[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10856-H10867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 835, ESTUARIES 
                      AND CLEAN WATERS ACT OF 2000

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 648

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 835) to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat 
     through more efficient project financing and enhanced 
     coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration programs, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules; 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1700

  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 648 provides for consideration of the conference 
report to accompany S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000. 
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference 
report shall be considered as read. This is a standard rule for this 
type of conference report. And I believe it is totally without 
controversy. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Before we get a chance to vote, Mr. Speaker, S. 835 is an excellent 
piece of environmental legislation and yet another addition to the fine 
environmental legacy of the 106th Congress. S. 835 encourages 
partnerships between Federal, State, and local interests for estuary 
habitat restoration. Of even greater importance is that the bill 
supports the development and implementation of comprehensive management 
plans for the National Estuary Program. This is of particular 
importance to me because of the Charlotte Harbor NEP, which is located 
in my district in southwest Florida. I worked hard with our local 
community to secure the NEP designation for Charlotte Harbor, and I am 
pleased this legislation will ensure a comprehensive management plan 
goes forward from the process.
  Another key issue for my home State of Florida is title VI of the 
bill, which authorizes a pilot program to allow States to explore 
alternate water supply solutions to meet critical needs. We have always 
had water wars in Florida, but given the increase in population and the 
attendant demand for water, we will surely reach a crisis point unless 
we take immediate action now. The alternate water source provisions in 
this bill will help in that effort, and I want to thank my colleague 
and good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), for her 
hard work in particular on this issue.
  S. 835 also includes other critical restoration efforts for areas 
such as Lake Pontchartrain and the Tijuana River Valley. I am extremely 
disappointed to note the Senate refused to accept a provision passed by 
the House that would have established an EPA grant program to improve 
water quality in the Florida Keys. I am not aware of any substantive 
problem on this issue, and I remain hopeful we can adopt this program 
perhaps through another legislative vehicle.
  Even so, this bill is a remarkable piece of legislation, and I 
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and his Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work in the area 
and the successful result. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, 
it is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support both.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my dear friend from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me the customary time; and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the bipartisan 
conference report. America's estuaries are in trouble. According to the 
national water quality inventory, 44 percent of our estuaries are not 
meeting their designated uses, whether they are fishing, swimming, or 
supporting aquatic life. This bill attempts to do something about that 
by authorizing $275 million over the next 5 years to help the Corps of 
Engineers restore estuary habitats.
  These funds will be available, Mr. Speaker, for projects to improve 
degraded estuaries and estuary habitats and get them to the point that 
they are self-sufficient ecosystems.
  Mr. Speaker, estuaries are areas where the current of a river meets 
the tide of the sea; and because such a wide variety of life thrives 
there, they are the beginning of the food chain. Estuaries provide the 
nursing grounds for fisheries, support numerous endangered and 
threatened species, and host almost half of the migratory birds in the 
United States.
  But, Mr. Speaker, estuaries are very fragile and are suffering from 
increasing human and environmental pressures. In response to those 
pressures, this bill includes a number of individual bills that passed 
the House overwhelmingly. The conference report passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent and is supported by State and local governments and 
the business community and the entire environmental community. I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, the honorable 
dean of the Massachusetts delegation; and I wish to thank my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for their support of this rule that makes in 
order this very important piece of legislation, the Estuary Habitat 
Restoration Improvement Act.
  For those of my colleagues who are familiar with my State of Rhode 
Island, we are practically one big estuary. The Narragansett Bay runs 
right through my State. It is a very important part of our whole 
economy; and so, therefore, this bill represents an important step 
forward for our State and also for our Nation in preserving these 
fragile estuaries.
  My State, as my colleagues know, has had a long history of trying to 
work to preserve its Narragansett Bay. It goes to the importance of 
fishing in our State, sailing, swimming, and our number one industry, 
the tourism economy. Of course this has a major impact on our tourism 
economy. So for all of these reasons, this Habitat and Estuary 
Restoration Act is very important for our State's economy.
  It is not only the case in Rhode Island but it is also the case 
nationally that our waters have not always been treated with the 
respect and care that they deserve. Estuaries are very valuable 
ecosystems in our overall environment. They nourish a wide variety of 
animal and plant life, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) pointed out. They also serve to help filtrate pollution that 
comes in in the

[[Page H10857]]

form of so much runoff from farms, to oil spills, to wastewater 
overflow. Estuaries help in that very important part of preserving this 
environment by acting as a buffer.
  Recently, I read an article in our own newspaper, the Providence 
Journal, where Curt Spalding, our executive director of Save the Bay in 
Rhode Island, said that we in Rhode Island have lost over half of our 
salt marshes in our State. Over 1,000 acres of eelgrass, for example, 
in our State, that we once possessed, only about 1/100th of that still 
remains, depriving countless marine life from its ability to find a 
source of primary food. And he writes that the damming of these rivers 
and streams has had a totally detrimental impact on countless fish 
habitat as well as other marine life.
  So without immediate action on legislation such as this, we might 
pass the point of no return, and that is why acting on this legislation 
right away is so very important. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
pass this Estuary Habitat Restoration Act, making the provision of $275 
million funding for local projects that will incent the saving of our 
estuaries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very valuable 
and important piece of legislation to all of our coastal ways, and 
especially to our coastal ways in the Northeast, like my State of Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, 
especially because it contains some very strong protection and 
preservation measures for the Long Island Sound.
  I also wish good luck to the New York Mets, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 835, the Estuary 
Habitat Restoration and Improvement Act Conference Report. This measure 
authorizes $1.6 billion over five years for various estuary 
conservation and restoration activities, including the Long Island 
Sound.
  Preservation of the Long Island Sound is not a parochial issue, but a 
national one. By its inclusion as a charter member in the National 
Estuaries Program, the Sound has been designated as one of only 28 
estuaries of national significance. Congress recognized the national 
importance of the Sound by creating the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), 
which involved Federal, state, and local entities as well as private 
groups. The result of this study was the Comprehensive Conservation and 
Management Plan (CCMP). This report has detailed the many challenges 
which Long Island Sound faces including floating garbage, biological 
contamination, and industrial waste--in short, all the things which 
plague our modern society.
  The time to act is now. The $200 million over 5 years which is 
authorized under this agreement, will be used to provide grants to 
implement remedial efforts to clean up the Long Island Sound as part of 
the CCMP.
  I am proud to represent an area that borders the Long Island Sound. 
The Sound is one of our nation's natural treasures with important 
environmental, recreational, and commercial benefits. Its value as an 
essential habitat for one of the most diverse ecosystems of the 
Northeast cannot be understated. Residents and vacationers alike enjoy 
the Sound for swimming and boating. And the approximately $5 billion in 
revenue generated by commerce relating to the Sound is vital to the 
region and to individuals who base their livelihood on the benefits of 
the Sound.
  Unfortunately, the effects of millions of people on the shore and in 
the Sound are evidenced in the deteriorated water quality. Over the 
last several years, Long Island Sound has suffered from numerous forms 
of pollution. This pollution is now threatening the Sound's 
multibillion dollar a year fishing industry. The most recent and 
devastating example is the unexplained and widespread lobster die-off. 
We must supply adequate resources to address this lobster die-off and 
to examine possible problems in the water that could have caused this 
crisis. I am confident that this legislation will have a significant 
impact on the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of the Sound.
  For the past seven years I have sponsored legislation to provide 
funding for clean up and pollution control programs for the Long Island 
Sound. I am very pleased that today we see legislation that will 
protect our beautiful Long Island Sound, along with other important 
bodies of water in our nation. I would like to thank Mr. Shuster and 
Mr. Oberstar for their leadership on this legislation and their 
commitment to preserving our national estuaries. I would also like to 
acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my colleagues who represent 
areas along Long Island Sound. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join 
with me today in supporting this conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New York also 
endorsed the rule, at least I hope he did. I did not hear any 
controversy on the rule.
  I think this is yet another accomplishment of the do-something 106th 
Congress. I see nothing except a good debate ahead and a strong 
approval.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague on the rule as well as 
the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
friend, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 648, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 835) to encourage the 
restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing 
and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration 
programs, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 24, 2000, at page H10537.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, this conference report, includes 
several bills which have already passed the House. It includes the 
Estuaries Restoration Act authored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest); it includes the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, which was 
guided through the House by our late colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman); it includes the bill of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) to reauthorize the National Estuary Program; the 
bill of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the Long Island Sound Restoration 
Act; it includes the bill of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the Lake 
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act; the Alternate Water Sources Act 
authored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler); the bill of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) to reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program; and the 
Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act of 2000, 
authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  This legislation meets environmental restoration needs by encouraging 
cooperative efforts at the local, state and Federal levels and 
fostering public-private partnerships to identify and address water 
quality problems. I would like to assure my colleagues that this 
legislation does not create any new regulatory authorities and requires 
full public participation. In particular, the estuary habitat 
restoration strategy to be developed under section 106 of the act must 
be developed following public notice and a meaningful opportunity for 
comment. I expect the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council established 
under section 105 to provide a period of at least 90 days to allow the 
public to comment on the proposed strategy, or any subsequent 
revisions. This legislation is supported by state and local government, 
the business community and the environmental community. Every Member of 
Congress should be proud to support it.
  I would like to thank the sponsors of the bills included in this 
conference report, the

[[Page H10858]]

House conferees, and all the members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. I would particularly like to thank Ranking 
Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert and Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Borski, for their hard work on bringing this legislation 
to the floor. Let me also congratulate and thank the Senate conferees, 
in particular Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Baucus of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, for their cooperation.
  This conference report is also the result of a lot of hard work by 
House and Senate staff. Special thanks go to Susan Bodine, Carrie 
Jelsma, Donna Campbell, Ben Grumbles, Ken Kopocis, Ryan Seiger, Pam 
Keller, John Rayfield, and David Jansen of the House staff and Ann 
Klee, John Pemberton, Suzanne Matwyshen, Ann Loomis, Jo-Ellen Darcy and 
Peter Washburn of the Senate staff. I urge all Members to support this 
comprehensive package of critically needed environmental bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my thanks to the 
chairman for this great work. This is, in fact, a major step forward 
for environmental protection and estuary enhancement. So I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the other 
conferees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for 
their great work on this bill.
  The section of the bill that, of course, I authored, H.R. 1237, 
allows the authorized funding of $35 million annually through 2005. 
These Federal funds can be used for implementation, in addition to the 
development of comprehensive management plans in estuarine areas.
  Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing 
coastal environments with the establishment of the National Estuary 
Program, NEP, in 1987. The NEP's purpose is to facilitate State and 
local governments' preparation of comprehensive management plans for 
threatened and impaired estuaries.
  In support of this effort, the EPA is authorized to make grants to 
States to develop CCMPs for 30 designated estuaries across the country. 
My own State of New Jersey has three approved sites in the NEP, one of 
which is Barnegat Bay, which lies mostly in my district. The bay is a 
watershed which drains land for approximately 550 square miles. Over 
450,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay watershed and the population 
doubles there in the summer.
  Nonpoint source pollution, while diffuse, is cumulatively the most 
important issue in addressing adverse impacts on water quality and the 
health of living resources in the bay. The final CCMP for Barnegat Bay 
is complete, but without the additional funding of this program, as 
well as explicitly permitting NEP to use Federal funds for the 
implementation of the program, the Federal Government would have 
absolved itself of the responsibility as a partner with the States in 
protecting and enhancing the Nation's most endangered habitats.
  Therefore, I would like to thank my colleagues, in particular the 
chairman, for expeditiously moving this bill.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for doing 
such a fine job in bringing us this conference report. I would like to 
speak on one part of this conference report, a part that is a win-win-
win solution for the people in San Diego, California, and all those 
areas which border the country of Mexico.
  We have been dealing with the problem of Mexican sewage flowing into 
our area for many decades.

                              {time}  1715

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I introduced the 
legislation that has the provisions in this conference report. What we 
intended to do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a comprehensive solution to 
the problem of Mexican sewage flowing into the United States in our 
waters.
  We have a unique problem, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
and I. I want to thank him for working so closely with me and for our 
staffs that worked so closely together. I do not think any other two 
Members of Congress can say that we have raw sewage flowing through our 
districts from another country onto our beaches and onto our riverbeds. 
And we, I know, jointly thank the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and their staffs, especially 
Ken Kopocis, Ryan Sieger, and David Heinsfeld because they worked very 
hard through some problems that we had between us and with the Senate. 
But once everyone realized the magnitude of the problem and, if I may 
say so, the historic opportunity to provide a comprehensive solution to 
it, these fine staff members and our leadership fought diligently to 
craft legislation on which all parties could agree. And the people of 
southern San Diego owe a great deal to the chairman and the ranking 
member, and I want to thank them so much on their behalf for their 
support.
  We will advance, through this legislation, a common sense solution to 
the problem of international sewage, the treatment of Mexican sewage in 
Mexico. Before the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I 
introduced our legislation, plans called for treating less than half of 
the sewage that fouls our beaches and estuaries.
  It has taken bureaucracies 10 years to prepare a secondary treatment 
farm of the International Wastewater Treatment Plant. In that time, the 
sewage flows have more than doubled. Yet, the plans have persisted for 
a so-called solution that will really not solve the problem but will 
only take us back 10 years ago. This legislation seizes the momentum 
for solving the problem and fixes the problem now and comprehensively.
  My colleague from San Diego and I have been working, are working on 
this problem combined for probably 35 to 40 years. When we started 
this, 25 million gallons a day of sewage from Mexico needed to be 
treated to protect our water and land. Now it has reached 55 to 75 
million gallons of sewage. Our residents and particularly our children 
need to be protected from this public health nightmare.
  Private investors have come forward with an innovative public-private 
partnership to treat all of the sewage and treat it in Mexico. Mexico 
has generated the sewage and under a treaty has the right to the 
treated water. So it makes the most sense not only to treat the sewage 
that we have now but to treat it where it is generated and can be 
reused by that country's agricultural and industrial interest.
  This is a win for the U.S. environment. It is a win for our 
children's health. It is a win for international relations and a win 
for recycling a precious resource.
  So I urge support for this comprehensive solution. It is an 
innovative way to approach the issue. It is a long-standing health and 
environmental problem. And it most certainly has its own very needed 
place in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of 
our subcommittee.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a supporter of the 
conference report on S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000.
  As my colleagues before me have stated very eloquently, the chairman 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and others who will be 
addressing some specifics of this bill, it is good legislation; and it 
deserves to be passed.
  I am particularly pleased with the final package because it includes 
a reauthorization and an expansion of the Long Island Sound Program. I 
want to give particular praise to my colleagues, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). 
They and their colleagues have worked tenaciously on this legislation.
  Let me tell my colleagues, in my capacity as chairman of the 
subcommittee, I was summoned to the office of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lazio) several months ago; and thus began a partnership with 
the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). We 
worked literally hundreds of hours to put together this package.
  I want to praise Governor Rowland of Connecticut and Governor Pataki 
of my home State of New York. They

[[Page H10859]]

have been real leaders. This just does not happen overnight. This 
required a lot of hard work on the part of a lot of people with vision. 
Let me say that the vision of the Lazio-Johnson team has been something 
very special.
  There is a lot more in this bill that is very good, and I will let my 
colleagues address that. But let me say that this is probably the last 
major bill of the Shuster chairmanship of the Committee on 
Transportation. And let me say, as someone who has been in this 
institution for many years as a staff member and as a Member of 
Congress in my own right, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) has proven by performance that he has been the most 
effective chairman this Congress has seen in many, many years.
  He has assembled a very able, very capable, very professional team; 
and he has provided leadership for that team. And he has worked on a 
bipartisan basis. Every member of this committee, which is the largest 
committee in the history of the Congress, feels that they are part of 
the historic legislation, TEA-21, AIR-21; and we have laid the 
foundation for Water-21.
  This does not just happen by accident. We have to have a leader. And 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has provided that 
leadership. We have to have a very capable staff, and he has exercised 
the sound judgment to assemble a team second to none.
  So as we look back on these 6 years, and incidentally, I think the 
idea of term limiting chairmen is crazy. I think the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) had it right when he said it is a dumbing down of 
Congress. If we have good people in positions of major responsibility, 
we ought to keep them there. I might add, I am going to be a big 
beneficiary of term limits. But that is another story for another day.
  But let me say in conclusion, this is a good bill. It came from a 
very productive committee that has had very able leadership. And I, for 
one, want to salute our very distinguished chairman as he brings this 
conference report to the floor for our consideration.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and many other Members in this body. He has spent hours and 
hours learning about the issues in other parts of the country and my 
part of the world. In San Diego, California, I know how much time he 
has spent. He has asked his staff to make sure they understand the 
problem. He had legitimate questions and concerns, but he ended up 
fighting with us and for us to achieve this goal. And I thank him from 
the bottom of my heart.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman.
  But, Mr. Speaker, no one has been more persistent or vigorous in 
pursuit of a goal than has the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). 
He has doggedly pursued with the determination and with copious 
documentation the goal that we achieve today on this floor, and I 
compliment the gentleman on his extremely able representation of the 
people of his district. And I appreciate the partnership that has 
resulted also with the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) in 
equally pursuing. Practically the first issue that he discussed with me 
after his swearing into the Congress a few years ago was this very 
issue, and I have not forgotten.
  I concur in the remarks of the able chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources. Our distinguished full committee chairman, on many 
occasions I have referred to his extraordinary leadership and record of 
accomplishment. But I am just a little puzzled. This should not be the 
last bill that the chairman brings to the House floor. We are hopeful 
that there will be another that will be a fitting cap to the chairman's 
distinguished career in the House and we finally act on the Water 
Resources Development Act.
  I also want to pay deserved tribute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) who has devoted an enormous amount of time to 
this legislation, of course to the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert) for his pursuit of environmental protection on our committee. 
I appreciate the partnership that we have had and the leadership that 
he has given, Mr. Speaker.
  The primary focus of this legislation is restoration of estuaries. In 
the Nation's ocean coastal regions, the estuary is the great meeting 
place of salt and fresh water, the great meeting place where new forms 
of life are created.
  All through the world, there are about a handful of truly 
extraordinary great resources, estuaries. The Chesapeake Bay is one of 
those. There are others that we address today in this legislation. And 
the reason that we focus our attention on this legislation is that 
whatever drains into the estuary from the land, wherever the ocean 
meets that fresh water, either we are doing good for the generation of 
new species or the maintenance of existing species or we are doing 
irreparable harm.
  The legislation that we act on today moves us in the direction of 
doing right by the fish and the wildlife in these vital transition 
areas between fresh and salt water.
  In the most recent national water quality inventory, States reported 
that 44 percent of the Nation's assessed estuaries do not meet their 
designated use, fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life.
  In the Great Lakes, it is even more troubling; a matter that I spent 
a great deal of time on over my service in the Congress as a Member and 
previously as a member of the staff. The data on the Great Lakes are 
troubling. Ninety-six percent of the assessed shoreline miles of the 
Great Lakes do not meet one or more designated uses.
  As expressed in one of the most important indicators of quality of 
water, fish consumption advisors, if we live anywhere in America, we 
have five parts per billion PCBs in our body. If we live within 25 
miles of one of the Great Lakes and eat fish once a week, we have up to 
440 parts per billion PCBs in our body.
  We need to clean those estuaries. We need to remove the sediment on 
the bottom. We need to take those permanent toxins out of the bottom 
where they have been deposited over decades and remove them so that we 
can restore the health of the fishery and the health of the people who 
depend upon that beneficiary.
  This bill does not address that issue, nor do I raise an issue about 
that. I just make the point that there is much more work for us to be 
done.
  The $275 million over the next 5 years authorized under this bill 
will enable the Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers to 
restore estuarine habitat. The cost will be shared with local sponsors 
to improve degraded estuaries and estuarine habitat, the goal of 
building a self-sustaining system integrated into the landscape 
surrounding the estuaries.
  One important aspect of this program is the participation of 
nonprofit entities as local sponsors. The conference report allows 
nongovernmental organizations to act as local sponsors of estuary 
restoration projects after consultation and coordination with the 
appropriate State and local officials. Unlike the House-passed version 
of the bill, the conference report does not require the approval of the 
governor of a State before a nongovernmental organization can act as 
the non-Federal cosponsor.
  I want to express to the chairman my great appreciation for his 
cooperation in working this matter out. It was very important to me and 
to the regions that I represent of Minnesota and those throughout the 
Great Lakes to have come to this accommodation, and I appreciate the 
chairman's assistance.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, I would like to also add 
my comments and praise and respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.

