Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 3550, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3550, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - April 01, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Rules this morning reported out of committee an unnecessarily restrictive rule, and, as a result I will not support the rule, I do want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lipinski), for all their hard, bipartisan work on this highway reauthorization bill. They recognized the importance of adequately meeting our Nation's transportation needs and of creating good-paying jobs for the American people at a time when we desperately need new jobs.
I only wish that the leadership of this House and the White House would follow their lead and the lead of the entire membership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There are lots of good things in this bill, but I continue to believe that the overall funding level is not enough to meet our needs.
In States all across this country, including Massachusetts, roads and bridges are crumbling under the burden of age and heavy use. Adequate infrastructure is essential for economic development. We can do better, and I am hopeful that in the very near future we will have the opportunity to return to transportation policy to finish the work that this bill begins. I was glad to hear the distinguished Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chair say that he would be back fighting for more money, and I will certainly stand with him in that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about efforts by some Members to decrease highway safety and quality by increasing truck size and truck weight. This rule makes in order two amendments that are particularly troublesome.
The first, offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), would create an exemption from existing Federal truck size and weight limits for certain roads in his home State. The exemption for New Hampshire would damage the highway infrastructure, especially bridges, and cost taxpayers a great deal of money.
The U.S. Department of Transportation calculated that if the exemptions the Bradley amendment would create were applied nationwide, it would result in additional bridge costs to taxpayers of $329 billion.
Further, heavier trucks are more dangerous. As truck weights increase, fatal accident rates will go up, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. In fact, the Institute says, "Gross combination weight is the only vehicle characteristic showing a clear association with the overall fatal accident rate."
I also urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola). This amendment would allow truck operators who use "idle reduction technology" to operate at 400 pounds above the Federal legal weight limits. Although this seems to be only a minor increase in weight, it would actually cost Americans hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year because of the increased pavement damage this additional weight would cause.
According to the EPA, there is an inexpensive alternative to the idle reduction technology proposed in this amendment that would still reduce emissions and save fuel without adding additional weight. The alternative is stand-alone truck stop electrification systems, which are permanent structures located at various truck stops that have HVAC systems attached. The driver purchases a one-time $10 adapter and pays an hourly rate to use the system.
The Chocola amendment also runs counter to the recent agreement between the American Trucking Association, and the Association of American Railroads that calls for no national truck weight increases in the transportation reauthorization bill. While a 400-pound weight increase may seem innocuous, it is not as simple as it seems, and it is best left out of this highway reauthorization bill.
Proposals to increase truck sizes and weights have been opposed by a broad range of national organizations because of their negative impact on the highway infrastructure and their danger to other motorists. Organizations opposing bigger trucks include the American Automobile Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Troopers Coalition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); and when he has completed his statement, if he would yield to me for 1 comment, I would appreciate it
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
The National Troopers Coalition, the Society of Trauma Nurses, these groups know firsthand the danger caused by bigger and heavier trucks on our roadways.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose both the Bradley and the Chocola amendments.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Ranking Member OBERSTAR) and all of the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my colleague when he was going through his prepared statement, but I did want to clarify one issue that the gentleman raised.
He said in his opening that this was an unusually restrictive rule, and I would just like to state for the Record that when the ISTEA legislation was considered, there were a total of 12 amendments made in order. That was in the 102nd Congress when the Democrats were in charge. When TEA 21 was considered, there were a total of six amendments made in order, Mr. Speaker; and then in this legislation we have provided for consideration of a total of 23 amendments.
So that is why I asked the gentleman to yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think what I said was this was an unnecessarily restrictive rule, and what I meant to
say is that, as usual, this is a restrictive rule that we have come to expect of the Committee on Rules.
There were a number of good amendments that were not made in order, and I think that, as a result, I will oppose the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all I was saying is that if you go and look at the pattern of consideration of transportation measures, when the gentleman's party was in control, half the number of amendments were made in order.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say that there were a lot of good amendments dealing with truck sizes and truck weights but also dealing with issues like outsourcing that the Committee on Rules chose not to make in order, which I think is unfortunate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT