James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, our side has the right to close. I await the arguments on the part of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) raises a very serious matter, modifying the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement provisions in current law and the formula. The manner in which the gentleman proposes to do this is a little more complicated than I think is appropriate to resolve in amendment form on the floor. But I, in cooperation with the chairman of the full committee, believe we can work this out with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) as we proceed to conference. If the gentleman is inclined to withdraw the amendment, having given a very thoughtful discussion of it, I believe as we did last year in the effort to reach a bill which we ultimately did not, not for this reason but for other reasons, that we can work this matter out.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I said that at the very outset. I made it very clear we extended it through 2005. That was our understanding. That is what I thought was the agreement we reached and the compromise, that we would go through 2005. Then you just have a few more years until the next census, and then the issue would be resolved for all of the country and not just a few areas. So I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, certainly there is a concern among those metropolitan areas whose population has grown significantly since the 2000 Census, and they are seeking more flexibility for the use of funds on their Federal transit formula grant to use those dollars for operating assistance. But to extend the flexibility beyond the 5 years, as we have provided in TEA-LU, would undermine the statutory formulas. It might benefit some areas, the pending amendment might benefit some areas, but would inflict a fairness issue upon other areas, to indicate that statutory formula that we use to apportion funds using most recent census data is no longer applicable for a certain area. The amendment as offered would create confusion and would create unfairness among users, among other transit systems across the country.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a very strong case for the issue which he presents with this amendment, and we in the committee have worked with the gentleman and his staff to allow transit systems in urbanized areas to retain flexibility in the use of Federal transit formula funds, and I thought we had worked out throughout the development of TEA-LU the extension that the gentleman was seeking to extend the period of flexibility for urbanized areas to use Federal funds for operating assistance through this year, which is half the time before the next census. More than 50 urbanized areas have been eligible to use their transit grants for operating expenses, but apparently the gentleman wants to go further than we agreed in our internal deliberations and discussions, and I think that it goes beyond the agreement that we reached in committee. For that reason, I cannot support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, who could object to sound science, objective science? That is what science should be. But the thrust of this amendment is not in the words of the amendment. They are not going to get us to that point. The language says, in considering assessment of risks to human health and the environment, such an assessment, where an assessment concerns the evaluation of multiple studies, shall include the best available science and description of the weight of the scientific evidence. And further on, in subsection 2, a description of the weight. That is not objectivity. That is totally subjective. To start considering the weight of scientific evidence, that is not a scientific term in and of itself. So I am all for science and for good science, but this language is going to obfuscate the evaluation of risks and open the door of opportunity for more lawsuits over what is meant by weight, multiple studies, available science. I think this goes directly in the opposite direction of the purpose of the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. To push the idea of toll facilities in the direction of merging Federal highway trust fund dollars with toll dollars is just anathema to the whole concept of a publicly supported transportation network. We should not allow this type of initiative in tolling. If Members want to have tolls, do it the old-fashioned way and use the toll dollars and create Lexus lanes and create Mercedes lanes, but do not use the public dollars to merge with the toll facility dollars and create a severe disparity and discrimination against publicly built toll facilities. Remember the California example; that is what will happen here. We will have others of that nature. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. This amendment really crosses the line on tolling. I have always believed tolls are a bad idea, but if a State wants to do that and citizens want to subject themselves to toll facilities, that is their business. But on the interstate highway system, we have a very effective financing mechanism through the Highway Trust Fund and through the national highway system. Again, the Highway Trust Fund supports construction of needed transportation facilities. But to mix Federal funds with tolls is anathema to the idea of a publicly supported transportation system through our Highway Trust Fund and the user fee. I could understand if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) were advocating and others were advocating tolls and toll-only facilities. But to cross the line and mix Highway Trust Fund dollars with toll funds to encourage building of toll facilities to indirect competition with toll-free highways, just does not make any sense at all. In fact, there is an example in the State of California where a toll operator persuaded the State legislature to enact authority to build a toll facility but then prohibited the public sector from building additional capacity in the same corridor in the adjoining public roadway. The toll was built; it did not work. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. At the same time, the State was ready to build additional lanes on the public facility. The toll operator took the State to court and prevailed against building the publicly-free facility, so the State wound up buying the toll facility and building additional lanes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was considered be vacated and the vote be put anew.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. How much time remains for the gentleman from Texas?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that we will reach in every good faith a resolution to this matter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment. It is a delicate balance which we have reached, and we need to pass it now.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself 4 minutes. We have waited patiently for the gentleman to arrive, and recognize that he has, like all of us, many demands on his time. I am glad the gentleman is here to offer his amendment, and we understand the problems in this committee of Northern Virginia, which the gentleman so ably represents. In the fashioning of TEA-21, along with the gentleman's Senator, Senator Warner, and former Chairman Shuster, we supported the Wilson Bridge, which all of America contributed out of the Highway Trust Fund over $900 million. This is the only bridge of its kind in the country to get that kind of special consideration. We recognize, and I have watched the growth of toll facilities in the Dulles access corridor. I understand those problems that this growth-bedeviled area has had to cope with. However, there is a very serious problem here of low-income people living in an area distant from the job. My daughter worked at Jubilee Jobs in the Adams-Morgan area in D.C. placing people who came out of homeless shelters, people who had just been released from prison, people who, through, in many cases, no fault of their own, had just fallen through the welfare safety net. There were a number of jobs available for those people out at Dulles Airport, but they could not afford to drive. There is no public transportation for them to take to get out to Dulles Airport to match the person with the job. Their jobs went unanswered and people went jobless because of the cost of transportation. In Chicago, Chicago experienced white flight to the suburbs. The suburbs needed people to perform work in stores, in homes, in facilities, hospitals, and nursing homes; but the workers were in the city. Chicago initiated a welfare-to-work program to provide compensation for those who would still live in their neighborhoods in the city, but provide the jobs in the suburbs. For every thousand jobs in the suburbs a $10 million economic benefit resulted. Now, Chicago could set up a very simple process of matching the welfare workers, the welfare-level workers to the jobs and provide assistance to them. So can Virginia. So can other States. There is no need to say, oh, there is going to be a huge bureaucracy created. It is a very simple process. A person comes in and shows their immediate basis and applies for the assistance, applies for whatever designation is required, the FAST pass or the designation to get through the toll facility. It does not cost anything additional. And if there is a derogation of dollars to the toll facility, then the State in the public interest can make that up. All we are saying in the legislation pending is that low-income people pay a higher percentage of their household income for transportation than other income groups, and tolling facilities should not drive people out of the job marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings by which a recorded vote was requested on the Barton amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman, expressed it very well. We are on the brink of a new era in transportation, with a substantially increased investment in transportation. It is and will be, as the title of this bill describes, transportation equity and a legacy for users, a legacy of a substantially increased investment in surface transportation; highways, bridges, and safety, over $6 billion, over the next years of this legislation. There is substantial investment in transit, the fastest growing segment of transportation over the last 5 years, adding 1 million new riders a day in transit systems. New innovations, truck lanes that the chairman has strongly advocated will be part of this legislation; increased funding for ferry service, to take more pressure off our roads. The environmental provisions of this provision are far-reaching, forward-looking, and visionary. We have a good beginning on this legacy for users of our transportation system, properly named. In coming to this point, I, of course, want to thank our chairman, as I have done at the outset, for his leadership and standing firmly for the $375 billion we truly ought to be investing in transportation, but with the opener we have the opportunity to come back and do this again. And also thank you to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and my very good friend and partner, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit & Pipelines. Also our committee staff on both sides have worked tirelessly and selflessly toward this objective: Dave Heymsfeld, Ward McCarragher, Kathie Zern, Dara Schlieker, and Jen Walsh. Ken House, Art Chan, Stephanie Manning, and Eric Van Schyndle, who spent an enormous amount of time on the Member high-priority projects. Beth Goldstein, and from the staff of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) Kathie Dedrick. We have also had unsung heroes and heroines: our unpaid interns Lauren Reed and Homer Carlisle. The Legislative Counsel's office: Dave Mendelsohn, who I have known for years and who is a fount of knowledge on the crafting of the right legislative language; Curt Haensel and Rosemary Gallagher. And Susan Binder and Ross Chrichton from the Federal Highway Administration. That old African adage that it takes a village to raise a family, well, it really took a village of staff, of Members, of support, of participation by the leadership to produce this child, this Transportation Equity Act, this Legacy For Users. Let us move forward to make this the Transportation Century.