[[Page H10860]]

It has been my experience in dealing with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) that we have had for a number of years 
an honorable, professional relationship. The chairman has helped with 
this package of restoration bills to restore a number of problems 
throughout this Nation, and I want to thank him for that.

                              {time}  1730

  We are here to pass the conference report that will do a great deal 
as far as restoring America's estuaries and other problems throughout 
our coastal regions and the Great Lakes of the United States. We are 
here because our approach to these problems has not been the best in 
the past. Our approach to deal with the Nation's estuaries and the 
Great Lakes have been the responsibility of, for example, the Corps of 
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, Department of Agriculture, EPA, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the list goes on 
and on and on; and each of those Federal entities has been responsible 
for a certain piece of the whole.
  Now, they have also been responsible for things like dredging, which 
degrade estuaries; bulldozing; the building of dams; draining; paving; 
sewage discharge. The list goes on there as well.
  Each of those areas, draining, bulldozing, sewage discharge, 
dredging, damming, air pollution, all of those things has a degrading, 
fragmenting effect on our estuaries. And each of the Federal agencies 
has approached each of those entities as something distinct and 
separate.
  What this legislation does is it brings all of those Federal agencies 
and their appropriate counterparts on the State level, the local level, 
and the private sector and it sees the estuaries as a whole. The entire 
ecosystem not only will be researched and studied, but will be 
restored. The grasses will be replanted. The oysters, instead of oyster 
bars, will have oyster reefs. The migrating songbirds will have a place 
to rest on the way to South America. The migrating Canada geese or the 
snowgeese or the shad or any other fish species that we can think of 
will come back because the ecosystem, instead of being fragmented, will 
begin to become whole.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the conference 
report. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman 
of the committee, once again for his help with this legislation.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), my good friend.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, the love fest that is going on around here 
obviously makes us all feel very good about what this committee has 
accomplished over the last couple of years in transportation and in 
water issues, and so I give my congratulations to all of my colleagues 
for the work that they have done. I do not serve on the committee, so I 
am expressing great gratitude to all members who have worked over the 
last several years with me.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, she may not serve on this committee, but 
she has been so persistent in pursuit of the issues that she and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have both coordinated on, that 
this is a better bill because of the gentlewoman's persistence.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for those kind words.
  I have to say that I am very excited about the Alternative Water 
Sources Act being put into this conference report. For 20 years in 
various capacities, whether on the city council or in the State Senate, 
I have worked on alternative water sources because of some particular 
problems in the State of Florida. Those problems sometimes are issues 
where in counties that I live and represent, we have an abundance of 
water and to the south of me, there is not as much water. So there is 
always this opportunity or problem going on of trying to come in and 
pipe water down to other areas.
  So what we have tried to really do in this piece of legislation is to 
work with the technology that is available across this country for 
providing alternative water sources, because we are finding that States 
and other places are actually having to hunt for this water for 
drinking and agriculture and industrial and commercial uses.
  What the bill represents is the beginning of a long-term, sustained 
effort to meet our future water needs. Over the years, Congress has 
adopted many water programs; some deal with quality and others deal 
with quantity. But the Alternative Water Sources Act will help States 
meet ever-expanding demands for water. This bill establishes a 3-year, 
$75 million program to fund water projects that conserve, reclaim, and 
reuse precious water resources in an environmentally sustainable 
manner.
  As a result of innovative technology, such as deep-well infusion, new 
methods of reusing and enhancing area water supplies can be applied 
today. And if we use or improve this technology in one part of the 
country, it will help other parts of the country because it will reduce 
pressure to move water from one region to another.
  A quote from the Christian Science Monitor on April 14 said, 
``Whether it is desalinization, capturing rainwater, water-saving 
farming methods, or water pricing structures that impel greater 
conservation, humanity should use every tool available to safeguard 
this most basic natural resource.''
  Alternative water projects provide an important tool to safeguard 
this to safeguard these resources. And I realize that water reuse alone 
will not solve coming water problems. But I do believe that a real 
national water policy, that actually the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and I talked about on this floor, must include improved 
conservation programs. I think this is a great first step.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the road that we travel next 
year in the 107th Congress. The only thing that I will miss is the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), who has been steadfast, as 
always with tenacity, in helping us move this legislation along and her 
friendship, and her confidence in this piece of legislation is deeply 
appreciated. I will miss the gentlewoman, and I know she will be with 
us working right alongside of us anyway.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of the 
conference report on S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 
2000. This bill is a combination of eight important water-related 
pieces of legislation, and it does represent the true bipartisanship of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I do also want to add my commendations to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) to those of my colleagues for his 
tireless efforts on this important legislation and his effectiveness as 
chairman, because it has been a real pleasure and an honor for me to 
serve on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as a 
subcommittee chairman under his leadership for the past 6 years.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski) for their work on this important piece of legislation and all 
of their assistance that they provided in getting us to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I have worked on title VI of this bill, the Alternative 
Water Sources Act, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Thurman), and she has worked tirelessly on this, and she is a 
true friend. This measure will create a pilot program providing Federal 
matching funds under the Clean Water Act to assist eligible States with 
the development of alternative water sources projects to meet the 
projected water supply demand for urban development, industrial, 
agricultural, and environmental needs.
  Many will say our existing water supply is sufficient, but our 
children could have an uncertain future when they turn on the faucet. 
There are many States, including Florida and New York, where the 
increase in population growth has put a significant strain on their 
water supply. That is why we need to encourage States to be forward

[[Page H10861]]

thinking when it comes to water supply and alternative sources. A new 
Federal partnership is needed to avoid a crisis, a partnership that 
will ensure our water supply will keep pace with population growth and 
protect this natural resource.
  So, I again want to thank the leadership of this committee for all of 
their hard work on this, and I encourage my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), chairman and the ranking member of the committee. I have to 
say, while I have not always agreed with the chairman and the ranking 
member, I have the greatest respect for them and I think they have been 
the most effective team in the time that I have spent in the House. And 
quite frankly, they have been a model for how this House ought to 
operate, and so I commend both of them, particularly the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), as well as the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee.
  I have had the opportunity to work with them on a number of pieces of 
legislation, even though I do not sit on the committee; and both the 
full and subcommittee chair and ranking members have always been 
helpful. If a Member has a good idea, they are willing to listen and 
work with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 
835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act. I want to commend our 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for his work on 
this, and in particular on the National Estuary Act of which he is an 
original sponsor and I am one of the cosponsors. This bill is 
tremendously important to restore all of our national estuaries, 
including Galveston Bay, which borders my district in Texas.
  Galveston Bay produces two-thirds of Texas' oyster harvest, one-third 
of Texas' bay shrimp catch, and one-quarter of Texas' blue crab catch. 
Galveston Bay's watershed is heavily industrialized and densely 
populated. Since the 1950s, 30,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in 
this estuary. Wastewater discharges into Galveston Bay account for half 
of Texas' total wastewater discharges every year. Like many of 
America's beloved bays and estuaries, the productivity of Galveston Bay 
has declined. Local community response, however, which is necessary, is 
facilitated by this act.
  The report authorizes $275 million over 5 years in a matching grant 
for locally developed estuary habitat restoration projects. The goal of 
this money is the restoration of a million acres of estuary over the 
next 10 years. Only with our help will estuaries continue producing 
food, water quality, employment, and recreation benefits along 
America's coastlines.
  I am also pleased that the conference report authorizes an additional 
$175 million for the National Estuary Program. These funds will be used 
to develop and implement comprehensive programs in estuaries of 
national significance, including Galveston Bay.
  As proof of the ability of local communities and organizations to 
take on estuary restoration, I would like to share this about Galveston 
Bay. The Galveston Bay Foundation was created under the National 
Estuary Program, and they have undertaken the ambitious program of 
restoring 24,000 of the 30,000 estuary acres lost, habitat acres lost 
in Galveston Bay. Assisted by the National Estuary Program, the 
foundation also monitors water quality by training volunteers in 
distributing monitoring equipment.
  In addition, I would add that the Galveston Bay Foundation has been 
the catalyst for developing an environmentally sensitive approach to 
the deepening and widening of the Houston ship channel, which was 
authorized under WRDA 1996 bill. So I think from Galveston Bay, and 
this is true with the other bays around the Nation, the Galveston Bay 
Foundation has proved that the National Estuary Program works and that 
the National Estuary Act can work as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman, ranking member, and the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member for having the foresight to 
move this bill; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for 
authoring it; and I hope the other body will pass it and the President 
will sign it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of this 
conference report on the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000. I speak 
with personal knowledge of the importance of this effort, because of 
Lake Pontchartrain, a lake that lies largely within my congressional 
district. It is vital to the health of the entire region. It is vital 
to the quality of life, to the economic health of the region, and so 
too with the other estuaries we address in this bill.
  It is not a case of people versus the environment somehow. It is 
people and the environment, hand in hand. Lake Pontchartrain is a good 
example; 5,000 square miles in the Pontchartrain Basin that encompasses 
16 parishes in Louisiana as well as four counties in Mississippi, one 
of the largest estuaries in the United States. In the middle of it, 
Lake Pontchartrain, 630 square miles, the second largest lake in the 
United States after the Great Lakes. The population center, of course, 
for Louisiana, being surrounded by 1.5 million residents.
  But we have had problems in that estuary system over the last 60 
years. Wetlands loss, human activities, natural forces have all had 
adverse impact on the basin. Wetlands around the basin have been 
drained, dredged, and filled and channeled for oil and gas development. 
Storm water discharges, inadequate wastewater treatment, agricultural 
activities, all of these activities have significantly degraded water 
quality.
  Loss of wetlands due to subsidence, salt water intrusion, and 
hurricanes have also harmed the basin wildlife population so that 13 
species are actually on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's threatened 
or endangered list. And today, swimming is still not allowed on the 
south shore due to high levels of pollution.

