James L. Oberstar

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3481, a bill to amend the Clean Water Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution.

I applaud the outstanding work of the sponsors of this legislation, the distinguished Senator from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), as well as the sponsor of the House companion bill (H.R. 5724), the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for their efforts to move this important legislation for the protection of our Nation's waters.

Simply put, this legislation clarifies that Federal agencies and departments are financially responsible for any reasonable Federal, state, or locally derived charges for treating or otherwise addressing stormwater pollution that emanates from Federal property.

Madam Speaker, over the past 4 years, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has examined the progress made over the past few decades in improving the overall quality of the Nation's waters, as well as the challenges that remain to achieving the goals of ``fishable and swimmable waters'' called for in the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

Although significant progress has been made in the past four decades, approximately 40 percent of the Nation's assessed rivers, lakes, and coastal waters still do not meet water quality standards. States, territories, Tribes, and other jurisdictions report that poor water quality continues to affect aquatic life, fish consumption, swimming, and sources of drinking water in all types of waterbodies.

In a recent report on the National Water Quality Inventory, States, territories, Tribes, and interstate commissions report that they monitor only 33 percent of the Nation's waters. Of those, about 44 percent of streams, 64 percent of lakes, and 30 percent of estuaries were not clean enough to support their designated uses (e.g., fishing and swimming).

While these numbers highlight the remaining need to improve the quality of the Nation's waters, they also demonstrate how this country's record on improving water quality is slipping--demonstrating a slight, but significant reversal of efforts to clean up the Nation's waters over the past 30 years.

For example, in the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory report, States reported that of the 3.6 million miles of rivers and streams that were assessed, 64 percent were either fully supporting all designated uses or were threatened for one or more of those uses. In the 1998 report, this number improved to 65 percent of assessed rivers and streams. However, in the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory report, this number slipped to only 61 percent of assessed rivers and streams either meeting water quality standards or being threatened for one or more of the waterbodies' designated uses, and in the 2004 Inventory, this number slipped again, to 53 percent of rivers and streams fully supporting their designated uses--a significant reversal in the trend toward meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act.

According to information from the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater remains a leading cause of water quality impairment. For example, in the 2004 Water Quality Inventory, discharges of urban stormwater are the leading source of impairment to 22,559 miles (or 9.2 percent) of all impaired rivers and streams, 701,024 acres (or 6.7 percent) of all impaired lakes, and 867 square miles (or 11.3 percent) of all impaired estuaries.

The continuing negative environmental impacts of stormwater are echoed in a National Academy of Sciences 2009 report that expressed concern about the ``unprecedented pace'' of urbanization in the United States. According to this report, ``the creation of impervious surfaces that accompanies urbanization profoundly affects how water moves both above and below ground during and following storm events, the quality of stormwater, and the ultimate condition of nearby rivers, lakes, and estuaries.''

Madam Speaker, this National Academy of Sciences report made several findings on national efforts to understand and manage urban stormwater. A key finding was a lack of available resources to implement and enforce Federal and state stormwater control programs. According to the report, ``State and local governments do not have adequate financial support to the stormwater program in a rigorous way.'' While the report recommended that the Federal Government provide more financial support to state and local efforts to regulate stormwater, such as through increased funding of existing Clean Water Act authorities, the report also highlights the importance of Federal agencies contributing to the costs of environmental and water quality protections, including the costs of addressing sources of pollution originating or emanating from Federal facilities.

This finding echoes concerns raised by numerous state and local governmental officials over how some Federal agencies have seemingly rejected local efforts to assess service fees to curb stormwater pollution originating or emanating from Federal facilities.

Several states and municipalities, including the District of Columbia, have taken aggressive action to address ongoing sources of stormwater pollution. Yet, when a significant percentage of Federal property owners take the position that they cannot be held responsible for their pollution, it places a greater financial burden on our states, cities, communities, and local ratepayers, and makes it less

likely that significant reductions in stormwater pollution can be achieved.

