James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment which simply clarifies, first, that where a commuter railroad shares a facility with Amtrak, the two railroads are subject to the same compliance date under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the second deals with the request by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] to transfer property that the Federal Railroad Administration has at its test center in Pueblo, CO, to the State of Florida for use by the State. The Federal Railroad Administration does not need this test equipment any further. The State of Florida wishes to do so. There is a reversion clause that if the State does not use this equipment, it can be returned to the Federal Railroad Administration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act of 1995, which our chairman has already so ably described, despite his obvious hoarseness of voice, and unusual hoarseness of voice. I hope he recovers soon. I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for the splendid job of managing this legislation through a very rocky time of overcoming some very complex questions, and the gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the subcommittee, along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], our ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Railroads for most of this year, and our current ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. Clearly it was the gentleman from Illinois who bore the burden of the day throughout these many months of negotiation to bring this legislation to its present point. I really compliment the gentleman from Illinois for his persistence for bringing all the parties together, plumbing the depths of these issues, and ultimately bringing us to a point where we could have this bill under consideration on the floor today with these issues largely resolved, because America does need a comprehensive passenger transportation system, one that is truly intermodal, that respects the contributions that each mode of transportation brings to our national picture: highways that give us universal access to anywhere in America; airlines that offer rapid service to any part of this country where surface transportation might take many hours or even days or weeks; water ferries that play a crucial role in areas like Puget Sound and Alaska where people live on islands, and places that are difficult to access except by water. We rely mostly on these modes for our passenger transportation, but they are not without their limitations. For example, virtually every other mode of transportation uses enormous amounts of energy. That consumption of energy has adverse environmental impact. Or, for many people, owning a car or taking a plane is too expensive. In some transportation corridors we already have five highway lanes in each direction, and those lanes are seriously congested. I was astonished myself to be visiting my brother in San Diego and driving up toward Los Angeles with an endless wall-to-wall, as far as the eye could see and as wide as the eye can look in either direction, headlights on one side and red lights on the other side, jammed with people traveling, congested, late at night. It is impractical in those areas to build more highways. Our air service in many parts of this country moves through air corridors that equally are congested. It is extremely difficult to overcome the environmental objections or to raise the money necessary to build new airports or even, in some cases, to build new runways at existing airports. Enter Amtrak. Enter passenger rail, a crucial role where other modes face their greatest limitations, especially in our high density transportation corridors, like New York to Washington, Chicago to Detroit, San Diego to Los Angeles. That is where Amtrak provides the relief and serves as a pressure relief valve for pressures that otherwise would jam our highways and our Airways unconscionably. Think of Logan Airport in Boston, seriously congested. Forty percent of the traffic in and out of Logan is trips to New York City. It would be extremely difficult to find the land, clear the environmental hurdles to build a new airport in the Boston metropolitan area, certainly at least until tilt rotor technology is perfected and commercialized, and we can build vertiports that take up land about the size of this Chamber. We are not there yet, and we are not there for another 20 years. Think of Denver, CO. Denver was thought at the time to be a relatively simple case, build a new airport on an empty prairie space, and yet cost overruns, delays, complications, difficulties, and then the resulting increased cost to airlines in landing fees for this new $5-plus billion airport. How much more difficult would it be in the congested suburbs of the District which my friend, the gentleman from Chicago, represents, to build a new airport? Unthinkable. So for much smaller amounts of money and with a much smaller environmental impact, we can have passenger rail service. We can, in fact, on existing lines with some improvements improve those lines to accommodate high-speed rail travel that would allow people now crowding our highways and our airways to move quickly and comfortably by rail, as they do in France. I would just like to take the example. During my years as a student at the College of Europe in Belgium, I traveled in 1957 from Paris to southeastern France, Lyons, the second largest city, in 4\1/2\ hours on an old steam-powered locomotive. Fifteen years later, I traveled the same route, same rail route, now with a diesel locomotive, 4\1/2\ hours. In 1989, as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, with a bipartisan delegation, we traveled that same route on a high-speed train in 2 hours and 1 minute; 2 hours and 1 minute, traveling 186 miles an hour. Now, in 1980, 2 million people took the train from Paris to Lyons; a million flew. Now, 5 million people take the train from Paris to Lyons, and only 5,000 fly that same route. That is dramatic. The French, of course, have expanded high-speed rail service, so now they have 225- mile-an-hour speed trains traveling in many routes throughout France and in Spain and from Spain to France. We ought to be able to do the same thing in America. We ought to keep Amtrak alive, and we ought to keep it competitive and public, and we ought to support rail transportation, our passenger rail transportation system now so that, in the future, we can at least do as much as our European allies have done, at least as much as the Japanese have done in their country with high-speed trains. Mr. Chairman, if you live in towns like Staples, MN, in the western part of my State, or