                              {time}  1745

  As a result of this, I introduced last September the Pontchartrain 
Basin Restoration Act, and that is included in this conference report. 
It will create a coordinated, technically sound program that will truly 
bring restoration of the basin to the next level.
  I want to thank everyone who was so helpful in passing this 
legislation in the conference report, certainly including the chairman, 
the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee and the 
subcommittee staff.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown), a great member of our committee and a great 
advocate for the people of Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to express my 
strong support for the conference report. This bill is important to the 
citizens of the State of Florida and it contains provisions that would 
improve quality of life and contribute to the cleanup of Lake Apopka, 
Florida's second largest but most polluted lake.
  For months I have worked with Senator Bob Graham and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), along with Members 
of the local community, such as Commissioner Bob Freeman of Orlando and 
Friends of Lake Apopka seeking to get Federal help in tackling this 
problem of Lake Apopka.
  Before the Second World War, Lake Apopka was a nationally known bass 
fishing and vacation spot. This 31,000 acre water body supported over 
two dozen fish camps as well as numerous hotels, restaurants and other 
businesses. This authorization is a well-deserved effort that includes 
Lake Apopka in a priority demonstration program under Clean Lakes 
administration by the EPA.
  Regarding alternate water, I would like to congratulate also the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the conferees for their 
determination in getting a new grant program

[[Page H10862]]

within EPA for alternate water sources.
  I was proud to cosponsor this bill when it was introduced in the 
House, and I am very delighted it is included in this conference 
report. We must address the critical water resource needs of our 
expanding communities, especially in my home State, which so happens to 
be the fourth largest State and growing rapidly.
  Mr. Speaker, the Water Infrastructure Network released a 
comprehensive report at the Conference of Mayors' press conference 
recently here at the Capitol on the crisis facing the Nation's waste 
water and drinking water systems. The report concluded that there is an 
``increasing gap between the Nation's water infrastructure needs and 
the Federal Government's financial commitment to safe and clean 
water.''
  This bill is a good start, and I want to commend the parties 
involved.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) for his outstanding leadership of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure in these 6 years of his chairmanship 
and thank him and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their 
thorough and careful negotiating of this bill with the Senate and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was so 
instrumental in writing this estuary bill which will restore 1 million 
acres of estuary habitat over the next 10 years through a voluntary 
incentive-based program. I believe it is going to serve the Nation 
admirably and enable us to do something we have long needed to do, 
which is better protect our estuaries.
  In this bill is the Long Island Sound bill that the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Lazio), with Republican and Democrat backing from New 
York, and I, with the same broad backing from Connecticut, spearheaded. 
It will provide Connecticut and New York with the help they need to 
restore the Long Island Sound to full health so that all of our 
constituents can enjoy its beaches, its seafood and the products that 
come through its ports.
  As important, this bill's provisions in regard to the Long Island 
Sound provide Connecticut and New York with the flexibility that they 
need to develop innovative approaches to cleaning the Sound, while 
reducing costs for small communities and impoverished cities.
  Indeed, we cannot do things in the future in exactly the same way we 
have done them in the past. We must achieve the same goals, but we must 
do it in a way that does not destroy the taxpaying base of our small 
rural communities with their rather set tax capability or harm our 
impoverished cities.
  So this bill provides flexibility to allow States like Connecticut 
and New York to develop the kind of innovative and cost-effective 
approaches using the most modern technologies to address the problems 
of Long Island Sound and restore it to its health.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership and his support.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Estuary Restoration Act is good for the Nation and 
thus good for California. I commend the leadership of the House and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work to 
bring this conference report before us.
  This act demonstrates congressional commitment to restoring one 
million acres of estuaries over the next decade, while promoting a 
constructive partnership among all levels of government and the private 
sector.
  This conference report directs the Secretary of the Army to give 
priority consideration to the Los Cerritos wetlands, located in the 
district that I represent. Restoration of these wetlands will help 
retain natural habitat in Los Angeles County and improve the quality of 
life for residents throughout the area. Los Angeles County has lost 
more than 93 percent of its coastal wetlands. Los Cerritos represents 
one of only three sizable areas remaining that could be restored and 
could include nearly 400 acres when completed.
  The Estuary Restoration Act provides critical help to our Nation's 
environment, and I strongly urge support for this vital legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for not 
only this bill, for including my bill into this package, but also all 
of the work that he has done to help us with the Tijuana sewage problem 
in San Diego Imperial Beach area. I want to thank the ranking member 
for his sensitivity to it. I know we have been discussing this a long 
time.
  This bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and I have 
been working on that has been included in this package is actually one 
that goes back to a recognition that 20 years ago the Federal 
Government of the United States decided that the Tijuana estuarine area 
was so important environmentally that 50 percent of the City of 
Imperial Beach, my hometown, had to be taken by condemnation to be able 
to preserve it for future generations.
  Sadly, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that from the month that that 
designation of estuarine preserve was given by the Federal Government, 
the estuary has been polluted by foreign sources of sewage. I want to 
commend the chairman and the ranking member, because in this bill, it 
is the first comprehensive, long-term strategy to address that 
pollution problem that has existed for all too long.
  I think it recognizes the fact that if the Federal Government thinks 
that the Tijuana estuary is so important to preserve by taking it in 
possession, it is also important enough to make sure it is not polluted 
and destroyed by a foreign government's adverse activity through the 
introduction of sewage. This bill will finally have that comprehensive 
approach and do it in a way that is not only not piecemeal, but 
actually binational as we work into it.
  I think again, as we have said before, the fact is that this bill 
will include a prototype that I would ask my colleagues to look at, 
that will not only work in Imperial Beach and San Diego and the Tijuana 
estuary, but I think will be the vanguard of environmental strategies 
around the world, and that is paying for a service done, rather than a 
project built; paying for the environment to be cleaned up, not for a 
plan or a project that hopefully will clean up the problem.
  This is not the end, but it is definitely the beginning of the end of 
addressing a problem that some of us have worked on for over 20 years 
and spent many years working on.
  I want to thank everyone involved, and the estuary and the people 
that live around the estuary will thank you for this for years to come.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of serving on 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the past 2 
years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), have 
disproven an old thought or an old perception that you cannot have it 
both ways, you cannot rebuild America's infrastructure and at the same 
time improve the environmental conditions here, and this is one of the 
best examples of that. I want to thank them for all of their hard work.
  Earlier this year, this House passed the Clean Lakes Act by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 420 to 5. I introduced the Clean 
Lakes bill because I have a strong belief that we can make a difference 
in preserving the environment for future generations. I am pleased to 
see the Clean Lakes bill included as amendment to S. 835, and I am 
proud of the hard work that went into the conference report, and 
strongly support its passage today.
  This single bill encompasses eight excellent programs that will 
advance clean water initiatives across the country and will benefit the 
generations to

