[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 155 (Saturday, September 27, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10158-H10164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           TAKING RESPONSIBLE ACTION FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6707) to require Surface Transportation Board consideration 
of the impacts of certain railroad transactions on local communities, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6707

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Taking Responsible Action 
     for Community Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECT OF MERGERS ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND RAIL 
                   PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 11324 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking the last sentence and inserting ``The Board 
     shall hold public hearings on the proposed transaction, 
     including public hearings in the affected communities, unless 
     the Board determines that public hearings are not necessary 
     in the public interest.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``which involves the merger or control of 
     at least two Class I railroads,'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to a transaction that involves at least one Class I 
     railroad,'';
       (B) by inserting ``the effect on the public interest, 
     including'' after ``the Board shall consider'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``on the public 
     interest'';
       (D) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (E) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) the safety and environmental effects of the proposed 
     transaction, including the effects on local communities, such 
     as public safety, grade crossing safety, hazardous materials 
     transportation safety, emergency response time, noise, and 
     socioeconomic impacts; and
       ``(7) the effect of the proposed transaction on intercity 
     rail passenger transportation and commuter rail passenger 
     transportation, as defined by section 24102 of this title.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) and inserting a new 
     subsection (c) as follows:
       ``(c) The Board shall approve and authorize a transaction 
     under this section when it finds the transaction is 
     consistent with the public interest. The Board shall not 
     approve a transaction described in subsection (b) if it finds 
     that the transaction's impacts on safety and on all affected 
     communities, as defined under subsection (b), outweigh the 
     transportation benefits of the transaction. The Board may 
     impose conditions governing a transaction under this section, 
     including conditions to mitigate the effects of the 
     transaction on local communities.'';
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by striking ``The 
     Board shall approve'' and all that follows through ``the 
     transaction, including'' and inserting ``The conditions the 
     Board may impose under this section include''; and
       (5) in subsection (e), as redesignated, by striking ``the 
     merger or control of at least two Class I railroads, as 
     defined by the Board'' and inserting ``a transaction 
     described in subsection (b)''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made in this Act shall be applied to all 
     transactions that have not been approved by the Board as of 
     August 1, 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill, H.R. 6707, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?

[[Page H10159]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill before us arises out of long-standing concerns of 
communities along the routes of the Nation's freight rail system, 
particularly in cases where there is dramatic change, where a merger 
has occurred or is about to occur, and the result of which will be to 
change their quality of life.
  The period of the Interstate Commerce Commission, from the 1880s 
until the Staggers Act of 1980, was a period of regulation necessary in 
the public interest but of increasing burdensome regulation that 
inhibited the productivity of the Nation's railroads. Many would argue 
that the result of deregulation was too little representation of the 
public interest in our freight rail system.
  There are so many instances where the freight railroads have 
dismissed or been dismissive of or not paid sufficient attention to the 
concerns of communities and people that live along the railroad, the 
tracks that go through their cities and by their homes. There are, of 
course, those cases where some railroads have been very attentive and 
very responsive.
  But the core problem is that of the Surface Transportation Board. As 
we looked into the issues of concerns raised by many communities along 
class 2 or class 3 railroads, who are about to be absorbed into a 
larger class 1 railroad, I find questions of the actions of the Surface 
Transportation Board defending the public interest.
  This bill will assure that the Surface Transportation Board will have 
the legal authority and policy direction it needs to deal with mergers, 
which have potential to cause serious safety, environmental and other 
quality-of-life problems for the people in the communities along the 
route of the proposed merger.
  The bill does not require the STB, Surface Transportation Board, to 
approve or disapprove any particular merger. It is not merger specific. 
It seeks only to ensure that when the STB considers mergers, it will 
have the authority to disapprove any merger in which the benefits from 
the merger are outweighed by the adverse effects on communities or 
safety.
  It will vest in the board authority and give the board direction to 
fully evaluate rate crossing safety, hazardous materials transportation 
safety, public safety, noise, job losses, adverse economic impact. It 
will also, and our anticipation is, that the board will fully evaluate 
the benefits of a merger. There are clearly, in most of these mergers, 
benefits for one community that unfortunately are accompanied by 
adverse effects on other communities, or at least perceived adverse 
effects.
  Now, the problem that we found in the course of the hearing and in 
evaluating issues leading up to the hearing in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is that the action of the board in 
dealing with mergers of two class 1 railroads are different authorities 
than are available to the board in evaluating the proposed merger of a 
class 1 and a class 2 or class 3 railroad.
