James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. That makes the gentleman from Florida, Madam Speaker, the author of the longest surviving authorization of FAA programs.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and compliment Mr. Costello on the splendid job he has done in crafting the FAA authorization bill, and the partnership with Mr. Petri, and also with Mr. Mica, the Republican leader on the committee who once chaired the aviation subcommittee. And together we have fashioned a really solid bill for the future. We passed it in two Congresses. It's well past time for the Senate to act on this bill, and finally they did, 93-0. However, the current program, the current law, as I expressed in my colloquy with Mr. Mica, is the longest standing FAA authorization bill, simply because we haven't passed the next authorization. The House has done its job, as it always does, in two Congresses. We first passed this bill in 2007, and were blockaded by the White House that threatened veto over certain provisions of the bill. But the Senate never even took it up. We never got close to conference, so we passed it again last year. And now we need an extension. And we passed the extension, but the FAA came back to us and said, well, before this extension is enacted, we request a technical correction to a provision of the bill relating to formula grants. Within the Airport Improvement Program, this technical correction ensures that sufficient funds will be allocated to formula grants, rather than discretionary grants. And without the correction, FAA said they discovered that there could be insufficient funds to cover formula apportionments after July 4 of this year. So we're taking up this technical correction, sending it over to the other body, in addition to the bill we passed last week. Now, there is another matter of importance that we've attached to this bill, and that is the correction to the HIRE Act that the House passed, Senate passed, and then we found that when the Senate moved their bill, there was a disruption--I'll be kind about this--to the formula, which has already been discussed by other speakers. Mr. Mica has talked about it; Mr. Cummings just recently, in which four States get 58 percent of the funds, 22 States get nothing. The other 20 states get scraps. That's not right. And we need to--and we're correcting that in this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So we're sending that back to the other body. Majority Leader Reid had cleared the correction that we're sending back with the appropriate members of the Senate committee leadership and the Senate floor leadership, but somehow this correction has gotten bogged down. I also urge the other body to act on H.R. 4786, which we passed March 10, to correct an additional problem created by the filibuster in the Senate that caused highway authorization to lapse and 1,922 Federal Highway Administration career employees to lose their salaries. They, through no fault of their own, get a 20 percent cut in their biweekly pay check. That's unreasonable. Now we've sent over a bill to the other body with a very clear payment restructuring.

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the Secretary of Transportation said that he has made the shift within the administrative account, but cannot make the payment because he needs authority from Congress to do so. So we quickly drafted the bill with their technical input, moved the bill, with great bipartisan support, great enthusiasm over here; but then there is a Member of the other body who is holding it up, saying he wants it paid for. Well, the Congressional Budget Office has certified to us in writing that there is no cost, there is no need for a pay-for. There is no need for an offset. We said that at the time we moved this bill. We had received it informally from CBO. We now have it in writing from CBO. So there is no need to hold up justice for these 1,922 employees who, through no fault of their own, just standing there doing their jobs, were cut off from their pay because of one person's filibuster over in the other body. It's time to do justice for these people. Don't hold them up for a month if this goes on longer. This is just patently unjust. I urge the Senate to act on this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4899, the ``Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010''. I strongly support this bill which, as requested by the President, appropriates an additional $5.1 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to support ongoing disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation efforts, and to ensure that our Nation is adequately prepared in the event of future disasters. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides the funding for the Federal Government's activities to help communities respond to, recover from, and mitigate major disasters and emergencies declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Last month, due to diminishing funds, FEMA announced that the agency was forced to limit expenditures from the DRF. In some cases, FEMA has completely suspended reimbursements to State and local governments for reconstruction projects for facilities damaged or destroyed by recent disasters. FEMA has also slowed the issuance of reimbursements for critical post-disaster hazard mitigation projects, which help communities, build better after a disaster to protect against future damage. For example, FEMA has stopped funding projects to make repairs from facilities damaged in last Spring's flooding in my home State of Minnesota. Specifically, Federal funding is being held up