James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I do not have time to yield to correct all the gentleman's mistakes. In the consideration of the bill, I yielded to Mr. Petri. ``We support H.R. 4715,'' said he. He yielded to the ranking member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. LoBiondo, cosponsor of the bill, and he concluded, saying, ``I urge all Members to support H.R. 4715, and I yield back.'' There was no discussion in committee. No amendment was filed with the Rules Committee to cut the funding level. The ranking member of our committee, Mr. Mica, who designates himself proudly as a conservative, is supporting this bill. This is a jobs bill. Go ahead and laugh. Go ahead and laugh. It shows you don't understand much, Mr. Speaker, those who are laughing. Twenty-eight million jobs depend on coastal areas of the United States, $185 billion in commercial and recreational fishing from estuaries of the United States, 2 million jobs at stake. Three-fourths of all commercial fishing depend on estuaries. Three-fourths of the U.S. commercial fish catch and 80 percent of the recreational fish catch occurs in the estuarine areas of the United States, and annual fish harvests have declined by $1.5 billion every year for the last 20-plus years because of impaired estuaries. This is an investment in America's future. This is an investment in the young people of this country for whom the gentleman proclaims to propose cutting $15 million. This is an investment. This is not an entitlement. This is an authorization to compete with other programs for the funding necessary to protect our estuaries, which are the beginning places of new life and the homes of millions of jobs and new forms of life and the future of America. Vote down this pernicious motion.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 197, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), commending the American Sail Training Association for its advancement of character building under sail and for its advancement of international goodwill. In 1972, Barclay Warburton III, of Newport, Rhode Island, his two sons, and several friends sailed the brigantine Black Pearl across the Atlantic to participate in a tall ships race from England to Sweden. Mr. Warburton was inspired by the enthusiasm and spirit of the young people who participated in the race and, in 1973, he established the American Sail Training Association, ASTA, to provide similar experiences for young people in the United States. Today, ASTA is a respected nonprofit organization with a mission to encourage character building under sail. ASTA provides young people with experiences aboard traditionally rigged sail training vessels, and manages scholarship and grant programs. ASTA also organizes and participates in tall ships races and maritime festivals involving vessels and crews from all coasts of the United States and from around the world. ASTA supports more than 200 training vessels of many types from the United States, Canada, and other nations. Each year, ASTA also supports more than 30 annual sail training conferences throughout the United States and Canada. ASTA also publishes ``Sail Tall Ships'', a periodic directory of sail training opportunities. ASTA collaborates extensively with the United States Coast Guard and the USCG Eagle to conduct many of its sail training programs. As the United States' representative in, and a founding member of, Sail Training International, STI, the international body promoting sail training, ASTA recently collaborated with STI and port partners around the Atlantic Ocean to create the Tall Ships Atlantic Challenge 2009: a 7,000-mile trip around the Atlantic over the traditional routes followed by ships during the age of sail. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for introducing this resolution to commend the American Sail Training Association. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 197.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4275, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), to designate the annex building under construction for the Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John C. Godbold Federal Building''. Judge Godbold was a graduate of Auburn University and of Harvard Law School. He was the first person to ever serve as Chief Judge of two different Federal Circuit courts, Judge Godbold assumed senior status in 1987 and served as Director of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987 to 1990. In addition, he was a professor of law at the Cumberland School of Law of Sanford University. Judge Godbold was also instrumental in devising a process of certifying issues of first impression in Federal court based on state law interpretations, and inviting the state Supreme Court to identify the state law issues and rule on them. Judge Godbold implemented this new procedure in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and now more than 40 states have procedures for the certification of state law issues. Judge Godbold was also a well-respected leader in training Federal jurists and authored several publications that addressed responsible advocacy and the role of the rule of law in our lives. Judge Godbold died late last year on December 22, 2009. He was a man of immense character, and conducted his court proceedings based on fairness and courtesy. He was a courageous judge and dedicated public servant. It is both fitting and proper that we honor his public service with this designation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4275.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1062, as amended, introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), recognizing the Coast Guard Group Astoria's more than 60 years of service to the Pacific Northwest. With 325 Coast Guard personnel and six units, Group Astoria's area of responsibility encompasses over 140 miles of coastline between Queets, Washington, and Pacific City, Oregon. Group Astoria conducts numerous missions, such as search and rescue, aids-to-navigation, homeland security, and enforcement of laws and treaties. Each year, Coast Guard Group Astoria receives more than 800 distress calls, assists over 1,700 mariners and save approximately 100 people from perishing at sea. Since 2003, Group Astoria has saved over 500 lives and assisted more than 10,000 recreational boaters and commercial mariners in distress. Since 2003, Group Astoria had conducted over 1,200 Living Marine Resource missions to ensure commercial fishing vessels are not over- fishing in certain areas, conserving marine resources for future generations. Air Station Astoria assets provide coverage and respond to offshore distress calls up to the Canadian border and down to northern California. In December 2007, crews from Air Station Astoria flew 28 sorties in 130 knot winds during the Pacific Northwest winter storm saving 136 people. Air Station Astoria also provides assistance to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center and other local responders with inland search and rescue. This August, Group Astoria will gain additional responsibilities and will be redesignated as Sector Columbia River, making the title ``Group Astoria'' a historical name. In light of these planned transitions, H. Res. 1062 recognizes Coast Guard Group Astoria for 60 years of noble service and honors the brave Coast Guard men and women who put their lives at risk every day for the safety and security of the people in the Pacific Northwest. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for bringing forth this resolution to recognizing the Coast Guard Group Astoria's more than 60 years of service to the Pacific Northwest. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1062.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1212, I call up the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1586.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This procedure under which we are acting on this bill is complex and has raised some concerns both in the Rules Committee and in discussion of the rule, so I just want to clarify some things. The rule states in part: to concur in the Senate amendment to the title of H.R. 1586 which deals with additional tax bonuses on TARP recipients. This is a tax bill that the House had passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate is amending that tax bill, taking everything out and substituting its version of the FAA authorization bill. We then, under the rule, concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules which is the text of the bill that we have twice passed in this House in two Congresses. It is not something new. It is not a freestanding bill coming to the floor for the first time and should not be nor has it been subjected to an open rule which was requested in the Rules Committee and which was again debated on the House floor during consideration of the rule. This is the bill we passed first in September, on September 20, 2007, by a vote of 267-151, including four Republican and four Democratic amendments. It was not adopted in that Congress. We took it up again in 2009, passed the bill May 21 last year by an even bigger vote, 277-136, including seven Democratic and four Republican amendments. We also include in this bill the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Act of 2009, overwhelmingly approved in the House by a vote of 409-11, not acted upon by the other body. So we are combining these bills and sending them back to the Senate which then we expect will ask for a conference. Now, we have heard discussion and I heard some rather fomenting sounds during consideration of the rule about, well, we haven't passed this aviation authorization bill in years. We would have passed it in 2007 but for the Statement of Administration Policy September 19, 2007, from the Bush administration that said: Accordingly, if H.R. 2881 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. It passed the House notwithstanding. But because of the threat of the administration veto, the other body, narrowly divided, didn't even take it up. We did our work in good order, in reasonable order, very quick from the time the gavel was handed over to Speaker Pelosi at the beginning of the 110th Congress and we regained the majority. We picked up where we left off in the previous Congress with the Republican members of our committee and moved the bill with bipartisan support except for three issues. And on one of those, the administration threatened a veto, the negotiation/ renegotiation of the air traffic controller contract. The new administration came in and settled that issue. It is gone. It is done. The language is still in the bill because we passed that bill before the administration settled the air traffic controller contract. So the language stays in the bill, but it will come out in conference, at least that part of it. So I don't understand this revisionism that I heard on the House floor during the debate on the rule. It is wrong. It doesn't represent the issues properly. It doesn't put them into focus. We are going to pass this legislation today. The Senate will then ask us for a conference in due course, and we will go to conference on this bill. And we will resolve whatever the differences are, and there are several of them, between our version and the Senate version. That is the process. I just want to make it very clear that is what we are here discussing today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before the gentleman concludes, Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for just a moment?

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman referred, Mr. Speaker, to the provision in the bill that covers the air traffic controller contract. The gentleman is aware that has been resolved and settled, and in my remarks I said that is a provision that we have already agreed that would be dropped because it's no longer necessary.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who has ushered this bill through two Congresses, two successful votes on the House floor, and we're now about to go to conference and have the crowning achievement.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 1 minute to respond to a repeated misunderstanding of and misconstruction of the language referring to antitrust immunity. Airlines are free to engage in alliances and have been ever since the Deregulation Act of 1978. The threat to competition and to airline prices and fairness in the marketplace is to bless that relationship, codesharing, with immunity from the antitrust laws so that the airlines in the alliance can collude on market and pricing and on scheduling. They should not have antitrust immunity. The alliance is a fair and equitable competition device, but it should not be free from the antitrust laws of the United States.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 seconds. If I had my way, I would eliminate the antitrust altogether, but we're providing a process by which the benefits of alliances that have been given antitrust immunity can be evaluated, determined whether there was a balance of benefits to the traveling public; if so, if they prove their case, they show that there are benefits, then the antitrust immunity continues in place. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have only one speaker left on our side, and so since it is our responsibility to close, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin to acknowledge his remaining speaker.