James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, we will soon be voting on one amendment held over from last night. I want to remind Members that that is a heavy-trucks amendment. The position of our committee is no on heavy trucks. Vote ``no'' on the Bradley amendment. Vote ``no'' on this misguided Kennedy amendment dealing with tolls on existing highways, expanding that authority, and vote ``no'' on the Isakson amendment. Let me restate, under TEA LU, every State gains. Look at your revenues, not at some arcane formula, a percentage of this and a percentage of that, and some percentage that is missing, like missing matter from the universe. There is no missing money; it is all there. It all goes to the States, and all States grow in their revenues under this bill. Let me just point out, however, that under the introduced bill of last year, which the gentleman from Alaska and I and all, virtually all of the other, all but one other member of the committee supported, we have vastly increased funding. That is the direction we need to go. That is where we ought to be making the investment. That bill will put 475,000 jobs on the work sites of America by Labor Day. We would have $80 billion of additional economic activity in the workplace by Labor Day. We would have an economy rising instead of one that is stagnating. But we are not there. We have done a fair job with this legislation, taking every State from the level of 90.5 percent return of their contribution of the trust fund to 95 percent over the 6 years of this bill. That was the goal. That is where we started. Everybody wanted to do that. We checked with Members on both sides of the aisle. That is what we do with this bill. Let us not get bogged down into ``I get a little more percentage of this and my State gets a little more percentage of that.'' Remember, we are one Nation, one highway system, one sense of mobility. Let us move America together ahead with TEA LU, not backwards with these destructive amendments. Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important that we continue our efforts to fund the Nation's highway and transit systems, and that we find new ways to invest in these systems. I think we are seeing a consensus within the transportation committee, and an impressive unity in our committee's fine leaders, on the need to increase the level of highway and transit investments. These are extremely worthwhile investments. According to the Federal Highway Administration, each $1 billion of Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates approximately 47,500 jobs and $6.1 billion in economic activity. Today, America finds itself in a struggling economy. Maine is suffering as badly as anyone, with unemployment in my hometown soaring. People are looking for answers. Well--here is an answer, loud and clear. We need new investment, we need new jobs, and we need the highway and transit program to reach new levels of funding. Many transportation committee members, including myself, had supported a bill with even more robust funding, and we will be voting during today for a version of the bill with an additional $100 billion in funding over 6 years. The fact that this is not the version that will be on the floor is disappointing. Despite wide-ranging support from construction, engineering, trade, and labor groups for its job-creating impact, this $375 billion version of the bill has been blocked by a veto threat from the administration. This leads me to ask--what is it about jobs and economic growth that they object to? Still, while today's bill is less than we would want, it does represent the best we could do given the constraints, and it is a testament to bipartisan cooperation and commitment to moving our economy forward. Many would have preferred a bill with greater investment in transportation, because this country needs jobs, and transportation investment is the best way to do it. But given the choice of stalling the process or supporting a bill with lower investment levels, I suspect the most members will vote in favor of the bill today, because of all the good things it does achieve. It increases overall funding, creates vital new programs to improve walking and biking routes, fund projects of regional and national security, and increase border safety. It is good for the country, and it is great for Maine. I am particularly pleased with some of the project funding that will be included in this bill for Maine. Among the most important is the ``Wood Composite Materials Demonstration Project'' that is aimed at the University of Maine and its Advanced Wood Composites Laboratory. This vital funding to demonstrate the durability and effectiveness of wood composite materials in multimodal transportation facilities promises to increase the efficiency and value of our transportation infrastructure and find valuable new uses for our natural resources. I believe that we will all work together in the coming months to make the good start we are getting today into an even better final bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is that the full extent of the agreement, just general debate on each side?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the University of Minnesota-Duluth men's hockey team on reaching the 2004 NCAA Men's Frozen Four Hockey Tournament. This moment has been 19 years in the making, since the last UMD men's hockey team reached the Frozen Four in 1985. This is the second time the UMD men's hockey team has reached the Frozen Four, and the third NCAA trip for the men's hockey team. I want to acknowledge, in particular, the accomplishments of Head Coach and Hibbing, Minnesota native Scott Sandelin. Scott has been awarded the 2004 Western Collegiate College Association's Coach of the Year award. He is one of the most promising young coaches in college hockey and has only 4 years behind the bench as head coach. He is not only a great coach, but also a superb instructor who has taught his players a great understanding of the game. The team has demonstrated that understanding of the game with their impressive 28-12-4 record. It is clear that the lessons learned on the ice will serve these student- athletes well after graduation, which is the hallmark of college athletics. I also want to congratulate University of Minnesota Duluth Senior, Junior Lessard, who became the seventh Bulldog to be named a Hobey Baker finalist. Mr. Lessard was selected as 2004 Western Collegiate Hockey Association Player of the Year and helped the Bulldogs advance to the Frozen Four for the first time in 19 years. He leads the nation in scoring with 61 points and 20 assists in league play. I want to commend Coach Sandelin, Junior Lessard and the entire UMD hockey team for their outstanding season and to wish them success in the NCAA Frozen Four tournament.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his management on our side. It is splendid work. Again, I express my great appreciation and admiration for our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Mr. Chairman, we had a very thoughtful debate here, and it is maybe one of the better hours of this body. There has been no haranguing and no questioning of motives or of spirit, and that is good. But last night I received this Dear Colleague from the gentleman from Georgia, which does make rather a amazing claim, that the Isakson amendment would keep the TEA LU highway program at $207 billion and adjust the formulas, with a claim that if the adjustments are made, every State would get more money. Well, the gentleman from Alaska has produced a chart that shows that every State loses under that formulation. I will say it again: The claim is TEA LU has $207 billion for the highway program. The Isakson amendment has $207 billion of grants and claims that every State gets more money. Well, that is pretty slick math. I just heard a reference to trigonometry. I do not know if you go into algebraic formulations, but it does not work. Trying to make it work has resulted in an apples-to- oranges claim. I have been at this highway transit issue for about 40 years, since I started up here as a staff person. My predecessor was one of the five coauthors of the Interstate Highway Program and the Highway Trust Fund. Not every State gets everything back that it puts into the Highway Trust Fund. The idea is that we are a mobile society. People travel from one coast to the other, from the North to the South, as the gentleman from Maryland just referenced a little bit ago, and the idea is we all help each other. The problem with the Dear Colleague and with the claim of benefiting everybody is that it does not credit the States with any portion of the $6.6 billion mega-project program, and that is not right. Mega-project funding will go to the States. We are not specifying which States, who will get it, how it goes out. That will be done under a distribution that will be made by a fair and equitable process to determine net regional and net national benefits from projects that unlock congestion knots in this country. So when you add the $6 billion, every State gets more. Now, who gets what? Under the highway funding of TEA LU, Florida gets $751,632,870 more. Georgia gets $450,800,700 more. Texas gets $1,728,467,545 more. Every State gets more under TEA LU. Every State would get vastly more if we had this bill at the $375 billion level which we introduced. The issue is not percentages; do not tinker around with that. Look at the net national benefits. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, our national motto, e pluribus unum, ``out of many, one,'' it is not e pluribus pluribus, ``out of many, many.'' We are a Nation, an inclusive Nation. Those dollars that Georgia and Florida claim make them donor States come from States all along the eastern seaboard and from the Midwest. That is what we are about, one Nation, benefiting everybody. Vote for TEA LU, vote down Isakson.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, that is essentially, broadly stated, the issue.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It simply comes down to this: heavier trucks are more dangerous. They are more costly to the Nation's highways. As truck weights increase, fatal accident rates go up, according to the University of Michigan's transportation research study. Heavier tractor-trailers raise the center of gravity of the vehicle and its load, increasing rollovers. Heavier vehicles mean increasing speed differentials with other traffic. Increasing truck weights result in greater brake maintenance problems. Brakes are out of adjustment, trucks take longer to stop. It is just that simple. I have studied this issue for many years. Heavier trucks are worse on the roadway, worse still on bridges, and are involved in a highly disproportionate greater number of accidents. Vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, Congress, some years ago, granted New Hampshire limited exemptions from the Federal truck size and weight limits. We required that the State complete the study of the impacts upon the State's infrastructure, and even allocated $250,000 to undertake the study. The State has not completed its study. DOT, U.S. Federal DOT says that 80,000-pound six-axle trucks pay only 90 percent of their infrastructure damage through fuel taxes. Six-axle trucks operating 100,000 pounds pay only 40 percent of their costs. These trucks have a huge adverse impact on our highways and bridges, especially our bridge infrastructure. I will return to that subject later. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman referred to a study, but he is referring only to preliminary results. The study results are not final. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for his very cogent statement. Section 410 of existing law gives States eligibility to receive funds for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. It is a good program, a good provision. New Jersey is the first and only State to enact a law to impound a vehicle operated by a person who was arrested for drunk driving. Now, section 410 requires that States meet six of nine criteria to qualify for a grant. If the gentleman's amendment is accepted, it would expand that number to seven. If the gentleman from New Jersey, as I understand from previous discussion on this amendment, would agree that as we move further into conference, that the number of criteria necessary to qualify for a grant should be reduced to six, so we not expand the number and make it easier to evade, then I would concur in this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. With that understanding, we can accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I will not have to claim time in opposition. The unanimous consent request includes restoring the language ``during planting and harvest periods as determined by each State'' is restoration of current law and is not an expansion thereof.

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, under the language provided for us here in this amendment, a driver could start work at 8 o'clock in the morning, work until midnight with 2 hours off during the day, and be expected back at work at 8 o'clock the following morning. I do not think it is right to put drivers on the road with so little rest, so much fatigue and so great potential for fatalities. Now, the industry argues, well, we have not had any fatalities. But I have been involved in this fatigue issue in aviation, railroading, maritime and over-the-road truck driving for 25 years, and I know that the next fatality is just around the corner from the next weakening of safety regulations. It is inappropriate to make the change in the way in which it is proposed here. This is not the right venue, it is not the right approach, it will endanger worker safety, and we ought to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman for his statement. If I may have the attention of the gentleman from Alabama, he has twice referenced that drivers have 9 hours off during the day. If he would be willing to limit his amendment to those cases where they have 9 hours off during the day, I think we could accept that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise not only in opposition to this amendment, but to the many assaults upon the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's hours of service rule announced just recently. But this one in particular, the FMCSA revised the hours of service pursuant to legislation that we enacted that moved out of our committee, through this body, through conference, signed into law. It has taken years for them to get this rulemaking after many hours of public discussion, debate, publishing in the Federal Register; and now people who are unhappy with the outcome are coming to the Congress to overturn a rulemaking. They have another procedure to do that. We should not by law go in and just be a congressional wrecking crew for safety. Major change in the rules was to lengthen the required rest time after a long day on duty from 8 hours to 10 hours. An 8-hour rest is not enough. They barely get time to get home from their job, maybe get a shower, have something to eat, go to bed, and then they are going to be on duty again. A 10-hour off-duty period allows a driver reasonable time to get home, be with family, have dinner or lunch or whatever his shift allows, and then get that 7 to 8 hours of sleep. I have heard this said many times, including the President of the Motion Picture Association say they start at seven o'clock and they may finish at eight or nine o'clock at night, and they are not doing anything all this time. I say those who only stand and wait also serve. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.