[[Page H10863]]

come by cleaning up and restoring many of our estuaries, sounds, 
beaches, bays, basins, keys and lakes.
  I just want to take a moment to focus specifically on the Clean Lakes 
Program. Where I am from, which includes the Catskill and Adirondack 
mountain ranges in upstate New York, the very lives of our lakes are 
threatened. This bill forwards a number of initiatives that will allow 
us and give us the resources to fight the fight that we need to, to 
ensure that their pristine nature and the way of life that many of my 
constituents know today can be preserved.
  Again I want to thank both the chairman and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their terrific work.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, again I want to thank the chairman and 
his staff, particularly Carrie Jelsma, was very helpful to us and 
worked so hard; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his 
staff, they worked overtime to help the people I know in my area; and I 
am sure throughout the Nation. I want to thank the staff of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), Dave Schroeder, and my own 
staff member, Mary Niez, who worked tirelessly on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks from many parts of the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while we are hopeful that we might have legislation to 
bring to this floor in the waning days of the Congress, that may well 
not be the case, so this could well be the last legislation that we 
will have before the body during my stewardship over the past 6 years 
as chairman of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
largest committee of the Congress, 75 members, as well as the most 
productive.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their tremendous support in working to pass as much legislation as we 
have indeed passed to build America. The extraordinary bipartisanship 
of our committee is the reason why we were able to be so productive.
  My dear friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I 
have worked shoulder to shoulder with all the members on both sides of 
the aisle. Over these past 6 years, this committee has passed through 
this House 265 bills, of which 109 pieces of legislation have been 
signed into law, an unparalleled record. Indeed, not only have there 
been a large number of bills come through our committee, but, as a 
result of the bipartisan effort in the committee and in this House, 
historic legislation as well.
  We have put finally, after many years of battle, trust back into the 
transportation trust funds, in TEA-21, a $218 billion transportation to 
rebuild America, the largest transportation bill in the history not 
only of the United States but of the world, and yet no tax increase, 
because we simply unlocked the trust fund so the money the American 
people pay into that trust fund for transportation could be used.
  Likewise, with AIR-21, a $40 billion bill to not only invest in 
building our aviation system, but to reform it as well. And, goodness 
knows, we need that investment and that reform in our aviation system. 
AIR-21 takes effect October 1, so it has just been in effect for a few 
weeks now. But in the months and years ahead, I am sure the American 
people will see the positive impact of that legislation.
  We passed major environmental legislation to clean up our lakes and 
our waters, our water and sewer systems. We passed economic development 
legislation to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The committee 
indeed is the building committee of the Congress, and that is what that 
committee has been about for the past 6 years, on a totally bipartisan 
basis.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a report entitled ``Building a 
Transportation and Infrastructure Legacy, Accomplishments of the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the 104th, 105th, and 
106th Congresses.''

Building a Transportation and Infrastructure Legacy, Accomplishments of 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 104th, 105th, 
                            106th Congresses


                              INTRODUCTION

       The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has 
     been a Committee of accomplishment. During the past six 
     years, under the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Bud 
     Shuster (R-PA) and Ranking Members Norm Mineta (D-CA) and 
     James Oberstar (D-MN), the Committee has been a driving force 
     in renewing America's commitment to building assets and 
     promoting safety in all modes of transportation and key 
     aspects of environmental protection. The T&I Committee 
     succeeded in restoring integrity to the Highway and Aviation 
     Trust Funds after nearly three decades of fiscal abuse, 
     enabling us to make much-needed improvements to our roads, 
     bridges, transit systems, airports, and air traffic control 
     system in a fiscally responsible manner and without 
     increasing taxes. In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt's 
     leadership on the Panama Canal and Dwight Eisenhower's on the 
     Interstate Highway System, the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee has renewed the country's commitment 
     to our national transportation network as the cornerstone of 
     a strong economy. It is a legacy that will last well into the 
     21st Century.
       Whether it be a renewed investment in highways and transit 
     systems contained in the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century'' (``TEA 21''), a commitment to modernization 
     and expanding our aviation system found in the ``Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century'' (``AIR 
     21''), a reform package to help the financially troubled 
     national passenger railroad Amtrak achieve solvency, changes 
     to our international ocean shipping regulations to encourage 
     competition and increase U.S. exports, or assistance for 
     water and wastewater infrastructure and hazardous waste 
     cleanup, the T&I Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion 
     to address the needs of America's communities.
       In addition, the Committee has worked hard to make sure 
     that--both through proper investment and appropriate federal 
     oversight--the public safety is protected in all modes of 
     transportation. Through its six subcommittees--Aviation; 
     Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation; Economic 
     Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials, and 
     Pipeline Safety; Ground Transportation; Water Resources and 
     Environment; and Oversight, Investigations and Emergency 
     Management--significant time was devoted to safety oversight 
     of aviation, railroads, motor carrier and truck safety, 
     pipelines, commercial vessel and recreational boating safety, 
     and public buildings, including increased federal security in 
     the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal 
     Building in Oklahoma City.
       An equally important Committee responsibility is that of 
     protecting our environment. The Subcommittee on Water 
     Resources and Environment has led the effort to increase 
     assistance for community water infrastructure systems and to 
     protect and restore degraded or threatened waters and 
     watersheds. The results have been landmark laws, such as 
     Water Resource Development Acts, other bipartisan, broadly 
     supported bills as well as probing oversight hearings that 
     have ushered in significant administrative reforms for 
     controversial Superfund and Clean Water programs. The 
     Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee also 
     developed legislation to help the Coast Guard improve the 
     enforcement of Federal laws protecting the marine 
     environment, including the reduction of solid waste 
     pollution and oil spills from vessels. The Subcommittee 
     also conducted extensive oversight hearings on marine 
     environmental protection.
       During the six years that the T&I Committee was led by 
     Chairman Shuster, it grew from a 61-Member panel to a 75-
     Member panel--the largest in the history of Congress. To 
     carry out its broad responsibilities, the Committee held 314 
     hearings, passed 265 bills through the House, of which 109 
     have been enacted into law to date.


           RESTORING TRUST TO THE TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUNDS

       When the Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956, the 
     principle was simple: motorists would pay a tax that would be 
     put into a Trust Fund dedicated to improving the nation's 
     roadways. In 1970, the same framework was applied to the 
     establishment of the Aviation Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the 
     principle was compromised. For three decades, more money was 
     collected than was actually spent on road improvements. Each 
     year, the unified budget ``borrowed'' money from the trust 
     fund to offset other federal spending. In 1995, the Highway, 
     Aviation and two smaller water infrastructure trust funds had 
     a combined balance of about $30 billion that, under the 
     Administration's proposal, was expected to balloon to $77 
     billion by 2002.
       Under Chairman Shuster's leadership, the T&I Committee 
     launched a successful campaign that released billions of 
     dollars in highway, transit and aviation funds and 
     established permanent budget reforms that restored integrity 
     to the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds and provided a 
     precedent for unlocking the water trust funds.
       Beginning with the introduction of H.R. 842, the ``Truth in 
     Budgeting Act'' in the 104th Congress, which had 224 
     cosponsors and passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 
     284-143, and a subsequent amendment to the

[[Page H10864]]

     FY 1998 Budget Resolution that again demonstrated the strong 
     support for unlocking the trust funds, the foundation was 
     paved for passage of critical budget reforms in the 105th 
     Congress with the enactment of TEA 21 (Public Law 105-178). 
     This landmark legislation reauthorized the nation's highway 
     and transit programs and changed the budget treatment of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, thereby permanently protecting it from 
     budgetary abuse.
       In the 106th Congress, the Committee focused its effort on 
     unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund. Again, budget reforms were 
     instituted as part of the AIR 21 (Public Law 106-181), that 
     are just now resulting in significant increases in funding 
     for much-needed airport expansion and air traffic control 
     system modernization.


