[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 138 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10927-H10928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                FISCAL 2005 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the days and hours preceding this 
body's passage of the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on 
Saturday, November 20, we were assured and then reassured by the 
majority party that all controversial provisions had been stripped out 
of the 3,300-page document. Many of us were skeptical, but given those 
assurances, we in this body passed the bill nonetheless.
  Mr. Speaker, never again. Sadly, our worst fears and suspicions were 
confirmed as evidenced by the action we
NOTICE

If the 108th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before 
December 10, 2004, a final issue of the Congressional Record for 
the 108th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, 
December 20, 2004, in order to permit Members to revise and extend 
their remarks.
All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and 
delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of 
Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through 
Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through 
Monday, December 20. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 
20, 2004, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 21, 2004.
None of the material printed in the final issue of the 
Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any 
event that occurred after the sine die date.
Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, 
either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to 
the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''.
Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be 
submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed 
statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the 
Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The 
Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted 
electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the 
hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the 
Official Reporters in Room HT-60.
Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material 
submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by 
contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the 
Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
                                                                
ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman.

[[Page H10928]]

  

took yesterday to strike the taxpayer persecution provision that 
thankfully was discovered by the other body before final passage. And 
while the action we took yesterday was absolutely necessary and 
important, it bears mentioning that there are a number of other 
provisions that remain in the bill that are not only controversial but 
harmful.
  For example, a one-sentence provision inserted into this massive bill 
at the last minute encapsulates all that is wrong with the way this 
legislation came to the floor. This provision raises maximum truck 
weights to 99,000 pounds on two interstate highways in the State of New 
Hampshire. And although it was drafted in a form that appears to apply 
only to New Hampshire, its impact will reach all States, all taxpayers, 
and all motorists.
  The House debated this very same issue last April, and 334 Members of 
this House, including the chairmen of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations, voted against 
allowing a truck weight increase on New Hampshire's interstates.
  Now, just 7 months later, the New Hampshire superheavy truck 
provision has been added to this bill in secret with no notice or 
opportunity for debate, even though an overwhelming majority of the 
House rejected it on a recorded vote.
  What has changed since April that makes a bad idea then a good one 
now? Not a single thing. In fact, the only important development since 
we defeated the amendment last April has been the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's announcement that it too opposes State exemptions from 
Federal truck size and weight laws. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, a 100,000-pound six-axle single tractor-trailer truck 
pays only 40 percent of its costs. Taxpayers pay the rest. Not just 
taxpayers in New Hampshire but taxpayers from all across the country.
  Heavier trucks also pose numerous safety risks. As weights go from 
65,000 to 80,000 pounds, the risk of an accident involving a fatality 
goes up 50 percent. In addition, these superheavy trucks will have 
added braking and steering problems and the risk for rollover will 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just further evidence of the need to pass my 
legislation, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, and 
to freeze truck lengths and weights in New Hampshire and all other 
States, before more damage is done.
  Senior law enforcement officials and other safety leaders in New 
Hampshire have already joined in a campaign to overturn this provision 
when Congress resumes consideration of the TEA-21 reauthorization after 
the first of the year. And I will insert a letter co-signed by a dozen 
law enforcement leaders and other concerned citizens of New Hampshire 
opposing the truck weight increase into the Record at this point.

                                                 December 6, 2004.
     Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: We are very disappointed to learn that 
     a provision was inserted in the omnibus appropriations bill 
     recently passed by the House and Senate that increases truck 
     weights on Interstates 89 and 93 in New Hampshire. This will 
     make our highways in the Granite State more dangerous and 
     exacerbate our already serious problems with deteriorating 
     infrastructure, particularly bridges.
       We feel it is unconscionable that a provision with such 
     serious implications for highway safety and road quality in 
     our state was added to this huge bill with no notice. There 
     were no hearings on it. There was no opportunity for us to 
     make our views known. We understand that even the leaders of 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has 
     jurisdiction over these matters, were unaware of this 
     provision until after it had been passed.
       This should not be allowed to stand. A matter with such 
     serious safety and infrastructure implications should be 
     addressed by the authorizing committee with proper 
     jurisdiction. Congress is planning to reauthorize the TEA-21 
     transportation legislation within the next several months. 
     Proposals to change federal truck weight laws on New 
     Hampshire's Interstate are serious matters that should be 
     considered with greater care in the context of the 
     reauthorization--not in a last-second ``rider'' to a massive 
     appropriations bill.
       We ask that you do whatever is necessary to have this 
     provision removed from the omnibus appropriations bill.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
       Chief Jerome Madden, Concord Police Department; Chief David 
     Kurz, Durham Police Department; Chief David A. Currier, 
     Seabrook Police Department; Executive Councilor Ray Burton, 
     New Hampshire Executive Council; Chief Tim Russell, Henniker 
     Police Department; Chief Bradley Loomis, Newington Police 
     Department; Senator Lou D'Allesandro, New Hampshire State 
     Senate District #20; Dr. Henry LaBranche, Salem Town Manager; 
     Sarah Johansen, MD, New Hampshire Chapter College of 
     Emergency Physicians; Frederick (Ted) Gray, Portsmouth 
     Traffic and Safety Committee; David S. Szacik, Director, 
     Legislative Department, New Hampshire State Grange; Robert 
     Best, Executive Director, New Hampshire State Nurses 
     Association.

  Mr. Speaker, the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill also 
included language intended to undermine, if not completely eliminate, 
the authority of States to permit liquefied natural gas, LNG, 
facilities all across the country. Again, without notice, public 
hearings, or any debate, the conferees included language in the 
statement of the managers that suggests that the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, FERC, can preempt States on the siting and 
permitting of LNG facilities. While this particular provision does not 
change or override existing law, it is tantamount to an expression of 
Congress that may have implications on a pending lawsuit in California 
where the State's public utility commission is challenging FERC's 
assertion of this authority in the permitting of an LNG facility.
  Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that 
FERC already gives short-shrift to the concerns of local governments 
and States in the permitting of LNG facilities. In my congressional 
district, FERC recently issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Weaver's Cove LNG plant in Fall River, Massachusetts that 
completely ignored the concerns of the community with respect to 
ongoing economic development plans and the impact on and isolation of 
emergency services. Were the language in this omnibus bill ever to be 
codified into law, FERC would run rough-shod over the cities and towns 
we represent. States are in the best position to know the larger safety 
concerns that these facilities present, and they deserve to have local 
authority in permitting them.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it is amazing to me that the party that 
claims to be the champion of States' rights is always prepared to sell 
them out when the large corporate energy special interests are 
involved. That is what has happened here, and it is disgusting.

                          ____________________