[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.
____________________