                INVESTING IN AMERICA AND OUR COMMUNITIES

       One of the oldest responsibilities of the federal 
     government is the establishment and maintenance of our 
     transportation and infrastructure system. Beginning with 
     ocean ports and waterways, then later roads, railways, and 
     airports, the government made the necessary investments and 
     the nation prospered. In today's increasingly global 
     marketplace, the need for an efficient transportation network 
     is more important than ever before. Moreover, assuring modern 
     environmental and water infrastructure is both a quality of 
     life issue and, for many communities, an economic necessity.
       The T&I Committee's flagship achievement was the 1998 
     enactment of TEA 21, which reauthorized the nation's highway, 
     transit, motor carrier, and highway safety programs for 
     fiscal years 1998-2003. This historic legislation created, 
     for the first time, a statutory link between highway and 
     transit investment and the fuel excise taxes paid by 
     motorists and deposited into the Highway Trust Fund.
       TEA 21 puts the financial resources of the Highway Trust 
     Fund to work rebuilding and improving the nation's 
     infrastructure, which had suffered from anemic under-funding 
     during the past several decades. The overall authorized 
     levels of $218 billion represents a 43 percent increase in 
     funding for roads, bridges, and transit systems nationwide. 
     These increases were accomplished without increasing taxes by 
     simply unlocking the money already being collected from 
     system users. Moreover, the budget reforms mean that, if 
     Trust Fund receipts increase in the future, the amount 
     available to maintain and improve our roads and transit 
     systems will increase. It also included a greatly expanded, 
     $3.5 billion rail infrastructure revolving loan program to 
     help communities address serious transportation choke points 
     at major port, transloading facilities, passenger terminals 
     and other intermodal facilities.
       TEA 21 directly addressed equity concerns of ``donor'' 
     states by ensuring a fair return on each state's Highway 
     Trust Fund contributions. On an average annual basis, each 
     state will receive more in real dollars than it did in ISTEA, 
     TEA 21's predecessor, and each state will receive a ``Minimum 
     Guarantee'' of 90.5 percent return on what its motorists 
     contributed. The minimum guarantee replaces the myriad equity 
     programs that existed under ISTEA. TEA 21 also eliminated the 
     donor state ``penalty'' that counted allocations of 
     discretionary grants against the state's return.
       In response to a growing concern over our aviation system's 
     ability to handle the increased demand for air travel since 
     deregulation of the airline industry, the Aviation 
     Subcommittee sponsored and the House passed H.R. 2276, ``The 
     Aviation Revitalization Act,'' to help the Federal Aviation 
     Administration address some of the barriers to system 
     improvements. These include changes to cumbersome personnel 
     rules so the agency can move its most experienced air traffic 
     controllers to areas of greatest needs and a simplification 
     of procurement requirements in order to more quickly acquire 
     advanced technology. The most significant of these reforms 
     were ultimately enacted in the DOT appropriations bill.
       In H.R. 3539, the ``Federal Aviation Authorization Act'' 
     (Public Law 104-264), the Committee went further, increasing 
     funding to enable FAA to hire and train additional 
     maintenance and flight inspectors to achieve a higher level 
     of safety for the flying public. It was in this legislation 
     that Congress established the National Civil Aviation Review 
     Commission to make recommendations on long-term actions to 
     address increased demand.
       In 1997, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission's 
     report said that, ``Without prompt action, the United States' 
     aviation system is headed toward gridlock shortly after the 
     turn of the century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen, 
     it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm 
     the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt 
     our position in the global marketplace. Lives may be 
     endangered; the profitability and strength of the aviation 
     sector could disappear; and jobs and business opportunities 
     far beyond aviation could be foregone.''
       In response to these findings and ever-growing frustration 
     on the part of passengers across the country, the Committee 
     successfully passed the AIR 21. Significant increases in 
     funding for air traffic control modernization and airport 
     expansion are just now being realized as a result of this 
     landmark legislation. While the effects will not be 
     immediate. FAA will now have the resources to modernize the 
     air traffic control system and expand airport capacity, 
     thereby reducing chronic delays, which have crippled the 
     aviation system and frustrated passengers.
       The T&I Committee continued to champion the Economic 
     Development Administration (EDA) and the Appalachian Regional 
     Commission (ARC), both founded in 1965 to address the chronic 
     poverty in economically distressed regions of the country. 
     Through highway and safe drinking water investments, as well 
     as investments in technical and vocational schools and health 
     care facilities, the Appalachian region has seen its poverty 
     rates cut in half and its employment rate and number of high 
     school graduates double. It is a dramatic example of how 
     investment in roads and other public infrastructure can spur 
     economic growth and reduce poverty. The 105th Congress 
     reauthorized these programs (Public Law 105-393), providing 
     $1.8 billion over 5 years to EDA and $207 million for three 
     years to ARC. In the case of EDA, it was the first time in 
     seventeen years that the agency's mission was formally 
     reauthorized, so agency reforms were also instituted to 
     better direct its activities to the most distressed 
     communities.
       The T&I Committee also maintains jurisdiction over the 
     nation's water infrastructure, including ports, inland 
     waterways, drinking and wastewater infrastructure, and dams 
     and other water management infrastructure developed by the 
     Army Corps of Engineers. The Committee has sought to provide 
     significant increases in funding for this infrastructure to 
     help communities meet their ever-growing needs.
       The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-303), authorizing $5.4 billion in various Corps of 
     Engineers projects and programs, successfully returned 
     Congress and the nation to the two-year cycle for enacting 
     water projects and policy changes. On a bipartisan basis, 
     the Committee authorized 44 major projects for navigation, 
     flood control, shore protection, environmental 
     restoration, hydropower production, water supply, and 
     recreation, as well as scores of other projects and 
     project modifications. WRDA of 1999 (Public Law 106-53), 
     authorizing $6.1 billion in various Corps projects and 
     programs, signified yet another bipartisan success in 
     meeting the nation's water resource needs on a timely 
     basis. Among the highlights: 45 major project 
     authorizations, including a controversial flood control 
     project for the American River in California, a new 
     program for flood control and ecosystem restoration, and 
     modified or additional authorities for critical projects 
     and regional programs for environmental restoration and 
     related infrastructure. WRDA 2000 authorized the Army 
     Corps of Engineers to begin an historic 20-year project to 
     restore the natural water flow in the Florida Everglades 
     as well as authorizing $5.1 billion in flood control, 
     navigation improvements, environmental protection and 
     restoration, and other national water infrastructure 
     projects. The House passed WRDA 2000 on October 19, 2000, 
     by a vote of 394-14.
       In addition, the Committee has also approved 200 survey 
     resolutions since 1995, directing the Corps of Engineers to 
     study potential solutions to water-related infrastructure 
     problems throughout the country, as well as four ``small 
     watershed program'' projects directing the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation 
     Service, to construct projects in rural areas for flood 
     control, water supply, and environmental restoration.
       The ``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996'' (Public 
     Law 104-182) included key provisions championed by the T&I 
     Committee. It established a new $1 billion per year state 
     revolving fund (SRF) for drinking water assistance, modeled 
     on and integrated with the Clean Water Act's existing SRF, 
     and included a new $350 million authorization for grants to 
     States for drinking water infrastructure and watershed 
     protection. It also included financial and technical 
     assistance for the District of Columbia's drinking water 
     treatment system and for sanitation needs in Alaska and along 
     the U.S.-Mexico border.
       Clean Water infrastructure also has been a major focus of 
     the Committee over the last 6 years, including the 
     development and passage of comprehensive legislation, over a 
     dozen legislative and oversight hearings, and countless 
     discussions with appropriators and members of the Executive 
     Branch. The Committee has consistently sought to help 
     communities and state and local water officials in their 
     campaign to win more funding for core programs under the 
     Clean Water Act, such as the SRF, and for grants to hardship 
     communities, rural areas, and states for wastewater 
     treatment, combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows, and 
     nonpoint source pollution. For example, the House-passed 
     Clean Water Amendments of 1995 authorized over $11 billion 
     for the SRF and $1 billion for nonpoint source grants.
       In the 106th Congress, the Committee successfully moved 
     important regional and national infrastructure and water 
     quality bills through the House. For example, the ``Estuaries 
     and Clean Waters Act of 2000'' authorized approximately $1.6 
     billion for various coastal and inland projects and 
     infrastructure programs for the country. The House passed 
     the conference report on this legislation (S. 835) on 
     October 25, 2000, clearing the bill for the President.

[[Page H10865]]

                    promoting transportation safety

       A key Committee responsibility is oversight of our Federal 
     programs that protect the safety of the traveling public and 
     our communities. The Committee took a number of steps to 
     improve the public safety on board aircraft and marine 
     vessels, and on our nation's roads, railroads, and pipeline 
     transportation network.
       Aviation safety played a prominent role during the past six 
     years. In response to National Transportation Safety Board 
     recommendations and at least seven accidents where pilot 
     error was the cause and the pilot had a previous record of 
     poor performance, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan 
     sponsored the ``Airline Pilot Hiring and Safety Act.'' The 
     legislation, enacted as part of the Federal Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act of 1996, requires airlines to request and 
     receive records of an individual's performance as a pilot 
     before hiring that individual as a commercial pilot. In the 
     1995 reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety 
     Board (Public Law 104-291), the Committee made changes to 
     facilitate voluntary reporting of safety data. In this year's 
     NTSB reauthorization, the Committee clarified the role of the 
     Safety Board in accident investigations and strengthened the 
     protection of information obtained from voice and flight data 
     recorders.
       The Aviation Subcommittee also responded to reports that 
     more people die from heart attacks aboard aircraft than die 
     as a result of aircraft accidents. The Committee enacted the 
     ``Aviation Medical Assistance Act'' (Public Law 105-170) 
     directing the Federal Aviation Administration to gather data 
     and develop a rule to require that defibrillators be 
     installed on aircraft. Since then, airlines have begun 
     installing defibrillators and many lives have been saved.
       Promoting safety of motor carrier operations on our 
     Nation's highways has always been one of the Committee's top 
     priorities. In 1999, in an effort to ensure that motor 
     carrier safety issues were given their due attention and 
     funding with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the 
     Ground Transportation Subcommittee held a series of four 
     hearings to examine the effectiveness of the Federal Highway 
     Administration's (FHWA's) oversight of this ever-expanding 
     industry. The Committee found that motor carrier safety 
     functions were hampered by competition for resources at FHWA.
       The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-159) 
     transferred motor carrier safety functions and oversight of 
     the motor carrier safety program (MCSAP) out of FHWA and 
     created a new Administration to take over those 
     responsibilities. The Act also equipped the new Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration with an increase in funding for 
     the MCSAP program and tighter, more demanding commercial 
     drivers' licensing requirements.
       In April 1995, a home-made bomb exploded outside the Murrah 
     Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, 
     including several preschool children enrolled in the 
     building's child care center, and causing $500 million in 
     damages to 320 buildings in the vicinity. This tragedy 
     illustrated the vulnerability of federal employees and 
     facilities to random acts of violence. The Committee 
     responded by calling on the General Services Administration 
     to undertake an assessment of security at all federal 
     buildings. In July 1995, the Administration submitted its 
     security assessment and requested over $240 million for 
     upgrades at the nation's federal buildings. For FY 1997, the 
     Committee approved $40 million to ensure that all newly 
     authorized federal buildings, courthouses, and border 
     stations received these security enhancements. The Committee 
     also sponsored the House-passed Baylee's Law, requiring GSA 
     to notify parents enrolling children in child care centers in 
     federal buildings of the current federal agencies occupying 
     the building and the level of security of the building.
       To address one of our nation's most dire public health 
     problems, the nation's failure to reduce illegal drug use 
     among America's youth, the Committee moved to tighten the 
     noose around illegal narcotics smugglers. While the 
     Administration has relied on programs to treat and retreat 
     hard-core drug addicts, the T&I Committee has consistently 
     supported Coast Guard drug interdiction efforts, which raise 
     the street price of illegal drugs to deter casual drug users, 
     especially teenagers. The ``Western Hemisphere Drug 
     Elimination Act'' (Public Law 105-277), represented a bold 
     move by Congress to address the increase in illicit drug use 
     by teenagers over the last eight years. It provided the Coast 
     Guard with an additional $151 million annually to expand its 
     drug interdiction efforts. In addition, the House-passed 
     ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999'' provides $550 
     million in additional funding for Coast Guard drug 
     interdiction above the level requested by the President for 
     fiscal year 2001.
       In order to strengthen and improve our nation's efforts to 
     combat drunk driving, the T&I Committee adopted a number of 
     broad programs in TEA 21 to reduce drunk driving and 
     accidents and fatalities. These included: a $500 million 
     incentive grant program for states which enact .08 Blood 
     Alcohol Content (BAC) laws; increased funding of $219 million 
     for the impaired driving grant program along with 
     programmatic reforms to include performance-based factors and 
     to target those drunk drivers who pose the highest risk on 
     the roads; and provisions to encourage states to enact open 
     container laws and minimum penalties for repeat offenders.
       The T&I Committee has sought, through a number of vehicles, 
     to improve maritime safety. The ``Sportfishing and Boating 
     Safety Act of 1998,'' (enacted as part of Public Law 105-178) 
     increased state funding for recreational boating safety 
     programs. The Coast Guard Authorization Acts of 1996, 1998, 
     and 2000 included provisions to improve maritime drug and 
     alcohol testing programs, provide penalties for interfering 
     with the safe operation of a vessel, and require a more 
     prompt development of the Coast Guard's new National Distress 
     and Response System. The Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Subcommittee held numerous oversight hearings 
     that highlighted the importance of safety in the maritime 
     environment, including the Coast Guard's vessel traffic 
     systems, commercial vessel safety mission, search and 
     rescue mission, and icebreaking mission, as well as cruise 
     ship safety, and recreational boating safety.
       Lastly, the Committee has continued its oversight of the 
     Pipeline Safety Program administered by the Department of 
     Transportation. In the 104th Congress, the Committee 
     reauthorized the pipeline safety program for a four-year 
     term, introducing reform into the burdensome regulatory 
     framework. In the 106th Congress,the Committee again sought 
     to reauthorize the program, as well as address specific 
     concerns raised by serious pipeline incident, which occurred 
     in Bellingham, Washington, and Carlsbad, New Mexico. Towards 
     this end, Chairman Shuster brought to the House for 
     consideration S. 2438, a strong, bipartisan pipeline safety 
     bill that passe the Senate 99-0. While the legislation 
     received the support of a majority of House Members, it 
     failed to gain the 2/3 vote required under ``suspension,'' 
     with only 51 Democrats supporting the bill. Some of the major 
     reforms sought by this comprehensive bill included: mandates 
     for periodic testing of pipelines and for training and 
     evaluating safety personnel; significantly increased 
     penalties for safety violators; a lower reporting threshold 
     to require reporting of smaller hazardous liquid spills; an 
     increased state role in the oversight of interstate 
     pipelines; and increased funding for safety efforts. The 
     legislation also included a number of provisions on ``right 
     to know'' to broaden public access to information on pipeline 
     operations and hazards, whistle blower protection, and 
     establishment of a formal research and development program to 
     develop pipeline inspection and safety technology. It is 
     hoped that Congress will revisit this issue early in the next 
     Congress.


          making transportation programs work more efficiently

       The T&I Committee has jurisdiction over federal agencies 
     that regulate transportation. In 1995, the Committee began 
     looking at ways to make many of the federal regulatory 
     functions perform better. Two early efforts were the 
     Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which had economic 
     oversight over the trucking and railroad industries, and the 
     Federal Maritime Commission, which had oversight over ocean 
     shipping. These two agencies, both envisioned as small 
     entities charged with preventing monopolistic practices in 
     their respective industries, had failed to evolve with the 
     changing marketplace.
       In the case of the ICC, established more than a century ago 
     to oversee the railroad industry at the start of the 
     industrial revolution, it had become archaic in the modern, 
     global economy. The Interstate Commerce Commission 
     Termination Act (Public Law 104-88) addressed these problems 
     by eliminating the ICC and transferring nearly all of the 
     remaining motor carrier regulatory oversight functions to the 
     Federal Highway Administration. The remaining rail functions 
     were transferred to a 3-member autonomous Surface 
     Transportation Board within DOT. The legislation saved 
     taxpayers money and established a regulatory framework that 
     better ensures competition and smooth functioning of our $320 
     billion surface transportation industry.
       The Federal Maritime Commission was subject to similar 
     criticisms, where tariff filing requirements had saddled 
     shippers and vessel operators with enormous administrative 
     costs and strengthened foreign shipping cartels by providing 
     them with access to the private shipping agreements of their 
     U.S. competitors. In the 104th Congress, the T&I Committee 
     put forward sweeping legislation to provide U.S. shippers and 
     vessel operators with a level playing field in the global 
     shipping industry. The legislation, H.R. 2149, received 
     strong House support. Although the Senate failed to act on 
     that legislation in the 104th Congress, it put forward 
     compromise legislation in the 105th that incorporated many 
     key elements of H.R. 2149. The House accepted the Senate's 
     version and enacted the ``Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 
     (OSRA)'' (Public Law 105-258). The most important provision 
     of OSRA allows for ``confidential contracts'' for ocean 
     transportation. At an oversight hearing a year after 
     enactment, witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission, 
     international ocean carriers, U.S. shippers, and U.S. labor 
     all reported that the new system was a success. The new 
     system has increased competition in the international ocean 
     shipping markets while allowing individual shippers and 
     carriers to pursue private contracts that provide for the 
     most efficient international ocean transportation 
     arrangements.
       The National Highway Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-59) approved the designation of 160,000 miles of U.S. 
     roadway as

[[Page H10866]]

     the National Highway System, and provided $13 billion in 
     Interstate Maintenance and NHS highway funds to the states in 
     1996-97. The legislation also eliminated a number of federal 
     sanctions that had been imposed on the states in the past, 
     including penalties for states that fail to enforce a 
     national maximum speed limit or compulsory motorcycle helmet 
     laws, and streamlined the delivery of highway and transit 
     programs.
       In TEA 21, the Committee remained committed to making 
     Federal highway and transit programs more efficient, working 
     to streamline program delivery and cut red tape. The bill 
     contained a landmark provision to streamline environmental 
     reviews for highway and transit projects, which was backed by 
     the Administration, state and local government groups and 
     environmental constituencies.
       Following the ValuJet and TWA airplane crashes in 1996, 
     families who lost loved ones complained about their ill 
     treatment at the hands of both government and airline 
     officials. The Aviation Subcommittee held hearings that 
     resulted in the introduction of the Aviation Disaster Family 
     Assistance Act, which was included in the Federal Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264). The law 
     requires airlines to develop plans to handle these situations 
     in the future and gives the National Transportation Safety 
     Board responsibility for coordinating these efforts. As a 
     result, more recent crashes have not given rise to the sort 
     of complaints experienced in 1996. In 1999, the Committee 
     sought to apply a similar framework to rail accidents in the 
     Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1999, which 
     passed the House but was not enacted.
       Under T&I Committee leadership, the 105th Congress enacted 
     the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (Public Law 105-
     134). The bipartisan reforms contained in the Act remove 
     Amtrak from a crippling statutory straight jacket. At the 
     time, Amtrak was headed toward bankruptcy. Similar to 
     legislation the T&I Committee successfully passed through 
     the House in the 104th Congress but which the Senate 
     declined to consider, this Act gave Amtrak the opportunity 
     to operate in a more business-like fashion. Significantly, 
     the Act allowed Amtrak for the first time to contract work 
     (other than food service) with third parties and to 
     evaluate routes based upon profitability rather than a 
     congressionally determined route structure. It also 
     eliminated statutory labor protections that required 
     Amtrak to pay displaced workers a year of severance for 
     each year of service (maximum of six years). Finally, the 
     Act established a new, seven-member Reform Board filled 
     with qualified professionals to provide a much-needed 
     fresh start for Amtrak.
       While the reform law provided Amtrak with many new tools, 
     in addition to authorizing vastly increased funding, it did 
     not and could not guarantee a successful outcome. The T&I 
     Committee continues to conduct oversight of Amtrak operations 
     and Reform Board actions. Recent reports from the General 
     Accounting Office and the DOT Inspector General are that 
     Amtrak is not taking advantage of the new law. The decisions 
     it makes in the coming months will determine whether the 
     goals of the reform law are realized.
       In the 106th Congress, the T&I Committee worked with 
     railroad labor groups and management to craft a reform 
     package for the financially ailing Railroad Retirement 
     program. The ``Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement 
     Act'' provided long-term solvency to the federally-managed 
     railroad pension fund by allowing limited trust fund 
     resources to be privately invested. It also improved employee 
     benefits by lowering the retirement age to 60 (with 30 years 
     of service), increasing benefits for widows, and reducing the 
     vesting period from 10 to 5 years.
       Finally, the T&I Committee introduced and passed as part of 
     AIR 21, an amendment to the ``Death on the High Seas Act.'' 
     The Act ensures that families will be treated the same 
     regardless of whether an aircraft crashes on land or at sea. 
     Prior to the enactment of this legislation, families were 
     unable to recover damages for the death of a child as a 
     result of an aircraft accident on the high seas.