for repairs to a building at Concordia College and for road repairs in Becker County, Lien Township and Gully Township. Delays in providing reimbursements to States and local governments will necessarily slow the pace of recovery and mitigation projects, as most States do not have the flexibility in these difficult economic times to move ahead without a guarantee of when Federal funds will become available. Inadequate funding in the DRF, therefore, impedes the rapid recovery of communities across the country from devastating disasters and inhibits the job creation and economic stimulus that these projects provide. If Congress does not act to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund, FEMA will be unable to respond to future disasters once the fund is depleted. This is particularly troubling because the National Weather Service has issued a warning that there is a high, or above average, risk of flooding this spring in much of the country. As one example, the Nation has watched carefully the situation in North Dakota and my home state of Minnesota, as the Red River crested over the weekend. It appears that major flooding has thankfully been avoided in large parts of the two States along the Red River for the time being. However, the risk of flooding remains and serves as an example of what other parts of the country may encounter in the coming months. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorizes and oversees FEMA's disaster programs under the Stafford Act. Members of my Committee know first hand the devastation that a disaster can wreak on a community and the importance of a swift, effective Federal response. Through oversight and legislation, the Committee has been working to improve FEMA's operations and provision of disaster assistance. Without adequate funding in the DRF, however, FEMA will not be able to carry out any of its critical missions or functions. On March 12, 2010, I wrote to Speaker Pelosi in support of the President's request for a supplemental appropriation for the Disaster Relief Fund and urging swift action to replenish the Fund. I would like to thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for bringing this bill before the House today. Their dedication to this issue affirms the importance of the DRF and underscores the urgency of ensuring its solvency. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4899.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives crosses a historic threshold in the evolution of social justice, quality of life, equity of health service delivery, and a worthy legacy for our children, with passage of comprehensive health care reform legislation. Our Nation enjoys the best, but the most expensive health care in the world. The comprehensive health care legislation under consideration will preserve what works best in our health care system and make that system more efficient and affordable. In Minnesota and throughout the Nation, citizens will quickly see the benefits of this legislation that includes important consumer protections to reduce the power of health insurance companies. You will have greater control of your health care decisions. This bill will assure that no one's current health care can be dropped. No one will be forced out of the health care they now hold. No one will be denied coverage because of a previously existing condition. No one's health insurance will be dropped because of lifetime caps; no one can be denied when they need their health insurance the most. People will be able to retain their health insurance if they change jobs. For seniors, the legislation closes the doughnut hole that has existed for five years, which will save seniors thousands of dollars in prescription drug costs. Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' policy until age 26. If we fail to provide health care for all of our citizens, we all will pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums because we eventually pay for ``sick care'' rather than make the wise investments in the promotion of preventive health care. This health care legislation, which assures that all Americans will be able to have and to keep health insurance, is central to our economic recovery and to balancing our federal budget. To be sure, this health care reform legislation will not cure every shortcoming in our health care system, but unquestionably the status quo is unacceptable and unaffordable. For far too long, too many citizens have been denied essential health care, and our commitment to fundamental justice demands that we make affordable access available to every American. This health care legislation will provide numerous benefits for Minnesota and the Nation. Importantly, this legislation expands access to health care to more than 32 million Americans. This expansion of health care will be achieved without increasing the federal deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has objectively analyzed the legislation and has determined that its enactment will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade and more than $1.2 trillion over the second decade. The health care legislation is fully financed by ending the excessive subsides in the Medicare Advantage program and by additional changes in Medicare reimbursement that will make Medicare more efficient without reducing essential Medicare benefits; it will expand the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by an additional seven years. This health care legislation also includes important improvements in rural health care for Minnesota and the Nation. I was concerned that the original House health care bill did not incorporate