James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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 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 myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I affirm my willingness to work with the gentleman and the chairman to resolve this matter as we proceed to conference on withdrawal of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to George Aste, and to commend him for his dedication to the U.S. and international aviation industry. George Aste has been a leading figure in aviation for more than 40 years. He has held senior positions at United Airlines and Trans World Airlines, has advised American Airlines, and has participated in many U.S. international aviation matters for the last three decades. The Air Transport Association recently acknowledged Mr. Aste for his exemplary service to the U.S. aviation industry. I would like to include ATA's resolution honoring Mr. Aste for his many years of dedication and leadership for the Record. Be it hereby Resolved that the Air Transport Association Board of Directors commend George Aste for a lifetime commitment to the goals of commercial aviation both domestically and internationally. For over forty years George Aste has been a leading figure in U.S. Aviation, holding executive positions at United Airlines and Trans World Airlines, continuing as a senior advisor to American Airlines. He has participated in virtually all major U.S. international aviation matters for the last three decades. Over the years, Mr. Aste has worked closely with U.S. Government agencies, as well as the U.S. Congress and State, City and local government officials throughout the country. He also dealt directly with many foreign government officials on international aviation matters. Mr. Aste has dedicated much of his long illustrious career to the expansion and liberalization of international operations for U.S. air carriers. Throughout, Mr. Aste has earned the respect of his colleagues for his extraordinary knowledge, unswerving honesty and boundless good cheer. Therefore, the Air Transport Association wishes to commend and congratulate George Aste for his dedication to furthering U.S. Commercial aviation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is a very specious argument that we have before us. The rental company has insurance, so that makes everything fine, except that the amendment relieves the rental company of the liability on their insurance, except in the case of negligence. That does not make any sense whatever. If I have a vehicle and allow someone else to use that vehicle and that person has an accident, I am the one that is liable. Why should a car rental company be any different than the individual? The answer is they have got a good lobby and they are lobbying for this amendment. They are lobbying to free themselves of responsibility and liability. That is not right. States have different rules. What is wrong with respecting State rules? States have adopted a policy that has concluded that without the kind of protection the gentleman would like to remove, harm to innocent children, harm to bystanders, would go totally uncompensated, even if the rental car company leased the vehicle to an obvious drug abuser or to someone who has a history of a very bad driving record. That is wrong. We should not be in the business of wholesale removal of liability for responsibility.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I urge my colleagues to resist the siren call of tolls. It all sounds so simple: We will add more lanes; we will add more concrete and asphalt if all you will let us do is impose a toll on it. The very first tolling facility in the western world, apart from that in ancient India, was King Edward III in England who allowed one of his knights the authority to build a bridge over the Thames in exchange for charging a fee to cross that bridge. It was to be temporary to cover the cost of the bridge. Four hundred years later, the British Parliament removed the toll from that bridge. Tolls just do not go away. Once you put them on, they are there forever. To toll the interstate that we have already paid for is an insult to the drivers of this country. This is the wrong thing to do. We have provided reasonable tolling in this bill that is pending before us. It is sensible, but to go in this direction would impose tolls on those who can least afford it, would have widespread tolling on the interstate for which we have already paid. It does not guarantee that States will not contract away their right to build other roads in proximity to toll roads as happened in California. They got sued by the tolling authority. This is the wrong thing to do. We have got a reasonable bill. What we really need, and I would invite my dear friend and good colleague from Minnesota, support the $375 billion bill that this committee introduced. That is the way to get more concrete and asphalt poured on America's roadways. Defeat the tolling amendment.

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, I rise in support of the Cox-Moran amendment that does protect owners of motor vehicles from predatory towing practices as both gentlemen have explained.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is certainly well-intentioned in his purpose of adding to our fund of surface transportation capacity, but this is the wrong way to do it. Toll is spelled T-A-X. And this proposition is opposed by AASHTO, by tolling authorities, and by various environmental organizations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is true that other States have the right to operate longer-length vehicles. They were grandfathered in in 1991. I like being a grandfather but of very small children, not of very large trucks. Had I been in the leadership position in 1991, I did oppose it, I did object to it, but I was not in a leadership position to stop it, and we would have stopped it. This is not a good move. This is not in the public interest. The adjoining States ought not to have longer vehicles; and if this amendment is done, then we might as well just throw the motor carrier safety rules away and let everybody drive longer vehicles, heavier vehicles at any time of the year and see further endangerment of safety on the roadways. This well-intentioned amendment, it is certainly initiated by farmers who feel they are going to be able to move their goods to market at lower cost, more efficiently, but at great risk to life and to the public safety. So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Kansas is a very distinguished and decent and a well-thinking member of our committee. He has offered many thoughtful amendments. We have on the committee worked together to respect the unique needs in agriculture during planting time, harvest time, within a reasonable distance of the point of production and endpoint of distribution. The purpose of the language in the committee bill was to ensure that products grown and harvested get from the farm to market in timely fashion. I understand that. I have got large sectors of my congressional district that are intensely agricultural. We want that corn and soybeans to get to market in timely fashion. But in yielding a yard to the industry, they now want the whole ball field. The amendment goes way beyond what we understood. They are including processed products, processed foods, beverages. I asked the Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Safety Administration to tell me what is included, how many additional carriers? Forty-two thousand. What is the driving record of the carriers who would be covered by this amendment? They say they have a crash rate 20 percent higher than current agriculture exemption carriers. If we just limited this to the current agricultural sector provided in the exemption in our bill, we are fine with that, but this goes far beyond what is reasonable and responsible, whether intentioned or unintentioned. It is an assault upon safety in the form presented. I cannot accept it. We might find a way to work additionally with dropping out some of these pieces as we go forward in the manager's amendment or in conference, but in its current form, unless the gentleman chooses to withdraw it, I cannot accept it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the statements made by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, very thoughtful presentation; but I just remind colleagues that when Congress enacted ISTEA in 1991, the legislation froze size and weight of large trucks, commercial motor vehicles. That is almost 14 years in the gentleman's State. CMVs can operate at a length of 65 feet. This amendment would raise it to 81 feet 6 inches. The original rationale was to allow custom harvesters, those who have unique requirements, unique needs. I represent an agricultural area among the great diversity of my district, and there we do not have wheat but do have soybeans and corn. The idea was to allow the harvester to pull a combine and header, that is in the words of the amendment, exclusively in harvesting the wheat. Now we see his amendment and it creeps, wheat, soybeans and milo. Each of these crops has different harvest times. So, if the length exemption is adopted, we will have these exemptions in place for much of the year. They have had 14 years of working with this. This is the first time the issue has come before the committee. I do not understand what the need is except that they want to do it, but the language would allow these vehicles to operate basically on any route in Nebraska with a State or U.S. Route shield language. That is serious. That is placing serious safety problems on the Nation's roadway. Try to pass one of those vehicles in a VW or Ford Pinto, if you still have one, or any other small vehicle. It is nerve-wracking and dangerous. I have tried it and I do not think it is safe; and as the figures show, 5,000 people a year die in car-truck crashes. We should not open the floodgates for rollback of a critical safety provision now in the regulatory process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, in contrast to the previous amendment, which is somewhat technical and which I do believe we can work out an understanding as we come to a deeper grasp of the concerns of the offeror of the previous amendment, this is not a simple technical correction. This is a serious assault on the motor carrier safety rule. It goes beyond simply seasonal exemptions. As we worked our way through the bill last year and again this year, we came to agreements on this hours of service issue. And we worked out language in H.R. 3 that provides exemption for 28,000 carriers. The pending amendment would include live animals, live fish, animal feed, products of animal origin, meat, fish, seafood, tobacco products, meat, logs, livestock, lumber products, processed food, beverages, 42,000 exemptions, 42,000 carriers who no longer would have to abide by the hours of services rules, within a 100 air-mile radius. There is no justification for that. This is a quantitative and dangerously quantitative departure from the committee agreement, and must not be accepted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I am the only speaker. If the gentleman wishes to conclude his amendment, I will make the closing remarks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that and give him my word and the chairman my word that we will work together and understand his concerns better, in more depth, and find a way to come to a resolution.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that hopeful note. We are creeping in the right direction, at least.