                   ensuring a clean, safe environment

       Over the last five years, the Committee has led the debate 
     on innovative and effective environmental protection for the 
     21st Century. Legislative achievements and oversight 
     initiatives have translated into cleaner, safer communities, 
     more deference to state and local decision making, and 
     greater emphasis on cost-effective, science-based 
     regulations.
       The Committee's bipartisan ``Clean Water Act Amendments of 
     1995,'' strongly supported by state and local officials, 
     offered a comprehensive, commonsense approach to 
     reauthorization and reform of the Clean Water Act. The House-
     passed legislation has served as a catalyst for regulatory 
     reform in many ways including: more flexibility for water 
     quality standards to reflect regional and seasonal 
     variations; greater flexibility in the pretreatment and 
     stormwater programs; increased focus on watershed-based 
     effluent trading; greater emphasis on federal-state 
     funding partnerships; increased funding for voluntary 
     approaches to managing agricultural runoff and pilot 
     projects to allow companies and communities regulatory 
     flexibility to achieve environmental goals in more cost-
     effective ways.
       The ``Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health 
     Act of 2000'' authorized $150 million for EPA assistance to 
     states to establish monitoring programs to provide the public 
     with information about the quality of coastal recreational 
     waters. This act also strengthens the science behind and 
     effectiveness of water quality standards for coastal 
     recreational waters. Comparable legislation had been pending, 
     and languishing, in Congress for almost a decade. The 
     ``Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000,'' comprising 10 
     separate House-passed bills, authorized $1.6 billion in non-
     regulatory, federal assistance for Clean Water Act and 
     related programs. Such efforts will help restore and protect 
     estuaries, coastal waters and publicly owned lakes.
       Efforts in the 104th and 105th Congresses to enact 
     Superfund reform and address brownfields highlighted the 
     glaring deficiencies of the Superfund toxic waste program: 
     cleanups that are costly, delayed, and ineffective and a 
     liability system that rewards litigation and rejects 
     fairness. The ``Reform of Superfund Act,'' the ``Superfund 
     Acceleration, Fairness, and Efficiency Act,'' and Committee 
     hearings helped push the Administration towards modest 
     reforms to make Superfund cleanups ``faster, fairer, and more 
     effective.''
       In 1996 and 1998, in the annual Department of Defense 
     Authorization bills, the Committee participated in the 
     development of language to encourage the redevelopment of 
     closed bases. Also in the FY 1997 Omnibus Consolidated 
     Appropriations bill, the Committee participated in the 
     development of language to protect lenders from Superfund 
     liability.
       The push for administrative reform and legislative overhaul 
     of Superfund continued in the 106th Congress. In an historic 
     vote of 69 to 2, the Committee approved the ``Recycle 
     America's Land Act of 1999,'' reforming key aspects of 
     Superfund liability and revitalizing brownfields. The 
     legislation, which included liability for small businesses 
     and incentives for voluntary cleanups, helped to initiate 
     another round of modest administrative reforms.
       With the enactment of the ``National Invasive Species Act 
     of 1996'' (Public Law 104-332), the Committee expanded and 
     improved efforts to combat problems from invasive, non-
     indigenous aquatic species (such as zebra mussels), including 
     ballast water exchange procedures and Federal research and 
     demonstration projects. Resulting efforts have benefited 
     municipal, industrial and agricultural water supplies, 
     maritime transportation, and the environment.
       Finally, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, 
     sponsored by Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, helps 
     minimize aircraft noise over national parks. The legislation, 
     enacted as part of AIR 21, requires the FAA Administrator to 
     prescribe operating conditions and limitations for each 
     commercial air tour operator and, in cooperation with the 
     Director of the National Park Service (NPS), develop a plan 
     before air tours can be conducted over national parks.

  Mr. Speaker, indeed, in closing, I want to give my heartfelt thanks 
to all my colleagues for their tremendous support, because without that 
support we would not have any accomplishments to insert in the Record 
today or, more importantly, to provide to the American people in the 
years ahead.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, although I have commented 
many times in committee and on the several bills that we have had, 
since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is sounding a 
note this may, indeed, may be our last major bill on the floor, I just 
want to emphasize for our colleagues that in an era of rancor and 
divisiveness publicly in the body politic and between the parties and 
between the two bodies of Congress, this Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure has stood as a model of legislative achievement, as 
an example of how we can advance the commonweal of the Nation by 
working together in a relationship of trust and of understanding and of 
mutual respect.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the bond that draws us together and the bond of 
respect that I hold for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
our chairman, and for his leadership, steadfast throughout these 6 
years of holding an ideal and working to achieve it.
  Together we have accomplished something of lasting value for America, 
and I compliment the chairman on his leadership, his distinguished 
contribution to America. That will stand for all time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my 
dear friend, and the key word, I think, is together. We have stood 
together,

[[Page H10867]]

and so it is with heartfelt thanks that I thank the gentleman, the 
ranking member of the committee, as well as all of my colleagues for 
their tremendous support so that our stewardship of this committee 
could indeed be one in which we could be proud.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the decline of estuary 
habitats--especially in the San Francisco Bay estuary--has been well-
documented in the scientific and resource management literature for 
over 30 years. Tragically, San Francisco Bay has lost over 95% of its 
tidal wetlands and continues to be besieged by invasive and aquatic 
nuisance species.
  Fortunately, S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act, will provide 
a reasonable, balanced approach to both preserve remaining estuarine 
habitats and to facilitate effective, locally-driven estuary 
restoration in estuaries like San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay in my 
district.
  I am particularly pleased that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
will be eligible to participate in this new program. NGOs, such as Save 
the Bay and The Bay Institute in the Bay Area, embody the locally 
driven focus of this legislation and provide local expertise and 
support.
  Amendments agreed to in conference also enhance the role of the 
Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in the selection of projects and 
the delegation of oversight responsibilities for project 
implementation. This will bring additional expertise and provide direct 
ties to other successful Federal-State partnership programs for 
protecting the estuaries, such as the National Estuary Program, the 
National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service's Fishery Habitat Restoration program.
  This conference report is good environmental legislation and I 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support its 
passage.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Conference Report on 
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act. This bill provides critical relief to 
the Long Island Sound and estuaries across the country.
  Estuaries are an integral part of our environment, as well as our 
economy. They give live to and provide a habitat for many important 
species, they naturally cleanse our water, they provide protection 
against floods and storm damage, and serve as a playground for children 
and families during the summer months. The health of our nation's 
estuaries are critical to the protection of our natural heritage, and 
to those who make their lives off these waters.
  The Long Island Sound, in particular, is one of the most complex 
estuaries in the country--10 percent of the U.S. population lives 
within 50 miles of the Sound and millions more flock to it for 
recreation every year. It brings in more than $5 billion annually to 
the regional economy from various activities--all of which require 
clean water.
  However, these natural jewels are in danger of being lost forever, 
Estuaries are suffering from severe water quality problems, declining 
habitat quality, and, in some areas, total habitat loss. More than 50 
percent of wetlands in coastal states have been destroyed--an amount 
equal in size to six Grand Canyons.
  If you don't want to take my word on how important an estuary can be 
to our communities and our economy, I invite you to visit with the 
lobstermen in my district. Walk the docks with them, and listen to 
their stories. We are suffering a massive lobster die-off in the Long 
Island Sounds that has virtually wiped out an industry. While we are 
still searching for the specific cause of the die-off, we do know that 
a safer, cleaner Sound would mean that incidents like this would be 
less likely to occur in the future.

  This bill provides a sensible approach to a problem that has plagued 
efforts to clean up our estuaries--the lack of a reliable, steady 
funding source for implementing conservation and management plans. 
Cleaning up estuaries cannot be piecemeal effort. This conference 
report takes a step in the right direction by authorizing the Long 
Island Sound Program at $200 million over five years--a significant 
increase over the $3 million a year it currently receives. It takes a 
comprehensive approach to fix such a complex problem.
  That is why I have fought alongside Nita Lowey to pass the Water 
Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act, which we first 
introduced nearly eight years ago, and which we fought for again in the 
current Congress. I want to thank all of my colleagues that have 
supported this effort over the years, especially my colleagues from 
Connecticut and New York, who have worked together to bring relief to 
the Sound. Thank you for working together on a bipartisan approach to 
fixing a non-partisan problem.
  We have an obligation to protect and preserve the Sound for future 
generations. It is the right thing to do for our children and for our 
economy, and for men and women--like the Long Island Sound's lobstermen 
that are still struggling to stay afloat. I urge the House to pass this 
important legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 835, the 
Estuary Habitat and Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act.
  I would like to thank Mr. Gilchrest for all his efforts in bringing 
this bill forward.
  I am thrilled that we are recognizing the critical importance of 
estuaries--the diverse, thriving habitats where fresh and salt water 
mix--and that this legislation will strengthen the all-important 
partnerships between federal, state, and local interests for estuary 
habitat restoration.
  As a co-chair with Nita Lowey of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I am 
particularly pleased that this legislation includes a title on Long 
Island Sound Restoration.
  All of us who live in the Long Island Sound region owe a debt of 
gratitude to Nancy Johnson, and Rick Lazio for their sponsorship and 
stewardship of the Long Island Sound Restoration Act.
  Repubicans and Democrats alike have worked for years on the ongoing 
local-state-federal effort to restore the Sound, and know just how 
important this important body of water is.
  The Sound contributed over $5.5 billion to our regions economy in 
1994--and obviously contributes even more today--through water-
dependent activities such as commercial and recreational fishing, 
boating, and tourism.
  The $40 million annual authorization for the Sound in this 
legislation will make it possible to continue the progress begun six 
years ago when New York and Connecticut first signed the Comprehensive 
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for long Island Sound, which in 
itself was the culmination of 10 years of effort.
  Since the implementation of the CCMP, our states have spent an 
extraordinary amount on Long Island Sound. The federal government has 
played a small, though vital role.
  Today we have the opportunity to back up the promise of the CCMP with 
a commitment to fund Long Island Sound restoration in line with the 
Sound's place as the center of a watershed region encompassing 8 
million people, with over 15 million living within 50 miles of the 
Sound's shores.
  This is truly an estuary of national significance and one which 
deserves the support of this body. I urge my colleague to vote for this 
excellent bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________