a number of necessary reforms to expand access in rural America. I am pleased to report that the health care legislation under consideration not only expands health insurance coverage in rural America, but it also promotes the training and placement of health care professionals in rural areas. I am also very pleased that this legislation addresses the longstanding geographic disparity in Medicare reimbursement. Northland health care providers have been greatly disadvantaged by unfair Medicare reimbursement, and this legislation closes that gap and moves us inexorably toward payment parity with the rest of the country. Just as the Hippocratic oath requires that medical providers adhere to the admonition of ``First, do no harm,'' the same is true for legislators, and this legislation, while not perfect, will implement significant and positive changes in the delivery of health care. This is especially true with regard to vulnerable women and unborn children. I am confident that abortion will not be funded in this legislation. Current law dating back to October 12, 1979 (Public Law 96-86), has contained a federal prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortion in community health centers. Conscience clause protections that have existed in the past, that are in effect today, will remain in effect in the future. The legislation also prohibits the use of federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance to pay for abortion. I am very pleased that President Obama has prepared and will issue an Executive Order upon enactment to reaffirm the enforcement of current law that prevents the use of federal funds for abortion. Today, we keep faith with the American people. Today we ensure that quality, affordable health care is available to everyone to this generation and generations to come. Support this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding time. There is a very important provision of this bill that we are hoping to pass for a second time to send back to the other body, and that is to correct the lapse in payment to 1,913 employees of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration because the authority for the Federal highway program lapsed due to the objections of the Senator, the Representative in the other body, who held up the bill and then delayed the whole process, and through no fault of their own, these hardworking career employees were shortchanged. A long-term secretary of the Federal Highway Administration office in Seattle, who would normally net $1,548, lost $390 because of that furlough. That is unreasonable. An entry-level program analyst in Chicago of the Federal Highway Administration normally would take home $1,200, but would take a $300 cut for doing his job. Well, that is unreasonable. The bill we have before us will reinstate these funds. And I just want to restate what I said just a couple weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan arbiter of the cost of legislation, determined that H.R. 4786 will not require any new Federal funding and will not increase outlays. It will draw on administrative funding that has already been authorized and appropriated for the department. It will not cost the Federal Government a single dollar beyond amounts already provided. The Secretary of Transportation has already moved, is prepared to move these dollars as soon as we give him that authority. We ought to do that now.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello. He has already well and duly explained the FAA authorization extension that is before us at this moment. I want to address, as Mr. Petri has done, as Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Sires have done, the other provision in this bill. When we passed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act a time ago, the legislation then was sent back by the Senate with some changes in the highway funding formula that I felt were unfair, unjust, unnecessary; and I held up House consideration of the bill until we could reach an agreement with the other body. As I went on to explain in meetings of the caucus, meetings with our committee members on both sides of the aisle, the Senate version of this bill directed major highway discretionary program funding to a select group of States: four would get 58 percent of the funding; 22 States get nothing; the other 20 got dribbles. That formulation would provide a permanent windfall for those four States. And not just a one-time shot but a long-term windfall, because it would skew underlying highway formulas, changing the baseline for those four States that got the lion's share of the money. After a good deal of discussion and consideration, I had a conversation with my very good friend from the time he served in the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out that there was $932 million in discretionary highway funds that we had formulated one way in the bill we passed in December. The Senate has now taken that language and skewed it in a different direction, and that is the wrong thing to do and will change from our provision in the December bill that distributed that $932 million in discretionary funding to the Secretary to fold it into the regular highway formula for all of the States on a proportional basis, rather than just the 29 States that had programs and projects of national and regional significance and national corridor infrastructure improvement programs. That included my State of Minnesota, which would have benefited from the windfall of the Senate formula. I could have just said nothing, sat on my hands, let it go. It is a very arcane, very complex formula. Few