Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my State is unique. We actually have a weight mile formula we charge to the trucking industry. Federally, when I first served here, the industry tried to preempt it a number of times and never did. It is now widely recognized as one of the fairer systems in the States because it apportions according to scientifically based research, much of it done at Oregon State University in the labs there, the impacts of individual vehicles. In this case, DOT says that these vehicles would cause an additional $6,000-per-vehicle per-year damage on the Federal system, and they would be charged $200. I don't think that is a fair return to the taxpayer, and I urge Members to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this evening, an amendment was defeated to go to 90,000 pounds. This would go to 95,000. At least the amendment on 90,000 had an additional axle, which made it compliant with the Federal bridge formula that is not causing undue damage every time a truck went over a bridge. This amendment does not require an additional axle and goes even 5,000 pounds higher. So it would violate the Federal Bridge Formula, and Federal Highway says that it has estimated that a truck at this weight with the number of axles they have is currently paying about 43 percent of the cost of the damage they cause to the system, and that is an underpayment of about $6,000 a year. The bill does allow them to be charged another $200 a year, but that is a pretty big deficit with an already substantially deteriorated system. Raising truck weights is always a very controversial and difficult proposition because we have to look out for the taxpayers in terms of undue wear and tear to an already fragile and deteriorated system. 140,000 bridges, as we mentioned numerous times already, need repair or replacement, and, unfortunately, I believe this would accelerate that problem. So I appreciate the gentleman's advocacy for a significant industry in his district, but I would have to oppose that increase. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the base bill, we have included measures to encourage States to build smart or right-size projects for practical design, and this amendment complements those efforts. Specifically, it mentions the use of geosynthetic materials, which the Federal Highway Administration has been promoting to speed up and reduce the cost of bridge construction as part of its Every Day Counts initiative. Use of geosynthetic fabrics to reinforce soil can reduce erosion at the point where bridge and road meet, which reduces maintenance costs and provides environmental benefits. All of these approaches help ensure that we are able to stretch the limited dollars we have to make meaningful improvements to our roads and bridges. It is a meritorious amendment by the gentleman. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really appreciate the gentleman's work here in pointing out the problem with our bridges, not just in New York, but nationwide, 147,000 deficient bridges. In fact, as one of the few Democrats who opposed the so-called stimulus bill, I said at the time we would have been better served had we invested that money in projects, real projects, as opposed to tax cuts. One thing I suggested was how about a plan to rebuild all of the deficient bridges in America, put a million or so people to work, and solve a long-term problem. That wasn't to be, but this brings new focus to the issue, and, hopefully, we will get around to dealing with this issue in the near future with the information to be gleaned from this report. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the two gentlemen involved for noting this deficiency in the rule. It is inexplicable to me that, although they certainly noted the need in the new design to have a protective housing around the pressure relief valve so they wouldn't shear off in a rollover accident, they did not extend that to retrofitted cars. This amendment ensures that they will meet those stronger standards. I think this amendment has tremendous merit. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the Democratic sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and both its objectives, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects, under section 1111 of the rules, and the National Scenic Areas. I am quite familiar with the area mentioned by Representative Walden and the very scenic $1 tolled one-way Bridge of the Gods. It is a critical link. If it is not repaired or replaced, it is quite a long drive in either direction. This eligibility is potentially critical to getting Federal partnership in that project. There are other areas around the country which suffer from similar problems. I recommend this amendment to my colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition so I may comment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation disagrees. We sent this language to them, and they said, yes, it appears, by repealing 23 USC 319, the amendment would remove the Secretary's authority to approve, as part of the construction of Federal aid highways, the costs of landscape and roadside development, including acquisition and development of publicly owned and controlled rest and recreation areas and sanitary and other facilities reasonably necessary to accommodate the traveling public. So I am pleased that it was not her intention. But, according to DOT, this amendment would do that, and that would be very deleterious to the traveling public. So I would oppose the amendment, as drafted. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the condition of our bridges, and I have spent, as I spoke earlier tonight, a lot of time on that issue and, in fact, opposed the so- called stimulus bill because of the lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly bridges. But in this case, I think perhaps there are some drafting errors in the amendment because it would preclude using these funds for rest areas, which I think is problematic. We have a crisis in terms of safe places for people to pull over, both commercial truck drivers and individuals. So I assume that the gentlewoman did not mean to preclude the use for rest areas. Also, I don't know Missouri well, but I know in the West, actually, we have used these landscaping funds when we do new construction or significant construction to reduce maintenance costs because we have high wildfire danger in the West and, if you can plant, basically, natives that will dominate, that are not tall, are not fire-prone, then you don't have to go in and mow two or three times a year in case some idiot throws their cigarette or cigar out of the car and starts a catastrophic forest fire. So, actually, leaving the discretion to the States to use these funds in that way, depending upon their conditions, I think is important. There have been a couple of instances in past bills where they went overboard with this kind of stuff. I think the current restrictions on the program are such--and there is no mandate for the projects like resurfacing or anything else that is new construction. And doing it, as appropriate, to state ``and including rest areas.'' I think, because of all those things, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I consume. I actually rise in support of the amendment, and I particularly want to congratulate my colleague, Dan Lipinski, who serves on both the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his work on this amendment. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I would suggest that I would like to continue the discussion. I think there are different conditions. Certainly if a developer buys a large tract of land next to an existing interstate and then expects the taxpayers to pay for sound protection, that is not right. But I think there are cases where you have found that a lot of interstates were built in areas where there wasn't a lot of traffic. The houses have been there for quite some time, and now the traffic has grown phenomenally, particularly truck traffic and things that create more noise. I think there may be a way to do it in certain circumstances where it is merited, where it isn't due to new development but due to growth and traffic and noise and that. I don't know if the chairman has considered that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment as it is unnecessary and, actually, time consuming, given the environmental streamlining in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I agree that regulations often need scrutiny and revision and sometimes elimination, but this bill undertakes a good deal of streamlining, both in the environmental area and in other processes. So, if we were to go down the road of a study looking at these programs, I would say a study that is a little broader, which would look at both the costs and benefits of regulation, would be useful. I don't think this one-sided study would be particularly useful. If we want to understand the purchasing power of our highway dollars, we only need to look at the fact that Congress has failed to increase the gas tax since 1993, during which time the purchasing power, due to inflation and construction costs, has diminished by a good 40 percent or more. Whether or not we will be allowed to take action on significant revenues under this bill is still being deliberated upstairs in the Rules Committee with amendments that might or might not be allowed to be offered. I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. I think that this will help provide us with more factual knowledge in terms of looking at any future changes as might relate to these sorts of buses and also will provide useful information to consumers. I think it is very well thought out, and I congratulate the gentleman. I urge support of the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.