  This legislation will assure or make it clear that the board has the 
same authority to deal with mergers of class 1 with class 2 and class 3 
railroads as it does in mergers of class 1 to other class 1 railroads.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am very, very disappointed to be here today speaking on this bill. 
The TRACS Act is much too controversial to be considered under 
suspension. I wrongly believed that we had an understanding with the 
majority that we would continue to work in a bipartisan manner to 
improve this bill before we brought it to the floor. That is very 
unlike, very uncharacteristic of the T&I Committee. We did have one 
hearing. We had no subcommittee hearings. As I said, that is not 
characteristic of the Transportation Committee and how it works. So it 
is disappointing to me to bring this bill here under those 
circumstances.
  I oppose H.R. 6707 because I am concerned that changing the Surface 
Transportation Board's merger and acquisition review process could have 
unintended consequences of hampering the growth of our Nation's 
railroad industry. I know that the folks who serve on the committee 
know how important it is that we expand the capacity of the railroad 
industry in this country.
  One of the ways to do that is through mergers and acquisitions. It is 
an important part of how the industry has to grow and needs to grow 
because it allows railroads to invest in underutilized trackage around 
the country.
  Some on the other side have complained that the class 1 railroads 
have given up track around the country. I believe they have, and they 
did it because they were not profitable. But here we have a situation 
where they are trying to use trackage that will be important to 
increasing capacity in this country.
  This bill is likely to have a chilling effect on rail transactions. 
We are living in an increasingly difficult economic climate, and the 
last think that we want to do is discourage investment that will 
improve capacity, and especially in Chicago. Anybody that ships across 
this country knows that Chicago is the most congested area in the 
country. It is a bottleneck and it is not only a bottleneck in the 
upper Midwest, it is a bottleneck to the entire system because so much 
of our freight goes through Chicago.
  The port of Seattle, 70 percent of what comes into the port of 
Seattle flows through to Chicago. So I think Americans need to realize 
how important Chicago is to the shipment of goods in this country.
  In the next 20 to 25 years, we expect rail demand to increase 90 
percent over today's level, and the industry will need to invest $135 
billion in infrastructure just to keep pace with this unprecedented 
growth. We cannot afford to discourage this investment, and I believe 
the TRACS Act will do just that.
  It is also very troubling that this legislation will be retroactive 
because we are creating a new standard of review for deals reached 
years ago. This type of retroactive congressional action can, and I 
believe will, undermine confidence in our regulatory system and 
deserves much more scrutiny than we have given it.
  This bill was introduced to kill a single merger, and this has 
generated significant controversy in the Chicago area, which as I said, 
is one of the most congested areas in the country. But it will also 
affect, I believe, all future rail mergers in this country.
  I am unconvinced that this bill will even accomplish the goals of the 
Chicago community, to stop CN purchasing the EJ&E line. I understand 
that CN will spend an astounding $25 million to review the 
environmental impacts of their acquisition of the EJ&E line. They are 
offering at least $40 million to offset negative impacts of an increase 
in train traffic in that area and on that line.
  But there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the current 
owner, EJ&E, from running additional trains over those tracks. If the 
CN deal falls through, the increase in traffic may very well happen. 
And the $40 million that CN is offering to mitigate the effects, will 
be off the table. If that turns out, that the $45 million is off the 
table, that CN is not going to put that the money into the deal, it 
would be very troubling for those communities.
  But the STB today has the authority to increase from $40 million to 
$45 million, to mitigate those problems that they believe will occur. 
But if it goes too high, it also likely will kill the deal.
  I am sympathetic to the needs of the communities that are affected by 
the deal. There are two sides, and I am sorry that we haven't heard 
much more from the communities that will be affected in a positive way. 
We hear from the suburbs, the wealthy and upper middle-class suburbs of 
Chicago that are fighting this, but we haven't heard from the inner 
city of Chicago where low-income folks will see train traffic decrease 
so they won't have to deal with the freight trains as much as they do 
today.
  I am not in a position to judge whether this transaction should go 
forward. That is not Congress's job. It is the STB's job. The STB was 
not brought into this process in drafting the bill. The chairman of the 
STB and his staff have warned of serious concerns about the affects of 
this. We need

[[Page H10160]]

more involvement and input from the STB before we change the rules of 
the game.