people would have understood it. But it was the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong way to hijack the House bill and hijack these funds and just simply allocate them to few States. Furthermore, the language, the provision in the other body's legislation designated seven programs as second-tier programs and further rated those funds--the Appalachia Development Highway System, the Rail Highway Grade Crossing, the Equity Bonus Program, Recreational Trail, Safe Routes to School, Coordinated Border Infrastructure, and the Metropolitan Planning programs--relegated them to a second-tier status, and denies them the opportunity to receive additional funding during the extension period and weakens their standing during the long-term authorization. That is wrong. I explained it to Senator Reid. He fully understood it. I proposed an exchange of letters, which he did, and he said, ``We will agree to the adjustment,'' as proposed in the formula that I set forth and which I will include in the Record at this point, including the exchange of letters with Senator Reid in our committee summary explanation of this provision.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4786) to provide authority to compensate Federal employees for the 2-day period in which authority to make expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund lapsed, and for other purposes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 4786, and to include extraneous material.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we are here on both sides of the aisle this morning on a mission of equity, fairness, even mercy, on behalf of 1,922 career Federal employees of the U.S. Department of Transportation. They were unintended victims of a standoff in the other body, which resulted in a 2-day lapse in the authorization of funding for Federal highway, highway and motor carrier safety, and public transit programs. On February 25, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 4691, the Temporary Extension Act of 2010. The bill extended the authorization for Federal surface transportation programs which otherwise were scheduled to expire on February 28. The Senate's efforts to pass the bill and to clear it for signature by the President were stalled by the actions of one Senator from the other party. His repeated objections held up consideration past the February 28 deadline. As a result of those objections, the authority to reimburse States, metropolitan regions, and public transit agencies for federally approved Highway Trust Fund expenditures lapsed. Several States, like Missouri, immediately cancelled bid openings. DOT's authority to pay administrative expenses for Federal employees from the Highway Trust Fund also lapsed. These authorities were restored only when the Senator relented on the evening of March 2, allowing the Senate to consider the bill. The Senate passed it, and the President signed it that evening, but these 1,922 employees were collateral damage. They were doing their jobs, career professionals, and they just happened to be hit by this roadside bomb. It affected them in a very specific way. Let me toll the numbers: 1,307 employees of the Federal Highway Administration, 434 employees of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 143 employees of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and 38 employees of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Well, in a few days, on March 16 to be exact, the DOT will process its payroll for the current March pay period. If Congress does not act to reinstate those career employees, those 1,922 public servants, through no fault of their own and having simply been doing their jobs as they have done for decades in many cases, will suffer a 20 percent pay cut in their biweekly paychecks. Now, this is not an abstraction. This is not a debating point. This is not something that, oh, we'll put this off, and we'll think about it later. At the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a long-term career secretary of NHTSA in Seattle, Washington normally would net $1,540 per paycheck, but because of the furlough, would be paid $1,150, a $390 cut. A $390 cut could affect your paying your mortgage, buying your weekly groceries, buying fuel for your car. Maybe it could even affect your sending a birthday card to a child or to a grandchild. It has a real effect, and I think the Senator on the other side just had no idea, no interest, and no care about what the effects would be of his actions. An entry-level program analyst, a GS-7 in Chicago, Illinois at NHTSA, normally would net $1,200 per paycheck in 2 weeks. Because of the furlough, he would be paid only $900. That's a $300 cut. If you're taking $900 home over 2 weeks, $300 out of that paycheck is serious money, a serious effect on your life, and it's a serious devaluation of appreciation for your service to the public. These are career personnel. At any time, that's painful, but at this time, with this severe meltdown, economic recession, it's devastating. Miss a car payment; miss a tuition payment; miss part of your mortgage payment; miss your fuel bill; miss your electric bill. All of these things are the real-world consequences of one person's peak over some piece of this bill that had nothing to do with these personnel, with these careerists. To the great credit of Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a former colleague of ours in this body, he called and said, I am really concerned about these career personnel. We have to make them whole. They didn't do anything wrong. The department didn't do anything wrong. They were just standby