Petitions, Etc.

PETITIONS, ETC. -- (House of Representatives - April 01, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 1 ½ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has 1 ½ minutes remaining.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would answer, absolutely yes, that is a
commonsense approach, and I would agree to that.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to compliment the gentleman and the gentleman from Oregon
for their presentations. As I told the gentleman from New Jersey, I did support the concept of this amendment.

I also agree with my ranking member that, as we go through it, we will do it the right way and do it correctly so we can
actually solve a serious problem. His story is a very telling story.

So with that, I guess we will have a voice vote; is that correct?

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. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a few closing remarks.

I would just again like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee. And to the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I thank you. I know we have had extensive
discussions over this issue.

I want to also thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who came to me when he first heard of my story,
and he told me about situations that he had experienced and the work he had done on this. And I think he is absolutely
correct, we have to find a common ground in these areas where we can avoid these senseless tragedies for families like
that of Ensign Elliott. This is a commonsense measure that can move us forward.

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are going to support the amendment as intended.
However, there is a slight, as I think the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, drafting error, the section that applies
to both the current new starts and the new small starts process. We will take the amendment at this time with the
gentleman's understanding we want to correct the language in conference so that the exemption applies only to the new
small starts process.

Does the gentleman understand that?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, if he has done that, I apologize. I was talking
to my staff and they did not advise me of that. If that has already been done, we do not have to worry about that.

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to assure the chairman and ranking member that as
originally drafted it applied to both subsection (d) and (e), major starts and small starts. As redrafted in the modified
language, this amendment applies only to subsection (d), the small starts provision.

So I want to assure the chairman and ranking member that it does only apply to small starts, what would otherwise be
small starts.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is recognized for 5 minutes.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, this amendment was first proposed last October and we have
tried to work in committee. We tried to work on this issue. What we are talking about is we have restricted it to 200
miles: 100 miles in the morning, 100 miles at night. To me it is almost a joke to say that that would fatigue these drivers. The very drivers that are driving, they have been operating under these rules for years and years and years and have an exemplary safety record.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

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