For example, in April 2010, the Regional Commissioner of the U.S. General Services Administration, GSA, rejected efforts by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, DCWASA, to collect an assessment under its Impervious Surface Area Billing Program for impervious surfaces under the control of GSA. According to DCWASA, this charge is a ``fair way to distribute the cost of maintaining storm sewers and protecting area waterways because it is based on a property's contribution of rainwater to the District's sewer system.''

S. 3481 amends section 313 of the Clean Water Act to clarify that ``reasonable service charges'' for addressing pollution from Federal facilities includes reasonable nondiscriminatory fees, charges, or assessments that are based on the proportion of stormwater emanating from the facility and used to pay (or reimburse) costs associated with any stormwater management program.

This is a simple effort to clarify, again, that the Federal Government bears a proportional responsibility for addressing pollution originating from its facilities, and should remain an active participant in improving the nation's water quality and the overall environment.

The intent of subsection (c)(2)(A) of Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, as added by S. 3481, is to ensure that there is no increase in mandatory spending pursuant to the U.S. Treasury's permanent authority to pay, without further appropriation, the water and sewer service charges imposed by the government of the District of Columbia. The reference in such section to ``any permanent authorization account in the Treasury'' refers to any account for which a permanent appropriation exists, such as the U.S. Treasury account entitled ``Federal Payment for Water and Sewer Services'', and does not imply that GSA's Federal Buildings Fund may not be used to make such payments.

In addition, the intent of subsection (c)(2)(B) of Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, as added by S. 3481, is to require that Congress make available, in appropriations acts, the funds that could be used to pay stormwater fees, but not that the appropriations act would need to state specifically or expressly that the funds could be used to pay these charges.

Nothing in S. 3481 affects the payment by the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof of any sanitary sewer services furnished by the sanitary sewage works of the District of Columbia through any connection thereto for direct use by the government of the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The rules for those payments are set forth in law, codified at section 34-2112 of the D.C. Code, and nothing in this bill amends or otherwise affects those rules.

Madam Speaker, this legislation has the strong support of several organizations representing state and local elected officials, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. It also has been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 3481.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1746, the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010''. H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and helps communities across the Nation protect against natural disasters and other hazards. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Ranking Member of the Committee, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, respectively, for their bipartisan efforts on this bill.

The PDM program provides technical and financial assistance to State and local governments to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to property caused by natural disasters. Examples of mitigation activities include: seismic retrofitting of buildings to strengthen the buildings in case of an earthquake; acquiring repetitively flooded homes; installing shutters and shatter-resistant windows in hurricane-prone areas; and building ``safe rooms'' in houses and buildings to protect people from high winds.

Consideration of this bill today is crucial, as the PDM program is set to sunset with the expiration of the current continuing resolution. Therefore, Congress must take quick action to continue this vital program.

H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the PDM program for three years, at a level of $180 million for fiscal year 2011, and $200 million for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The bill increases the minimum amount that each state receives under the program from $500,000 to $575,000, and codifies the competitive selection process of the program, as currently administered by FEMA.

In 1988, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorized FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This effective program provides grants to communities to mitigate hazards, but only provides grants to ``build better'' after a disaster. At the time, no program existed to help communities mitigate risks from all hazards before disaster strikes.

In the 1990s, under the leadership of FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt, FEMA developed a PDM pilot program known as ``Project Impact'', which was a predecessor program to the current PDM program. Congress appropriated funds for Project Impact in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

The PDM program reduces the risk of natural hazards, which is where the preponderance of risk is in our country. While it is prudent to prepare for the possibility of terrorist attacks, the occurrence of natural disasters of all types and sizes is a known certainty. The flooding that is currently occurring in California, and the tornadoes that struck in my home state of Minnesota this summer, particularly in Wadena in my district, are examples of the tragic, real impact of natural disasters that occur in our nation every year.

Mitigation saves money. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and National Institute of Building Sciences show that for every dollar invested in PDM projects, future losses are reduced by three to four dollars. In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, an advisory body of the National Institute of Building Sciences, found ``that a dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4.'' Further, the Multihazard Mitigation Council found that flood mitigation measures yield even greater savings. According to a September 2007 CBO report on the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that is likely to result from the PDM program, ``on average, future losses are reduced by about $3 (measured in discounted present value) for each $1 spent on those projects, including both federal and nonfederal spending.''