victims of this action, and we will be able to restore their pay without any increase in budget. We will just shift dollars from one account to another. The bill that we bring before you today does not require any new Federal funding. The Secretary, as I just described, will draw on administrative funding previously authorized and appropriated to finance the lost compensation for those personnel. It is the right thing to do. We need to do this. We have got to pass it by a unanimous voice vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Connolly). I wish to express my great appreciation and admiration of his concern for these Federal employees. Many Federal employees reside in his district. Even some of these 1,900 likely reside in the gentleman's district. I appreciate his coming forward to champion this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to express my great appreciation to Mr. Mica, the senior Republican on our committee and my partner and good friend and co-participant, in all of the works of our committee. I share with him this tragic fact of the loss of pay for these 1,922 employees. He immediately said, We have to fix that. We have got to make it right by them, and he volunteered to cosponsor the legislation, which he has done. I am delighted he designated the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, who a great advocate for our committee, a great participant in all of our work and who is also a very good, fair and decent-minded Member. Today, we will do something really good and decent. We can all go home and feel we have accomplished something useful in a very specific and direct fashion for 1,922 career professionals in transportation of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Again, I express admiration for Secretary LaHood for taking the initiative to bring this issue forward and to find a funding solution for it as well. We have got to be able to pass this on a voice vote and to do good by these 1,922, and we need to set a good example for the other body as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3650, the ``Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010''. This legislation, which is an amendment to the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, provides additional focus on Federal efforts to understand, detect, predict, control, mitigate, and respond to both marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. I applaud the work of the principal sponsors of this legislation, my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and their bipartisan efforts to improve the overall understanding and control of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic conditions. Over the past two Congresses, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held numerous hearings on the impact of excessive nutrients on water quality--most notably in connection with nonpoint sources of pollution, coastal water quality protection, under the BEACH Act, and in the Great Lakes. These hearings highlighted the strong scientific evidence that excessive discharges of nitrogen and phosphorous can result in the growth of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic, low-oxygen, conditions in receiving waters. According to testimony from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the most significant sources of nutrients come from agricultural runoff, as well as commercial or residential fertilizers, animal waste, sewage treatment plants, and air deposition from utilities and vehicles. As is evident from the ongoing ``dead- zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico and the emergence of a similar ``dead- zone'' in Lake Erie, additional efforts are warranted to reduce the adverse impacts of excessive nutrients on national water quality. EPA has statutory authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act, as well as other Federal authorities, to implement programs designed to provide protections for oceans, coastal waters, and freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams. Through the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permitting program under section 402, the establishment of water quality standards by individual States, and other Clean Water Act authorities, both EPA and the States have statutory tools available to target ongoing sources of nitrogen and phosphorous and to minimize the potential for harmful algal bloom outbreaks or the creation of hypoxic conditions in the Nation's waters. Unfortunately, there has been mixed success in equally addressing both point sources, e.g., publicly owned treatment works and urban stormwater, and nonpoint sources, e.g., runoff from urban lawns, construction sites, and agricultural areas. I believe that more needs to be done to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act ``to restore and protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' We should not be complacent with the fact that one-third of the Nation's assessed waters still do not meet ``fishable and swimmable'' standards--as called for almost 40 years ago in the 1972 Clean Water Act. I believe that the authorities contained in H.R. 3650 can complement ongoing efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address these remaining water quality challenges. However, this legislation should not be interpreted as allowing other Federal agencies to overtake or otherwise supplant ongoing efforts by EPA, including efforts pursuant to the Clean Water Act. I thank the Chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for their commitment to continue to work with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to enhance the implementation of the Federal harmful algal bloom program. As this legislation goes to conference with the Other Body, I will continue to work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that this legislation complements, not supplants, ongoing efforts by EPA to control harmful algal blooms and hypoxic conditions in the Nation's waters. Increased Federal attention and accountability to harmful algal bloom and hypoxic condition control efforts is important. This legislation provides an opportunity for increased coordination between various Federal agencies, States, and other stakeholders, while building on the strong foundation of Federal efforts to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxic conditions to date. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I was so troubled by the remarks of the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have great respect. I think he was making more of a political argument than a substantive discussion of the matter at hand. In December, the House passed the Jobs for Main Street bill. It included the piece that is before us today. That measure went over to the Senate. It was held up in its entirety, and in the specific that we are dealing with today, by a hold, a series of holds, and then a filibuster by the Senator from Kentucky. Eventually, the Senate overcame that filibuster. This measure, this $15 billion, has been before the Congress for 2\1/2\ months. It is no surprise to anyone. The measure before us does what Republican leadership did with our support on this side on SAFETEA-LU in 2004 and 2005; 12 extensions of current law, 12 extensions, in order to muster the support we needed, in order to buy the time necessary to pass the 5-year surface transportation bill. This measure before us provides $77 billion for a 15-month extension of current law. It restores the $8.7 billion rescission that was required in SAFETEA-LU, at the insistence of the Bush administration, which required, for the President's signature, a rescission at the end of the 5-year period, and that occurred September of 2009. That meant that programs were underfunded, that is, underfunded below the authorization level of SAFETEA-LU, for the past several months. The bill restores that funding level. I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment. So what we are doing here is restoring stability to the highway, bridge, SAFETEA, and transit program, providing certainty for States so they can advertise for bids, award bids, and keep contracts going. The filibuster of the Senator from Kentucky resulted in numerous bid lettings being cancelled and others being withheld, jobs lost, a great disruption to the program because there were not Federal Highway Administration personnel on the job to be able to make the overnight electronic transfers to the States for their vouchers. This bill restores stability to the program.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I would just point out to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, there isn't a single new provision in this bill that hasn't been available since last December.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his time and will use this brief moment to be very specific. Under the programs in the stimulus, under the jurisdiction of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we can account for 1,091,005 jobs in the past year, 1 year from date of enactment. We have this documented in 14 consecutive monthly hearings on progress made by State DOTs, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and State Revolving Loan Fund organizations, as well as the other portions of our stimulus for which we have documented the funding investments that have created jobs. These are real jobs, building trades, associated general contractors who are putting people to work, putting their equipment to work on job sites where they were shut down the previous year. With those jobs, those workers are paying $353 million in Federal taxes, avoiding $279 million in unemployment compensation checks because they're getting a payroll check instead of an unemployment compensation check. We have 25,000 direct, on-project, full-time equivalent jobs in the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund program, and paved 24,000 lane miles of highway and restored or replaced 1,200 bridges. That highway mileage is equivalent to half of the interstate highway systems that took 50 years to build. This was done in a year. This extension of funding for the surface transportation program will provide $77 billion to continue SAFETEA-LU for the next 15 months for the 15-month period. That is this fiscal year and 3 months beyond. It is a $21 billion increase over the funding levels of the continuing resolution. It restores the $8.7 billion rescission that occurred September 30 that everyone was wringing their hands about, but required by the Bush administration and consented to by House and Senate Republicans in the last meeting of the House-Senate conference on SAFETEA-LU. That money is restored. We said that we'd do it. It's done. The bill also restores $19.5 billion of interest foregone since 1998 when we had to agree to a concession insisted upon by then-Speaker Gingrich and then the Clinton administration Treasury Department to forego interest on the trust fund. That interest is restored, repatriated to the trust fund and in the future will collect interest like all other trust funds.