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding but, more importantly, I commend her and acknowledge her courageous leadership in being such a strong and consistent advocate for passenger rail service as our senior member and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. America is a third world country when it comes to passenger rail service. That abysmal condition did not happen by accident. It happened by design. The slow, inexorable process of deterioration of rail passenger service began in the 1960s when the freight railroads, which were also carrying passengers and carrying U.S. mail on the railroad post office, the RPO overnight distribution service, began to combine with the United States Postal Service to terminate the RPOs because their passenger rail service was not profitable unless mail service was included in the revenue stream. So the RPO would work the mail overnight and drop it off along the route. They would pick up passengers and carry them to their ultimate destination, but if the U.S. Postal Service would drop the RPO, that line, that segment of service, would then be unprofitable. And then they could apply, the railroads, to the Interstate Commerce Commission for discontinuance on economic grounds of unprofitability. I witnessed that process happening in our State of Minnesota and in my congressional district when I was then administrative assistant to my predecessor in Congress. By the time I was elected to Congress, passenger rail service had disappeared. The railroads shed all of their so-called unprofitable lines in cooperation with the U.S. Postal Service, and the Federal Government then to ensure that there would be a vestige of passenger rail service in America took over, accepted the liability and the responsibility of carrying on with passenger rail and set up the Amtrak Corporation, American Rail Passenger Service Corporation. But what did they get, Amtrak? They got the remnants, rundown rail cars, rundown locomotives. They got the rail service through the worst sections, the industrial, rundown, in many cases abandoned industrial sections of America's cities, not the very attractive segments of rail passenger, not the High Sierras and the beautiful western routes. They got on the east coast and the center of America and urban centers, the places passengers did not want to see, that they could avoid with their automobiles. And slowly Amtrak had to plead and beg and wheedle and cajole for funds to invest in upgrading the track, upgrading the passenger cars, upgrading the locomotives to continue these vestiges of service, both long haul and short haul. The problem with rail passenger service in America is that Amtrak never received the investment dollars it needed to remake the entire passenger rail system. In France, President De Gaulle convened a meeting of his cabinet in 1968 and proposed that the cabinet approve funding for a study of and recommendation for a completely new high speed rail passenger service. The report came back 6 months later. The Cabinet was convened again and the report presented; the cost, $12 billion in today's dollars. Every one of the ministers said, oh, that will hurt defense. It will hurt health. It will hurt education. Charles De Gaulle asked one question: Does any other country in the world have high speed, 185-mile-an-hour rail passenger service? And the answer was no. De Gaulle said: Then France will be the first. That is what I call political will. That is what it took to launch this investment. And now you have the TGV, Tres Grande Vitesse, that goes from Paris to Lyon, 288 miles, in 2 hours and 1 minute. When I was a student in Europe in college, I took that train. It took 4\1/2\ hours. Today, it is 2 hours and 1 minute. When I traveled from Paris to Brussels to begin my studies at the College of Europe, it was a 6-hour trip. Today, it is a 45-minute trip. Two hundred sixty-four million people ride the Shinkansen high speed train in Japan at 186 miles an hour. They have had one accident. A portion of land subsidence occurred; no fatalities, in 30-plus years. They have had one accident with the TGV. No fatalities. We have the ICE in Germany. We have the Talgo in Spain. We have high speed train service in Italy. And in America, the world's number one economy, the best we can do is, for a few miles, 125 miles an hour on Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor? That is wrong. We need to make the investment in this passenger rail service. All it takes is political will. This administration has demonstrated, rather than stand up for and invest in rail passenger service, strengthen America's cities, take short haul aviation out of our skies, serve those routes of 300 miles or less with high speed passenger rail; they want to disinvest, drive Amtrak into bankruptcy, wash their hands of the issue and walk away from it. That is wrong. That keeps America as a third world country. We got there by accident. We can get out of this problem by design, by responsible investment in the future of rail passenger service. Others will talk about the infamous September 11 when 5,240 aircraft, commercial airplanes came out of the skies, and all of the radar screens of our aircraft control system went dark. Amtrak was operating. We must not wait for another tragedy to shut down an important segment of transportation and come to the realization we should have been investing in Amtrak. I salute the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for her commitment, for her dedication, for raising this issue, taking this time to bring to the American public the need for investment in Amtrak.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, transportation is a public service. It is a means of moving people and goods in the public interest. And every industrialized nation in the world supports, with public funds, their public transportation. Let us not fool ourselves. The freight railroads would like to say, oh, we do not use public funds. But to get the freight railroads started in America, the United States Government gave them land. Every other section of land from the Mississippi River to the West Coast, the Pacific Ocean to build their railroads. Without that land and the rights to the minerals and the lumber on that property, they would not have been able to build these railroads. They are still living off the profitability of the land that they were given in the public interest to serve the public interest. And the same with aviation. Yes, there is a passenger ticket tax that pays for a great deal of our airport improvement program, air traffic control system; but the public funds pay for at least 15 percent of air traffic controllers' costs, pays for the research and development and new ideas in aviation. And our highway and transit system, the passengers do not pay for every mile of road construction or every new bridge construction. A good deal of that comes out of public funds, either at the county, State, or city level. And maritime just as well. Our maritime freight shipping operations are supported by the operating differential subsidy and construction differential subsidy programs to which we have committed well over $12 billion over the years that I have served in the Congress. So the gentlewoman's point is well taken. Transportation is a service in the public interest, and the public should give it a reasonable level of investment and support.