While empirical data is critical, perhaps more telling are real-life mitigation ``success stories''. For instance, Seattle, Washington used Project Impact PDM grants to fortify buildings. Immediately after the Nisqually Earthquake struck Seattle on February 28, 2001, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and other public officials cited those PDM grants as one of the primary reasons that lives and property were saved during the earthquake. Ironically, the Mayor's statements came on the same day that the President George W. Bush Administration claimed that the Project Impact PDM pilot program should be defunded because it was not effective.

Another example of the effectiveness of mitigation comes from my district. On July 4, 1999, a derecho, also known as a blow down, struck the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and downed millions of trees. This created a huge fire hazard. As a result, FEMA mitigation funds were given to residents to install outdoor sprinkler systems to protect against wild fire. Unfortunately, in 2007, the Ham Lake Fire struck the area. Those structures that had sprinkler systems were protected from the fire. Since that time, communities in that area have sought and have been awarded more than $3 million of PDM funds to help protect other structures from this continuing risk of fire.

Mitigation is an investment. It is an investment that not only benefits the Federal Government, but State and local governments as well. Projects funded by the PDM program reduce the damage that would be paid for by the Federal Government for a major disaster under the Stafford Act. However, mitigation also reduces the risks from smaller, more frequent events that State and local governments face every day.

The PDM program takes citizens out of harm's way, by elevating a house or making sure a hospital can survive a hurricane or earthquake. In doing so, it allows first responders to focus on what is unpredictable in a disaster rather than on what is foreseeable and predictable.

H.R. 1746, as amended, eliminates the existing sunset in the program. As the evidence clearly shows, this program works well and is cost effective. It should no longer be treated as a pilot program with a sunset. Rather, State and local governments should have the certainty of knowing this program will be available in the future to enable them to focus their efforts on critical, long-term mitigation planning.

The Obama administration has specifically requested that Congress reauthorize the PDM program and this legislation has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, International Association of Emergency Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, and the American Public Works Association.

This bill passed the House more than a year and a half ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. The legislation passed the other body last night by unanimous consent. I would like to thank Senator Joseph Lieberman and Senator Susan M. Collins for their persistent efforts to clear this legislation through the other body.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1746, as amended, the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010''.

Madam Speaker, in my 44 years serving as a clerk, Administrator, Member, and finally Chairman of what is now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have had the opportunity to work with some of the finest staff on Capitol Hill.

Whether they are drafting legislation and managing hearings, or answering the phones and copying documents, each member of the staff makes a vital contribution to the success of the Committee.

As my term as Chairman comes to a close, I would like to take a few moments to recognize these dedicated professionals as they move on to new challenges and opportunities.

Stacie Soumbeniotis Tiongson has served on this Committee for over 11 years, first as the Staff Director of the Aviation Subcommittee and then as Deputy Chief Counsel of the full Committee. As Staff Director of the Subcommittee, Stacie was responsible for managing all legislation, hearings, markups and all other activities covering civil aviation. She has been intimately involved in the planning and drafting of several landmark aviation bills, including the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to secure our skies after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

During the last two years, as Deputy Chief Counsel, she participated in the oversight and management of all activities of the Committee and its six Subcommittees, focusing on issues related to highways, aviation, rail, Coast Guard, and economic development, as well as advising on legal and legislative issues regarding Committee jurisdiction.

I want to express my heartfelt thanks to Jen Walsh for her six years of service as Legislative Assistant to the Committee. Jen's keen intellect and professionalism, combined with her warmth and ever- present smile, have served me and all of the Committee members, both Democrats and Republicans, well over the years. I am especially grateful for her service as my liaison with the staff of the Democratic Members of the Committee. Jen has shown a remarkable ability to communicate complex subject matter in an understandable format to the Members, and has been invaluable in ensuring that all the Members and staff of the Committee are well prepared and informed to carry out the responsibilities for which we serve. She is a shining example of the hard-working professionals that serve, often thanklessly, behind-the- scenes to ensure that this Committee and this Congress are able to meet the needs of the Nation.

