James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I too support the spirit of the gentleman's amendment, but not the language and not the approach and certainly not the additional cost without offsets. I do want to point out that under FAA's Airport Improvement Program and with the use of passenger facility charges, airports can accomplish this purpose. In fact, provided that the vehicle is owned by the Airport Authority, operated solely on airport property, the funds from passenger facility charges can be used to purchase such vehicles. Where a vehicle is not AIP eligible, FAA would pay for the difference in cost between low emissions and a regular vehicle. We have addressed this matter already in the appropriate context in the FAA reauthorization bill. So there is a way of accomplishing it. Under Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, funds are apportioned to the States to improve their air quality in nonattainment areas. The pilot program, unfortunately, does not address nonattainment areas within States. So just as we opposed taking FAA money off airports, we are in the position of taking CMAQ money and putting it into airports. So the purpose of the gentleman is at cross purposes with public policy already in place, and reluctantly we must oppose the amendment. But we will work with the gentleman and find a way that we can accomplish this purpose.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for bringing this amendment forward. In the 1980s, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, I held extensive hearings on the status of manufacturing in light rail, passenger vehicles and buses during which we demonstrated the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in America to underbid products coming in from overseas. We shipped overseas tens of thousands of jobs in the light rail, passenger rail and bus sector of our economy. Now it is coming back. Now we are recapturing those jobs. We now are putting in the next 6 years $51.5 billion into transit systems in America. We ought to have those jobs in America as well and reclaim the technology and the jobs that go with them for America. That is what this amendment will do.

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just add that the principle remains.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I believe under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman has already made that correction in the language pending.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon as originally drawn was way beyond the scope of what he intended, and we greatly appreciate the cooperation of the majority giving the gentleman the opportunity to have unanimous consent to correct the language to reflect exactly what he wants to do, to limit this amendment to small starts, which it does; and I think that relieves the concerns on both sides of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe, with further discussion, we can find a way to come to a resolution. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, we are; and I thank the chairman and the gentleman from New Jersey for a very thoughtful constructive matter that now has been resolved in, I think, a very positive way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, very simply stated, this amendment would bypass the determination of the Secretary to make decisions on corridors and substitute judgment in this body for that of the Secretary looking at a national picture, and that is the wrong way to proceed. We should not do that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri has been quite persistent and thoughtful in his pursuit of this amendment and very genuine, and I think one of the adversely affected companies is located in the State of Missouri and has expressed their concerns about the effects of current law. The gentleman has sought a way to provide some relief. I rise in very strong opposition to the language, with great respect for the gentleman, a member of our committee. It would supersede State law in 15 States that have already adopted laws to apply vicarious liability to car rental companies. The reason they have done so is that if a car rental company rents to a person who has no insurance, the rental company is the one that is best suited to assume the responsibility. They have done this action in their judgment in the best interest of the consumer. Now, we have not had hearings in depth that would explore all aspects of this issue. It is a very complex issue of State law, and it varies from one part of the country to another. But States, as far as we can ascertain, that have adopted such a policy have concluded that, without it, harm to innocent children, to bystanders would go totally uncompensated, even if the rental car company had leased, say, to an obvious drug abuser or someone with a very bad driving record. States, including mine of Minnesota, have reached an independent policy determination on this matter. I do not think Congress should weigh in to supersede the State judgment on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, this is like, as so often we will see on these amendments on the floor, an amendment that is well intentioned but has adverse consequences. I support the environmental benefits that can be achieved with clean air technologies. In the manager's amendment, the chairman and I have worked on it and our staff have worked on congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, and surface transportation program funds, the largest of the core programs, to assure that these funds may be used to support stand-alone truck electrification technologies, because we saw in testimony in hearings that there are such technologies that are very, very low-weight, with high benefits. This issue came up in the House-Senate Energy Conference, and I addressed this issue in the Conference and raised objections. Mr. Chairman, 400 pounds may seem insignificant, but it will have serious consequences on safety of our driving public and on the roads. Bigger trucks, more road damage. If all trucks had that extra 400 pounds, $600 million a year in extra road damage. Over the life of this bill, that will add up to over $3.5 billion in road damage. The point is, why are we picking, or why pick 400 pounds? There is a wide range of technologies that have far less weight that have very significant improvements that show idling reduction technologies do, in fact, pay for themselves and reduce costs in less than 2 years. There are other technologies that will provide the same clean air benefits as the one addressed in this amendment. So I think rather than just pick out one particular technology, one that weighs 400 pounds or less, whatever, this is not the right way to approach the issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I allow another person to use my car and that person has an accident, I am liable. Why should rental car companies be different? If States choose to make them liable under these circumstances, as our State of Minnesota does, then why should the Congress substitute a different judgment for that of the States? Without extensive hearings, without a deep inquiry into this subject matter, this is an inappropriate time, inappropriate amendment, inappropriate place to do it, and the amendment preferably should be withdrawn and we could work on it, perhaps through conference, otherwise defeated.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, under my reservation may I inquire of our Chair whether the majority has seen the language.