in Meridian, MI, Amtrak is the only public transportation available. For people that do not drive and who do not own a car, as my father never owned a car, and he said, if you cannot walk there or take a train or take a bus, you do not deserve to go there. That was the way of transportation. We ought to recognize the savings in economics, we ought to recognize the savings to our environment and support Amtrak, maintain this base so that we have something to build on as the need for a modern, high- speed rail transportation system becomes more evident or as such a system is thrust upon us by some future energy crisis, when we will find ourselves all on the Nation's highways, sitting there behind our wheels, run out of gas, grasping our steering wheels and wondering how are we going to get where we want to go. Then we will say, why did somebody not have the wisdom to protect passenger rail service? The enterprise we are about today in this legislation will preserve that base, maintain our passenger rail system network and allow us to build upon it for the future. Mr. Chairman, I now ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] for him to control for our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes on our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the reduction in budget authority is $7.6 million.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, yes, that is budget authority. Appropriations, or actual outlays, could be substantially less than that, or they could be the same amount.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I just wanted to get an understanding of where we are.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman on his vision of transportation and his understanding of the interrelationships of short line rail service and small town economics. That is what we are talking about. The gentleman painted it in very graphic terms. Also his larger vision of high speed rail service, which I addressed in my opening remarks on the bill today. I just want to compliment the gentleman and associate myself with his observations.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again I urge support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have a technical inquiry on the chairman's technical amendment. Can the gentleman tell us what the resulting outlays will be with this reduction in budget authority?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York brings to us an amendment that just makes a lot of practical sense. It is an amendment that addresses an issue regional in nature. It does not apply to the rest of the United States, but it is of intense local interest and importance. Conrail has an agreement with Amtrak under which Conrail has exclusive right to provide freight service on Amtrak's tracks in the Northeast corridor. Conrail is not using that authority to provide freight service to New York and parts of Connecticut and southern New England. The amendment of the gentleman from New York would permit, it would not require, Amtrak to grant rates to other freight carriers when consistent with safety and when consistent with the needs of passenger service. Conrail has written in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, making the thrust of its argument a safety concern. But the gentleman's amendment says very clearly that Amtrak may grant rights to other freight carriers when such grant of authority is consistent with safety and when it is consistent with the needs of Amtrak's own requirement to provide passenger service. This is not a mandate, this is not a requirement. It is permissive authority. Why Conrail would be opposed to that is beyond me. The main argument the gentleman from New York makes is that improved service to New York City and Connecticut will result if Amtrak has authority to grant rights to other freight railroads to use that corridor. Now, the Federal Government has invested already substantial sums of money in improving the Northeast corridor where portions of that corridor are going unused because of monopoly rights held by Conrail. The gentleman would not, I know, have offered this amendment if it would abrogate an agreement between private parties. As he has already pointed out, this really is an agreement between two arms of the Federal Government. In fact, two branches within the same department of the Federal Government. It makes sense. It is permissive authority. It will offer an opportunity for improved service and use of now unused track authority. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, admittedly we had not had time in advance, before consideration of the bill, to examine this issue. It has been raised just prior to coming to floor consideration of the bill. But on the merits, on just an analysis of the limitation in the bill, it strikes me that the bill limits noneconomic damages in the following way. If a person of some means suffers lost income of, say, $1 million, that person can collect the $1 million plus up to $1,250,000 for pain and suffering, whatever that person can prove in court. On the other hand, if a child is injured in an accident, say from a family of lesser means, that child would have no lost income. The child's noneconomic damages, that is, those for pain and suffering, would be limited to $250,000. On the one hand, why would you allow a person of substantial means, a wealthy person, to collect $1 million plus $1,250,500 and limit a child to $250,000? Why, on the other hand, would you tie pain and suffering to economic damages? They have no relationship one to the other. Most of those matters anyhow are covered by the insurance that the railroads cover. Of course, they are going to have an increase, should they have a rash of accidents, an increase in their insurance costs, but that is a separate matter. It just strikes me that in dealing with problems of Amtrak, that we should not go beyond and get into tort law limitations. There is an element of fairness that we ought to address and that the gentlewoman's amendment certainly does address. Furthermore, the bill does protect freight railroads by requiring-- they expect agreements of Amtrak to indemnify the railroads for damages for Amtrak passenger operation injuries. So I think there is plenty of protection in this legislation for the freight railroads, but it is the passenger that comes up short. Regrettably, this is an issue we did not sufficiently address prior to coming to the House floor. It is now being addressed, and I think it should be. I think the gentlewoman's amendment should pass.