Bradley Watson has served with the Committee since the end of the 110th Congress. As a Staff Assistant, he has managed the front office with efficiency and professionalism. He has worked diligently in many areas under the Committee jurisdiction and has been a steadfast presence coordinating Committee mark-ups and hearings. Bradley has been a versatile contributor and his research and database abilities have served the Committee well.

Carson Gorecki, a fellow native of Minnesota, served as a Staff Assistant with the Full Committee during the end of this 111th Congress. Starting his career with the Committee as an intern, he was soon hired full-time. Over the course of his time here, he has developed a deep grasp and appreciation of transportation issues and legislation.

Carson played a key role in the production of the monthly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, material that I consider immensely helpful to me and other Members. His hard work and humor were both welcome additions to the staff, and I express my utmost gratitude for his contribution.

John-Paul C. Hayworth is an outstanding member of the Oversight and Investigations staff of the Committee. His integrity, energy, and innovative ideas have been a great asset to the Committee and to my work.

Mr. Hayworth's time on the staff has proven his zeal for public service. His responsibilities have enhanced his analytical skills to the benefit of us all. Recently, he concurrently assumed responsibilities with the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee. Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton and the staff of the Subcommittee have found him to be calm and collected, but always with a vibrant sense of humor and a smile, even in the unpredictable environment of the House.

Laurie Bertenthal has been a valued staff member of the Committee for nearly four years. Laurie started as a Staff Assistant for the Oversight and Investigations staff, where she supported groundbreaking Committee investigations, including problems with the U.S. Coast Guard's Deepwater Acquisition program, and Southwest Airlines' ``cozy'' relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration.

In 2008, Laurie became an integral member of the Aviation Subcommittee, first as Legislative Assistant, and progressed to Professional Staff. Laurie has worked on many important matters pertaining to reauthorization of the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board. Additionally, Laurie played a key role in the recently- enacted Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, P.L. 111-216. Laurie employed her strong research and legislative drafting skills to craft a provision that will create a pilot records database, which will allow airlines to efficiently access pilot applicant records and improve the safety of the flying public.

Jeff Schnobrich has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for two years, first as an intern, later with the full Committee staff, and finally as a Staff Assistant with the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Jeff has shown himself to be a detail-oriented, dedicated member of my staff. From the beginning, he showed an appreciation for the importance of an effective transportation system to the economic vitality of America. He soon became versed in the intricacies of both Federal transportation policy and Congressional procedures and processes. During his time, he helped lead the Committee's effort to establish a database of Member-designated projects, ensuring transparency and accountability. In all his tasks, he has been efficient, reliable, and a pleasure to work with. I thank Jeff for his years of service and wish him the best.

Rose M. Hamlin has been a stalwart on the Committee staff for 19 years.

She began her service with the Subcommittee on Water Resources where she established herself as a dedicated and effective office manager. In her years of working on the Committee, she concurrently worked on Public Buildings, Coast Guard, and Oversight and Investigations.

Ms. Hamlin is now the Office Manager of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. She has played an instrumental role in the passage of several key pieces of legislation, coordinated dozens of hearings and markups, and has ensured that I and members of the Committee staff remain up-to-date on issues under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Although his time with the Committee has been short, Lee Matsos has done an admirable job as Staff Assistant for the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Lee's strong background in writing and editing allowed him to contribute to the Committee's national media coverage and concisely summarize the critical weekly news within the Water Resources jurisdiction for the Committee Membership. Lee also served as an able point of contact for witnesses testifying at the Subcommittee's September 30th hearing on the Impact of Green Infrastructure.

In addition, Lee managed the database content and the filing of project requests for the expansive Water Resources Development Act of 2010. He connected constituents to the legislative staff in an eloquent and professional manner. It is clear that Lee has a bright future ahead of him, and we have been lucky to have him on our staff.

Madam Speaker, the essence of the legislative process is collaboration. Each individual member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure staff has played a vital role in the work of the Committee these past four years, and, through collaboration and hard work, has made this Committee the most productive on Capitol Hill.

I wish them all much success in whatever the future brings.