps managed Yellowstone Park for 30 years. Lieutenant Dan Kingman of the Corps, who would later become the chief of engineers, wrote: The plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth to no one. A few years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said: The best service in forest protection, almost the only efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years, the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy. Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That was Mark Twain. Those statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers has done so admirably, and the great legacy they have left for all Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs, and, of immense importance to me, protecting the great resource of the Great Lakes--one fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. The bill before us today includes as great a variety of projects as have ever been included in water resources legislation. The scope of this bill includes projects and programs for the Nation's inland navigation system, flood protection, shoreline protection, and environmental protection and enhancement. This bill both builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It will allow us to expand international trade through projects to improve our coastal ports and inland navigation system. Flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction measures will help meet critical needs to protect lives and property. This legislation includes 30 projects for which the Chief of Engineers has submitted a report to Congress. In addition, the bill contains over 100 project modifications of existing or on-going projects, over 100 requests for Corps of Engineers' studies for future projects, and an equal number of requests for the Corps to carry out projects consistent with the primary missions of the Corps of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration. All told, the bill, including additions adopted at Subcommittee, contains roughly $10 billion in new and modified project authorizations. This number should come as no surprise to those familiar with the Corps process, because this bill represents approximately 5\1/2\ years of requests since the last Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I am pleased that this legislation includes the legislative proposal developed in the previous Congress to address programmatic issues in the Corps program that have become collectively known as ``Corps Reform.'' This bi-partisan agreement calling for independent review of larger and more controversial projects will address many of the concerns raised by stakeholders, and outside academics, and will improve the process of moving project proposals from study to completion. There should be no doubt that I am a strong supporter of the Corps and the valuable work that it does for this country. This Nation needs the Corps of Engineers, but the Corps also needs to be free from outside criticisms. That is why I believe Congress must act to implement a few common sense revisions to the process by which the Corps develops and implements projects. Nothing in this bill hampers the ability of the Corps to study and recommend new projects. To the contrary, the Corps study process is improved by ensuring that completed studies can withstand outside scrutiny or challenge. This bill represents a fair effort to address the varied water resources needs of the Nation. It is worthy of bipartisan support, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. This amendment seeks to ensure that the navigation project for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway proceeds in tandem with the environmental restoration program that this bill simultaneously authorizes. It also calls for the budgetary process to be adjusted to accomplish this goal. I believe that this amendment reflects the original intent of the interested parties and the Corps of Engineers. When the environmental component was added to the navigation study, it was in recognition that the two programs needed to complement each other. The Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway are a multi-purpose system. They serve important navigation needs yet are a vital part of the Nation's environmental ecosystem. The Mississippi River, its sidechannels, and tributaries constitute the central flyway for millions of migrating waterfowl. It also serves as the home for a variety of fish and shellfish. I support the twin goals of improving navigation on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway and conducting environmental restoration. This amendment is consistent with these goals. I support the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the bipartisan managers' amendment offered on behalf of the Committee. This amendment addresses several issues that were brought to the attention of the committee following the committee markup of a technical or clarifying nature. It also adds six new projects contingent upon the completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers by December 31, 2005, These contingent authorizations are consistent with the criteria used by the committee in developing water resources legislation over the past several Congresses. The managers' amendment also reflects a failure of the current administration and the Congress to address the water and wastewater infrastructure needs of communities across the Nation. The amendment includes authorization for 73 new projects totaling $1.6 billion for water and wastewater related infrastructure. These are the types of projects that for many years had been financed through the Construction Grants and State Revolving Loan programs of the Environmental Protection Agency, the grant and loan programs of the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal financial assistance programs. Unfortunately for communities, this administration continues to put forward budget requests that cut these vital programs, and this House continues to accede to those cuts. Just last month, this House approved funding for EPA's State revolving loan fund grants at $850 million. This compares to EPA funding 18 years ago of nearly $2.4 billion. This 65 percent cut in funding, is actually 80 percent when adjusted for inflation. The needs of communities have not declined, just the willingness of the Republican majority to help them. Where do these communities turn for help? To the Corps of Engineers, America's premier water resource agency. I know that the Corps is up to the task of addressing these pressing needs; I only hope that the administration and the Congress can find the will to adequately fund the Nation's infrastructure needs. I urge approval of the managers' amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez to add the environmental restoration project in Liberty State Park, New Jersey to the list of projects that can proceed, contingent upon the completion of the Chief of Engineers report no later than December 31, 2005. This is a non-controversial amendment, and would have been included in the Committee amendment had the Corps of Engineers acknowledged earlier that the report will be finished this year. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez for his hard work and persistence to ensure that the study for this project stayed on track for completion this year. Without his efforts, we would not be able to include this authorization in this year's bill. I support the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. The gentleman's amendment requires the administration to adequately budget for Federal maintenance of smaller or low-use harbors. It reflects the growing frustration of the Members of this House, and the people they represent with the Administration's continuing efforts to deny communities Federal support for navigation at smaller harbors. When the administration submitted its budget request for fiscal year 2006, it once again sought to eliminate or reduce funding for maintenance activities at smaller, less busy harbors. By abandoning Federal maintenance of these harbors, the administration places lives and livelihoods at risk. Lives are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve as harbors of refuge during inclement weather in many areas of the country, including the Great Lakes. Failure to adequately maintain harbors also creates unsafe navigation conditions, increasing the incidence of groundings and capsizing. Livelihoods are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve an important economic role in moving cargo, commercial fishing, and recreational opportunities. Smaller harbors may not move hundreds or thousands of containers or tons of bulk cargo, but such harbors can be vital to the local community they serve. I hope that the message of the gentleman's amendment is heard by the administration, and that the budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2007 reflect this serious concern. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, in its current form. While I congratulate the gentleman for seeking ways to enhance the availability of resources to address security and infrastructure needs, I believe that his proposal is too broad. The proposal would amend the authority contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for ports to charge fees to recover a portion of their costs associated with port deepening projects. That authority was carefully crafted to ensure that the fees that were charged on a vessel were associated with improvements and activities at the port. This amendment allows for fees to finance activities well beyond the confines of the port. The amendment specifically allows for the imposition of fees on containers and for those proceeds to be used for financing the cost of construction and operation and maintenance of infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor. This is simply too broad. The amendment would allow for the imposition of container fees to finance highways or rail expansion, with the only requirement being that the project go to, from, or through the harbor. This could certainly benefit other transportation modes, but it would do so on the back of container traffic. This proposal needs further review. We can look at the passenger facility charges currently used in the aviation program as a model. There, Congress working in collaboration with aviation interests developed a financing mechanism that has benefited airports, the airline industry, and air passengers. But, we did not allow these revenues to become the financing mechanism for a wide variety of infrastructure projects. I would be pleased to work with the gentleman on his proposal, participate in hearings, and work with interested parties. But, in its current form, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. An efficient, modern, intermodal transportation system is vital to the economic well being of the Nation. Our inland waterways are a critical component of that system. This amendment sacrifices any hope of regaining a leadership role in world grain markets for Midwest producers. I can appreciate the concerns of the gentlemen that offer this amendment. The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study has been the costliest and most controversial study ever undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. It has had whistleblower complaints, an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an investigation by the Army Inspector General, three National Academy of Sciences reviews, Congressional hearings, and more newspaper articles and editorials than one could imagine. Throughout all this, the Corps remained thorough, professional, and exemplary in its review of alternatives and its willingness to adapt to new information presented to it. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its predecessors, has consistently supported a diverse and efficient national transportation system. This includes ports, highways, rail, aviation, and the inland waterway system. Each of these modes contributes to the overall transportation system that fuels the world's leading economy. In pursuing the national transportation system, we cannot stand still. We did not build the Interstate Highway System and then walk away. We continue to expand and modernize the system to meet evolving needs--the House/Senate conference intends to conclude its work on a reauthorization bill this month. The same is true for ports, rail and aviation. The inland waterway system is no different. The Corps recommends the construction of five new locks on the Upper Mississippi River, and two new locks on the Illinois Waterway. At 1,200 feet, these locks will accommodate today's common 15-barge tows. Instead of having to break the tows into two sections to pass through the locks, a 1,200-foot lock allows passage as a single unit. This can save an hour or more of transit time, resulting in lower transportation costs, and grain exports that are more competitive on world markets. There are the small-scale structural and non-structural