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman from Ohio really is justifiably known in this Congress as Mr. Buy-American, and he constantly raises the consciousness of this body to the needs of protecting the American workplace against unfair practices from our foreign competitors. The instance in which the gentleman addresses us today is one such example of unfair competition from abroad. The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight during the years when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and I were working together on those matters, held hearings on the Buy American Act as it applied to rail, intracity rail transit systems, Corps of Engineers, and the highway program. We found that the Federal Highway Administration was 100 percent in compliance with the Buy American Act. All the steel going into our highways was American steel. The Corps of Engineers was about 90 percent. We brought them into compliance. Horrible was the Urban Mass Transit Administration, overlooking, turning the other way, not enforcing the existing law. As a result, we have lost capacity which has flown overseas, and foreign manufacturers have now changed the standards which American manufacturers invented and created, and now they cannot compete because they cannot comply. The gentleman's amendment will put us back on track toward compliance and toward competitiveness again. I compliment the gentleman for raising this issue and bringing this amendment to us. I support the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, too, rise in support of the Clement amendment. The problem that it addresses is that of rehabilitation of branch lines in rural areas, and it addresses that problem in a very reasonable, responsible, thoughtful way by providing financing mechanisms that would make it possible through loan guarantee programs to lower the interest rate and provide a penalty-free prepayment period after 5 years, empower the Secretary of Transportation to waive collateral requirements. Those are financial impediments to investment in those branch lines that are so important to service in rural areas. Believe me, I know. I have got a rural district, and we need this kind of service, and I think the amendment comes too late for most of my district. Those branch lines were abandoned a long time ago. Had we had such language 20 years ago, many small towns in the 8th District of Minnesota and elsewhere in the State of Minnesota would still be competitive economically because they would have branch line rail service. I commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. I commend the gentleman from Illinois for working it out, and I appreciate the support of the chairman of our committee on this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the gentleman's request. Mr. Speaker, I first want to take this opportunity to thank all of the conferees, particularly my good friend from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, my distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and all of our committee members for their long, hard work on this important legislation. All have worked hard to make the necessary compromises to move this critical legislation forward on a bipartisan basis. The result of all of our efforts is a better conference report. Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the conference report that we consider today designates the National Highway System, or NHS. The NHS is the backbone of our Nation's transportation system. It consists of 161,000 miles of Interstate highways and other heavily traveled roads. Although the NHS comprises only four percent of our Nation's total highway mileage, 9 out of 10 Americans live within 5 miles of an NHS road and it carries 40 percent of all highway travel and 75 percent of all trucking commerce. With passage of this conference report and designation of the NHS, $5.4 billion of critical transportation funds will now be released to the States. In the next fiscal year, an additional $6.5 billion of NHS funds will be distributed nationwide. At a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, this legislation provides critical funds for badly needed transportation projects. Mr. Speaker, the conference report also includes several other important changes to the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and other transportation laws. It provides additional funding through rescissions to address the section 1003 budget problem, [[Page H 13320]] authorizes funds for the National Driver Register and the National Recreational Trails programs, and withholds funds from States that do not prohibit underage drinking and driving by adopting a zero-tolerance law. While this Conference Report does take these positive steps and others, I nevertheless have grave reservations about several controversial anti-safety provisions also included in the legislation. These provisions eliminate important Federal safety standards, including speed limits and motorcycle helmet requirements. I know that in the 104th Congress there is a strong desire to turn safety responsibilities over to the States; however, our highway system is a national system. The highways we fund for the National Highway System are widely used by drivers who do not live in the State in which the highway is located. We at the national level bear a substantial responsibility for what happens on America's highways. We impose the taxes that fund the construction of these highways and we set the conditions under which the National Highway System is constructed and operated. We should not step away from our responsibility of ensuring that those very same highways are safe. Unfortunately the conference has decided to eliminate important Federal safety standards which have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Regrettably, the conference report repeals the national speed limit which the National Academy of Sciences estimates has saved 40,000 to 80,000 lives in the past two decades. The conference report allows States to have no speed limit at all, if they so choose. In fact, in nine states the speed limit repealer will automatically result in higher speed limits, increasing in some States to 70 miles per hour, in others to 75, and in one State to no speed limit at all. Although today's cars are much safer than those of 20 years ago, it is people, and not cars, who cause accidents, and no matter what is said, speed kills. Speed is already a contributing factor in one-third of all fatal highway crashes, killing about 1,000 Americans every month and costing the Nation a staggering $24 billion each year. This speed limit repealer will result in more Americans killed and taxpayer dollars wasted. The Department of Transportation estimates that the speed limit repeal included in this conference agreement will kill an additional 6,400 Americans each year, at an additional cost of nearly $20 billion annually. This legislation also terminates an important safety program which encourages States to enact motorcycle helmet laws. Again, the data show that, without question, motorcycle helmets help prevent deaths and serious head injuries. Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes, and an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury than one who wears a helmet, and more than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to riders. When 27 States previously repealed or weakened their helmet laws, the increase in motorcycle fatalities was four times the increased rate of motorcycle registrations. Those States that have helmet laws show 20 to 40 percent lower fatality rates than States that do not have helmet laws. That 20 to 40 percent lower fatality rate means that, in those States without helmet laws, we could have saved 350 to 700 lives. I strongly support continuation of a Federal law which can save that many lives. I cannot accept the argument that if you wear a helmet, the helmet is likely to contribute to an accident. In 900 motorcycle accidents investigated in the city of Los Angeles, 40 percent of the riders were helmeted; in none of these cases did the helmet contribute to the accident by restricting the hearing or vision of the rider. Helmets reduce injury severity; they reduce the likelihood of death. When you are pitched from a motorcycle or from a bicycle, the probability is that your head goes down first. I know; I have had an accident riding a bicycle. A car pulling illegally from a curb and headed in the wrong direction came toward my bike, smacked me at 20 miles an hour. I went right into the windshield of the automobile and shattered the windshield with my head, but I was wearing a helmet. It not only saved my life but saved me from severe, possibly disabling injury. I think everybody who rides a motorcycle or a bicycle ought to, in the name of common sense, wear a helmet. More so, in the name of all those who love them, all those who are in their family, all those who are in their community, and all those who are going to pay the bills if they wind up a permanent disabled case. I am also deeply concerned with those provisions of the conference report which depart from uniform commercial motor vehicle and driver safety standards by waiving key safety regulations for several groups. Under the conference report, weekly on-duty time limits are waived for drivers who transport water well drilling rigs, transport construction materials and equipment, operate utility service vehicles, or deliver home heating oil, the latter being a provision which was not in either bill. In addition, under the conference report, no maximum driving or on-duty time limits would apply to drivers who transport agricultural commodities or farm supplies during planting and harvesting seasons. Many snowplow operators would be exempt from the requirement to obtain a commercial driver's license for operating vehicles that weigh more than 26,000 pounds. The conference report also creates a program encouraging DOT to waive additional safety regulations for commercial vehicles weighing less than 26,000 pounds. Mr. Speaker, we need uniform safety standards, not waivers for special interests. This report opens floodgates that will not be easily closed. As soon as one group gets an exemption, other groups will argue that they should have similar exemptions. Moreover, these waivers are a significant departure from the long- term effort to create uniform commercial motor vehicle and driver safety regulations. The public cares little about whether a truck transports agricultural supplies or home heating oil or any other commodity, intrastate or interstate. The public has consistently indicated that as far as they are concerned, a truck is a truck and all trucks should operate safely. In addition, an administrative process already exists whereby DOT, the agency we created to ensure safety, may waive regulations, if such a waiver would be consistent with safety. The fact is that the groups that requested the waivers in the conference report could not convince DOT that they would be safe. That's why they came to Congress. Finally, DOT is currently in the midst of millions of dollars of research on the very complex topic of driver fatigue. The bulk of the research will be complete by 1996. We should not grant blanket statutory waivers without considering the results of these studies. Mr. Speaker, again, these provisions will seriously threaten our Nation's highway safety. While I endorse the conference report overall, there are numerous antisafety provisions in it which I cannot and will not support. In that regard, I do want to call attention to a provision of this legislation which I developed to ensure that we will have the ability to oversee the effects of the safety cutbacks. Under my amendment, the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with any State that raises its speed limit, will study the costs to the State of death and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes, and the benefits, if any, associated with the repeal of the national speed limit. The Secretary's report will include information on the costs of motor vehicle crashes both before and after any change in the speed limit. It will determine whether these crashes are caused by excess speed, the use of alcohol, or other safety factors, and whether seat belts and motorcycle helmets were used by those involved in the crashes. In this way, within 2 years, we can review what we've done. I hope that my fears of growing numbers of highway fatalities and injuries are unfounded. If they are not--and this study will address this--we can revisit these issues and make the changes needed to save American lives. Again, although I am seriously troubled by the antisafety provisions of this legislation, I believe that this legislation to develop America's highways should go forward. I will vote in support of the conference report.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report on the Senate bill, S. 440.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas would change a law that took effect only 10 months ago. It would jeopardize timely enactment of the legislation before us. Mr. Chairman, we think on our side that it is an issue without a problem. We have had no testimony on the subject matter. So I would really appreciate if the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and both sides would work together to address the concerns of the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw by reservation of objection.