James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for yielding me the time, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman from California with whom I am in accord on most issues, and I think she makes a very good point about this remote security facility. I raised such concerns many years ago in Paris when Charles de Gaulle Airport said, for American check-in passengers, we are going to have a separate little place called the hutch. I went over to inspect it, and I said, my goodness, this is terrific, you collect all the Americans in one place so a terrorist can throw a bomb and kill them all at once. Of course, I said it in French; and they said, oh, we had not thought about that. They backed away and said, well, we will not make Americans do that. So the gentlewoman makes a good point, but it is the point that is part of a larger process and that is to stop the expansion of the Los Angeles Airport. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is the agency in an urbanized area with the responsibility to determine the needs for projects to be advanced to meet transportation needs for the area. We really should not be inserting ourselves into that debate, certainly not at this time; and, reluctantly, I oppose the gentlewoman's well- intentioned amendment and well-expressed amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this language is not well-drafted, I must say to the gentleman. He has a very good purpose but very unclear and unsure language; and as I read the language approved under unanimous consent, it makes the authority even broader. It says trucks that are specifically allowed by Federal law to travel on the national network now can be disapproved by New Jersey. We cannot have one rule for local trucks and a different rule for through trucks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). It is a sense of Congress amendment to clarify that the Buy America Act applies to overall projects and not just to component parts. It is in keeping with the purpose, the thrust of our intent to keep more jobs in America, not let them go overseas, keep products that go into our highway and bridge program built in America, not built overseas. And I can speak from personal experience. In the harbor between Duluth and Lake Superior, when a new bridge was being built 22 years ago and the bridge had been bid and the State of Wisconsin was the one responsible for building that bridge, they allowed $1 million of Japanese steel to go into the center arch span. That is when I sprang to the defense of American steel and got the amendment that has now been in law for all these years that we have American steel in U.S. Federal-aid highway programs. So I am in accord with the purpose of the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very simply, trucks come to a truck stop. They want to use this 400-pound technology to run their Air King unit. There is better technology, does not have the weight, they can plug it in and not put that added weight on the roadway. We should not accept this amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has adequately explained the manager's amendment. It needs no further elaboration, and I support the amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the gentlewoman's amendment, we have been discussing it for quite some time in committee. This will make it possible to put that information that is already required to be reported on the Internet, and we have agreed on our side to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The thrust of this amendment is to adversely affect States, and Members in States, who put priority on transit projects, bus-related projects by deducting dollar for dollar from their apportionments the funds that Members have decided their State needs, their district needs, that is in the interest of their constituents and deducting that from the core surface transportation program apportionment to the individual State, and then it would redistribute those dollars elsewhere in the country. That is totally contrary to the basic principle of Member high-priority projects. As former Chairman Bud Shuster used to say, Members of Congress are not potted plants. We know our districts. We know what the needs are. Chairman Young has reiterated that principle, that Members understand the needs of their State, and when they are bypassed, when the State DOT does not address the needs in their districts, then we give them an opportunity once every 6 years to do that in the transportation bill, to designate projects according to the needs that Members see best. The pending amendment would undermine that principle, would redistribute dollars, would take money away from some States, give it to others, punish some because they think transit is more important than a highway project in their State, Member projects. In addition to that, a Member that has designated a project for interstate maintenance, for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement, for a bridge project, for a national highway system, will be adversely affected by this amendment. Members that have highway priorities as well will find their project simply thrown to the wind and redistributed around the country. That is not adhering to the principle that we have established. It may be very well intentioned, but its effect is highly adverse, undermines the principle that Members of Congress know their districts, are responding to the needs of their constituents, are recommending investments and, in many cases, giving States flexibility as we do in Minnesota. If they are not ready to move ahead with a project I have designated, they can use that dollar amount for a project elsewhere in the State. Its effect is severely adverse. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to point out to the gentleman from Indiana, whom I greatly respect, that the total for Indiana under TEA LU would be $4.96 billion, a substantial increase of funding over TEA 21. The point again is that we have distributed these dollars according to a percentage of the total funding available under TEA LU to give Members the authority to designate projects to address transportation needs that they see by their best lights from their constituents in their districts and not be bypassed and run over by State DOTs. It has worked in TEA 21, and it is going to work here.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I respect the gentlewoman's good intention. As we heard on a previous amendment, there was a good intention but an unfortunate result, and there would be a similar unfortunate result here. I have never been supportive of toll roads. Current law allows toll credits only when that toll road has been built without Federal aid. This amendment would extend an already, in my view, unacceptable principle further. It would extend to roads built with Federal assistance the credit that then could be applied to other projects. I just think that that is not a good policy direction. I do not think we ought to be encouraging more toll road developments. It is not going to expand the universe of roads. Toll roads are just kind of a one-time hit. We are establishing in this legislation a national program of continuing existence with the Highway Trust Fund. The only problem with it is we are not putting enough money into it for the next 6 years, and we will do that after the next year after we get through this election. So we really ought not to be moving in this direction, and I assume the chairman agrees with me on this.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I compliment the gentleman on raising a very important issue. I also want to point out to the House that this is a complex aspect of transportation law involving Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement issues. It involves a very technical aspect of the particulate standards, the air quality standards, for coarse particulate matter or fine particulate matter, those that are 10 or 2.5. In principle, I think I would be in favor of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, but the language of the wording gives us some trouble yet. And if the gentleman would bear with us through the bill and into conference, I think we can get this matter worked out in a manner that is acceptable to achieve the objective he is seeking.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, with further comment in how that issue would be interpreted and how it would be applied.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, exactly. The question is, How will the funds be allocated? And I think we need to just understand that better and have it spelled out more clearly so that we understand what is happening and we do not run into something we did not anticipate.

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

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman for a very dignified discussion and outcome. I think it is in the best interest of good policy, and we will work with the gentleman in the coming weeks as we go forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.