I rise in support of the amendment. It does not add cost. It does not add any burden on the process, but it does add an element of review in the evaluation of these plans and that is to take into consideration sea level rise that's already happening on our sea coasts, on our salt water coasts. And the addition of this factor, I think, will make all of the planners sensitive to the effects, the erosions, shore line erosion effects of rise of water levels and their consequential effects on the health of the estuaries. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker supports an amendment addressing sea level rise in planning evaluations.
Share
More from James Oberstar
I completely agree with the gentleman. As the gentleman from Florida and I discussed in our hearing yesterday, the purpose of the trust fund is not to relieve anyone of responsibility. I was part of crafting that legislation in 1990 and…
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 is a bill this committee has worked on for the past 4 years, actually 6 years, starting in the time of the Republican majority, when our committee was united, our committee was unified behind this…
I would just conclude that it's inappropriate for us to impose this penalty on the FAA through the appropriation process. A much more appropriate way would be to deal with it through our committee. I commit to the gentleman that we will…
An orphan site is one of the issues to be addressed, as we do under the Superfund Act. Yet the order of priority for response under the law, its first responsibility, is for the responsible party to act to the limit of its liability under…