measures that should be pursued immediately. Initially, the Corps plans to implement mooring facilities and switchboats over the next 15 years. The Corps should also continue to explore options to improve the utilization of existing facilities through improved scheduling techniques and river traffic management. The Nation constantly explores improvements in managing air traffic congestion; the inland transportation sector could benefit from lessons learned in aviation traffic management. After all, the Corps will have to aggressively pursue nonstructural traffic management techniques during any construction period. It is never too early to explore what works. While the Corps is implementing the small-scale structural and nonstructural changes, the Corps should continue its efforts in planning the construction of the new locks. These are the large-scale improvements calling for the construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks. These components should stay on track. The Nation's grain producers, the transportation industry, and our export customers need to have a stable, reliable economic environment in which to grow and develop. In the meantime, the Corps and the Congress will have the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the small-scale measures, monitor grain trade patterns, and proceed with the most current and accurate information available. The amendment before the Committee would simply add delay for no benefit. A contributing cause of stagnant traffic patterns is the very congestion that these locks would alleviate. By requiring traffic to grow before the locks can proceed will forever doom the locks. The proponents of the amendment fail to acknowledge that these new locks are desperately needed to allow traffic to grow. Grain sales occur in world markets based on extremely small variations in price. I recall instances when as little as one-eighth of a cent per bushel was enough to be the deciding factor. By reducing congestion and lowering transportation costs, we can do our part to ensure that U.S. grain products can successfully compete on world markets. Requiring more traffic, more congestion, and higher prices before the locks can proceed will only further harm the Midwest agricultural economy. The small-scale and large-scale construction components will require significant mitigation components. Let me be clear to the Corps and the other Federal agencies involved that the Corps must adhere to the requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and ensure that all required mitigation is undertaken either in advance, or concurrent with the construction. Too often, mitigation becomes the orphan of the project and the environment suffers. That cannot be the case here, or elsewhere in the Corps program. The remaining critical element of the proposal is the recommendation for a large-scale ecosystem restoration program for the area. While the total $5.3 billion cost is large, the value to the United States of the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation system justifies the costs. Since 1940, the Nation has benefited from the efficient and safe transportation of goods by barge. Waterborne transportation remains the most fuel-efficient way to transfer bulk commodities. Yet, this highly efficient system has exacted a price on the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. This ecosystem comprises 2.6 million acres in parts of five States. It includes hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forest, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands. The region supports 270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and amphibians, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50 species of mussels. More than 40 percent of North America's migratory waterfowl and shorebirds depend on the resources, shelter, and habitat that the region provides. We must do our part to restore this precious resource. Mr. Chairman, I support the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers to enhance the Nation's inland waterway transportation system, and to restore the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr. Blumenauer, and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on all sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to rebut a red herring raised recently in the gentleman's remarks regarding the Eisenhower Building. It was not authorized. It has not been considered in a prospectus by the committee. The issue is nonexistent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa). (Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of time on our side. Remarks have been made in all seriousness of purpose by people with genuine beliefs on all sides of this issue, but facts are stubborn. The cuts in GSA or the offsets, from cleaning and maintenance, security issues, that is provided by the Department of Homeland Security. We do not touch security at Federal buildings. The Federal Protective Service provides that. Reference was made by the last speaker to comments of an Amtrak employee. Let me quote another Amtrak employee, the CEO, David Gunn who says that, with this funding level, Amtrak will close its doors and cease operations nationwide. The Association of American Railroads, I want to say for those who are interested in their views, supports this amendment. ``A shutdown of Amtrak will cost the freight railroads $5.3 billion over the next 6 years.'' I heard references to needing reform. Well, we passed a reform bill in 1997, a 5-year reform that concluded in 2002. Every year the appropriation bill imposes new restrictions on poor old Amtrak. Every month, under that reform, a business plan is submitted to the Congress. Now, let us talk about the successes. The 5-year capital plan of Amtrak focused on restoring the northeast corridor to higher levels of reliability and safety, restoring the aging fleet of rolling stock, eliminated three long-distance routes, increased ridership from 22.5 million in 2000 to 25.1 million in 2004, and kept the cash operating requirement at or below $570 million. There were 256,000 concrete ties installed, 104,000 wood ties replaced, 226 miles of rail infrastructure restored, and 50 undergrade bridges have been improved. There have been improvements. Those dollars have been invested wisely in the capital facilities of Amtrak. Give it an opportunity. David Gunn is the best operator we have had. Give him an opportunity to run this railroad right.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)