Mr. OBERSTAR. But there are two issues in this bill that I was very concerned about. The Senate passed a bill that had a funding formula that was very, very discriminatory. Four States benefited with 58 percent of the funding and 22 States got nothing. Senator Reid has consented in a letter he sent to me and to Speaker Pelosi to restore the House funding formula that we proposed in a subsequent bill that will pass the Senate this month to distribute those additional highway formula funds as we proposed in a formula distribution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The letter to Senator Reid from Senator Boxer, the chair of the Senate Public Works Committee, and Senator Murray on the Appropriations Committee, that letter will be available at this desk to show that we will restore the funding formula the way it is intended in SAFETEA-LU.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just briefly, if the gentleman, Madam Speaker, could assure us that there would be no Senate filibuster or hold on the bill, Senator Reid would have been happy to accept our changes. But he estimated he couldn't get that through the Senate, so he agreed to a fix in a subsequent bill. He put it in writing, and we have to accept his written commitment to do that. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3820, the ``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010''. This bill reauthorizes natural hazard risk reduction programs, in particular the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and I have been strong advocates for the reduction of the risks our Nation faces from natural hazards. I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), for bringing this bill before the House today and for the cooperative spirit in which they have worked with our committee on this legislation. The ``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010'', and the programs it authorizes, will assist communities and citizens across the country in reducing their risk from several natural hazards, that, unfortunately, occur all too often in our Nation. Specifically, this legislation addresses the risks from three hazards: earthquakes, windstorms, and fires. We have all recently seen the destruction that earthquakes can cause. On January 12, 2010, a catastrophic earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale struck the island nation of Haiti. This earthquake was the largest earthquake to hit Haiti in over 200 years. An estimated 230,000 people lost their lives in this disaster, which affected over three million people. I have a deep, personal connection to the people of Haiti: before I went to work for people of Minnesota, I lived in Haiti for almost 3 years. Since that time, I have followed events in that nation and have maintained many good friendships with Haitian citizens. In fact, I was in Haiti shortly before the earthquake hit, in October 2009. When I accompanied Speaker Pelosi on a bipartisan, bicameral trip to Haiti last month, I was struck by visions of places I saw just three months prior that were unrecognizable as they lie in complete and utter ruin. These haunting images clearly demonstrate the power of an earthquake, and the importance of ensuring we do everything we can to protect our citizens from such devastation. This past weekend, another devastating earthquake struck Chile. This earthquake is believed to be hundreds of times more powerful than the earthquake that struck Haiti, yet early reports seem to indicate that the loss of life and destruction--while no less tragic--was less severe than in Haiti. There are likely a number of reasons for the reduced damage, including where the earthquake struck. However, it must also be recognized that Chile is a nation that is at great risk of seismic activity and has taken significant steps to reduce the risk that earthquakes pose to that nation and its citizens. H.R. 3820 also addresses risks due to windstorms and wildfires. In my district in Minnesota, we have been unfortunate to bear witness to the devastating effects of both of these hazards, and how they can be related. On July 4, 1999, a straight line windstorm, also known as a derecho, struck the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area and downed millions of trees. Not only did this devastate the wilderness area and its surroundings, it also created a huge fire hazard from the fallen timber. The citizens of Minnesota made every effort to reduce the risk of the fire. Residents in the affected areas utilized Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, mitigation funds to install outdoor sprinkler systems to protect against wildfire. Unfortunately, although not unpredictably, in 2007, the Ham Lake Fire struck the area. The structures that had installed and maintained sprinkler systems were protected from the fire. This is another good example of how important it is to reduce the risk of natural hazards. H.R. 3820 contains several amendments at the request of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that will help ensure the earthquake, windstorm, and wildfire risk reduction programs authorized in this bill are consistent with FEMA's all-hazards approach. While the Federal Government currently administers risk reduction programs for earthquakes, floods, and windstorms as free-standing programs, it is important that such programs do not operate completely independently or in a ``stove piped'' manner. In the past, I have strongly opposed efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to channel Federal resources and focus away from all-hazards preparedness and response programs into terrorism programs, because this approach would segment by particular risk. Specifically, H.R. 3820, as amended, will require that the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program