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I have made it clear from the outset that the process in which we find ourselves on the House floor is due to the means by which the Senate brought their bill through the Senate and sent it over to us, and one aspect of that is that the aviation bill reported by the Senate includes a tax provision, which the Senate cannot initiate. Under the Constitution, it must be initiated by the House. So in order to keep faith with the Constitution, the Senate amended an already-passed House tax bill to which they added their aviation bill. The tax provision has now been vacated, and we send back to the Senate an aviation bill on which there will be a conference. We have insisted on it. Our leadership has concurred and said there will be a conference; they agreed with the Senate leadership, and there will be a conference. And these issues that have been discussed of the provisions of the House bill have twice passed the House already, will be matters to be discussed with our colleagues in the Senate in the conference in an open conference session, period. It is a complex process to get us there, but it is a process by which we will get to conference with the Senate. Now, never did I say in my remarks that the inability to pass this bill in 2007 was the fault of President Bush. I did not say that. I said, and I read from the Statement of Administration Policy, that if our 2007 bill, H.R. 2881, were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. That is quite plain on its face a statement recited from the administration's Statement of Administration Policy. We moved, as Mr. Costello already explained and laid out the time line, very promptly in our committee, preceded by consultations with our Republican colleagues. We had discussions in February, March, and April, into May. We had a markup in committee in May. And then we withheld going to the floor in an attempt to reach an agreement with the FAA, the Bush administration, and the air traffic controllers. And I must compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member, for his participation, his ready willingness to engage personally, not just send minions, but to engage personally in that process. He participated in numerous meetings with Mr. Costello and me, Secretary Peters, Marion Blakey, administrator of FAA, and a person from the Office of Management and Budget to speak authoritatively for the administration on the budget and expenditure issues. We talked extensively in June and in July. We had several meetings through July and the first week of August. We came back the first week of September after the August recess, and again, Mr. Mica in the room, we had discussions. I give him great credit for engaging himself personally. We could not reach the--not ``we''--the air traffic controllers and the administration could not reach agreement. At that point we said we do have a responsibility to move this bill, and on September 20 it passed the House 267-151. There was no comparable bill in the Senate. The Senate was wrestling with the administration's proposals for taxes that Senators objected to, financing agreements that the Senate objected to that they found that they could not reach agreement internally nor could they reach agreement with the administration. Therefore, we had to pass finally an extension of current law, the bill that Mr. Mica authored as Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee in 2003 and which we all supported. Since then, we have had a Presidential election, the administration moved in, and we moved promptly on our bill. We did all the right things to reach agreement, starting from our point in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the administration addressed the issue of the air traffic controller contract. Secretary LaHood made it his first responsibility: bring the controllers in, bring the FAA, bring the Office of Management and Budget into discussions. Find what the points of agreement were, points of disagreement, and resolve the matter, as it should be done. With good will and willingness on both sides, some 600 items were resolved, including the very crucial ones of pay and pay grades and pay scales, and a starting point of next negotiation for the follow-on contract. It was a remarkable achievement, and the end result was that 94 percent of controllers voted in favor of it. I am very mystified by the comment that I heard about the aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. Section 311 requires the FAA to begin a rulemaking to update aircraft rescue and firefighting standards and bring them into compliance with existing national voluntary consensus standards for response time, deployment, staffing, hazardous materials training only if such standards are found to be practical. That is not a one-size-fits-all. That is not a straitjacket. That is not imposing something arbitrarily. That is a process by which these issues can be resolved. It is a rational response. It was agreed upon in our committee. FAA, airport authorities, International Association of Firefighters participated in developing the standards and support them. The rulemaking will provide a process by which all those who have an interest in air crash fire and rescue will have the opportunity to have a say in and shape the final standards. We are not doing it by law. We are not saying this is the standard. We are not shoving something down somebody's throat. We are creating a process by which that standard can be established. I know a good deal about air crash rescue and firefighting because we have a facility in Duluth, not at the airport, but operated by the community college, lake Superior College. It's no longer a community college, it's a full-fledged university-level operation, and they train firefighters. They were training over 2,000 a year from all over the United States, from 14 foreign countries that came to this facility. They know a good deal about standards and about equipment and training of personnel. They have, in fact, the hull of a DC-10 that is used as training. They put it on fire a couple of times a week. They train people in how to deal with fire and to rescue people from burning aircraft. And so what we've created in this legislation is a process by which standards will be set for the whole country to save lives. The pure speculation and the scare tactics that the airlines have engaged in--they've sent talking points to people around the country and to various airport authorities and had them send this false information on. That's pure scare tactics. I already used time to explain this with the gentleman from Texas. This bill needs to pass.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my astonishment and disappointment that the entire Republican Conference voted against H. Res. 1125 for the observance of National Public Works Week. I want to restate the resolved clause: Supports the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week; recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of National Public Works Week. There were three items in the ``whereas'' clauses that referred to the investment of funds under the Recovery Act. Those are figures drawn from information reported to our committee by the States and reported every 30 days by this committee and distributed to every Member of this House. For some reason, the other side of the aisle chose to vote against that. They didn't like that reference in this resolution. That's the only conclusion I can draw from this unanimous act of voting against Public Works Week. Tomorrow, our committee will hold the 15th in its series of hearings on the performance under the Recovery Act on the programs under our committee's jurisdiction, and we will show that direct, indirect, and induced jobs reached 1.2 million.