to be operated in coordination with the all-hazards mitigation and preparedness programs administered by FEMA and authorized by the Stafford Act. In this manner, States, communities, and citizens can utilize these programs in a coordinated manner. FEMA is already taking steps to coordinate among the agency's mitigation programs, by making the administrative requirements of its all-hazards and flood programs as consistent as possible. We anticipate FEMA will apply this sound approach to the programs authorized under this bill as well. In addition, this legislation calls for the mapping of windstorm and earthquake risks. H.R. 3820, as amended, will require that, to the extent possible, these maps be developed consistent with the multi- hazard advisory maps authorized by the Stafford Act. It is not efficient or effective for communities to use separate maps identifying risk from each particular natural hazard the community may face. As hazard maps are now digitized, data for each type of risk can be easily superimposed on the same map, which will allow communities to use one common map in planning and identifying risks. Finally, H.R. 3820 contains amendments to the National Construction Safety Teams Act and expands authority of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to deploy teams to investigate infrastructure failure. NIST's current authority is limited to building collapse investigations. I am pleased that this bill, as amended, clarifies that the authority to deploy teams for infrastructure failure is limited to NIST's existing authority and expertise to investigate the structural causes of collapse, as well as building codes, and does not give NIST authority beyond that arena, such as a related transportation accident and incident investigation if there is also an infrastructure failure component. The amendment also ensures that if another Federal agency with jurisdiction over the infrastructure investigates the failure, such agency investigation will have priority over the NIST investigation. I look forward to continued work with the Committee on Science and Technology on this provision as we move ahead with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3820, the ``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a unique international exchange program, one in which the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has participated since its inception 11 years ago. The Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme (UCWIP) matches a dozen of Australia's best university students to Congressional offices for 2-month, full-time internships each January and February. The program is nonpartisan, bicameral, and focuses on connecting people for lasting education and mutual understanding. It is a true exchange that regards its participants as young professionals looking to enter the working world with a head start of sophistication, personal growth, and international sensibilities. The Australian interns bring a hunger for knowledge and a passion to understand our national legislature from the inside out. They provide valuable perspectives on the public policy issues and challenges that they face in their own country. They leave with an unfettered knowledge of Congress and the individuals who serve the American public. I've been a proud host of an astounding quintet of Australia's finest student interns: Narelle Hards from Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, in 2000; Louise Squire from the University of Western Australia in Perth in 2004; Lauren Reed from Deakin University, in the Melbourne metropolitan area of Victoria, in 2005; Michael Ng from the University of Melbourne, in 2007; and this year, Clara Jordan-Baird, of the University of Melbourne. Each has brought with them knowledge of and passion for transportation. I recall vividly, for example, how Lauren Reed briefed Committee staff about her home state of Victoria and its compelling anti-drunk driving campaign. Narelle, Louise, Lauren, Michael, and Clara have each contributed broadly and directly to United States- Australia relations thanks to their insights, observation, and helping hands as our Committee workload demanded. I know that many offices on both sides of the aisle have enjoyed similar experiences with these young Australians. And I know that the Australians have taken home with them a deep sense of reality about the United States so often impeded by what Australians refer to as the ``Tyranny of Distance,'' the physical geographic distance between our two great nations. Despite all of today's technological wonders--from air travel to Facebook--there is still no substitute for a handshake and warm welcome. For this program we have to thank a longtime former congressional staffer, Eric K. Federing. Eric served as the Committee's communications director in the mid-1990s. During his personal travels to Australia, Eric discovered what he perceived to be a small, but important, gap in Australia-American relationships and he designed this program to help fill it. Madam Speaker, we should encourage these types of international exchanges. The more that we can arrange for the finest students and young professionals from around the world to spend some meaningful time among us, the better that we will understand them and they will understand us. Both the U.S. and Australian governments have been supportive of UCWIP. Many other statements have appeared in the Congressional Record over the years and there have been two speeches in the Australian Parliament in recognition of the program. I have been a very proud participant and look forward to being one for many years to come.