  Again, I am very disappointed we are here today. I hope we can defeat 
this and go back to committee and produce a bill that has broad, 
bipartisan agreement.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to remind the gentleman that we incorporated all of the 
requests of the minority as we moved to create the manager's amendment 
to the bill, including spelling out what benefits should be considered, 
along with adverse impacts. We announced the hearing and invited all 
parties to the merger referenced by the gentleman, and welcomed all 
communities to participate in the hearing. Those who chose not to did 
so of their own accord. They were not excluded. We had a very extensive 
hearing in which all were welcome to participate in, and we explored 
fully all of the issues involved in this issue.
  Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this important bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 
6707, the Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act.
  I got involved in reviewing the STB's mission and decision-making 
process because of a proposed local transaction that would have 
negatively impacted communities in my district, across suburban 
Illinois, Indiana and other parts of the country. However, unless the 
STB review is clarified, communities and districts across the country 
could face similar challenges.
  The current process has historically put the interests of industry 
over those of American families and taxpayers. This doesn't have to be 
the case. As noted by the board's most recent decision, the STB has the 
ability to deny an acquisition and/or mitigate on environmental 
grounds.
  The TRACS Act clarifies their obligation as a Federal agency to 
protect the interests of those taxpayers who fund them. This bill will 
clearly require that public impact concerns are given equal 
consideration to those of commerce. And while the impacts on a local 
shipper may be important, they shouldn't outweigh the impact on 
communities and the citizens who live there.
  The STB would be required to consider public impact on communities, 
including public safety, grade crossing safety, hazardous materials 
transportation, emergency response, noise pollution, socioeconomic 
impacts, and commuter rail. After review, if the adverse impacts on 
communities are significant or outweigh the potential benefits to 
commerce, then the STB would be required to disapprove or mitigate 
accordingly.
  This is not about a particular transaction. And contrary to concerns 
expressed by some, it should not have a chilling effect on the ability 
to increase necessary rail capacity across this country. It also 
shouldn't adversely affect traditional rail mergers or acquisitions 
which don't significantly change traffic levels or community impact and 
are only changing a parent company.
  But in those rare cases where there are drastic increases in freight 
traffic that can have negative impacts, the TRACS Act is a commonsense 
clarification to ensure the STB's balanced consideration of the 
railroad's commercial goals with the communities and American taxpayers 
whom we serve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Oberstar has been a 
great leader in the transportation issues of our country, and certainly 
one of the leaders in rail transportation policy, but I would just like 
to say on this bill that one of the goals of the rail transportation 
policy of the United States is to ensure the development of a sound 
rail system to meet the needs of shippers and the consuming public.
  I am genuinely concerned that H.R. 6707 may actually have an adverse 
impact on our rail system, particularly as it relates to rural 
communities. In rural areas of our country, at one time we had strong 
railroad service which contributed a great deal to the economic 
development in rural America. I am very much concerned that this 
legislation, while it has every good intention of protecting local 
communities, will actually be a chill to continued rail service in a 
lot of small communities.
  The Rail Transportation Safety Board already is required to look, on 
rail mergers and acquisitions, to look at the public interest standard 
and must evaluate that. I am just concerned that this additional 
requirement will really be a chilling effect and will adversely impact 
rail service in rural America which will have an adverse impact on all 
of us, particularly at this time when energy prices, being as high as 
they are, we know that we can transport goods by rail cheaper which 
makes us more competitive in the global marketplace. For that reason, I 
would respectfully oppose this legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Chair of the water resources 
appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I truly want to 
thank Mr. Oberstar for his leadership and for what he is trying to do 
today.
  What I would like to do with my time is first of all to respond to a 
couple of the observations made by my good friend from Pennsylvania on 
this legislation.
  I would agree, I believe the chairman would agree, that the industry 
has to continue to evolve. It has to continue to grow. But today, the 
industry is here and the people of the United States are here. What Mr. 
Oberstar, what the chairman is trying to do is to make sure as the 
industry evolves and becomes more efficient and more profitable, which 
we all want, that people are considered equally.
  Secondly, he mentions that this is simply a fight about one 
transaction and one community, the City of Chicago. He is incorrect in 
his assertion. The fact is there is a transaction pending. It 
highlights the need for this legislation. While he suggests the 
congestion of Chicago, I would point out that every one of those trains 
in Chicago happens to go through Lake and Porter counties, Indiana, 
which I represent.
  The gentleman also suggested that there might be some costs attached 
to the industry if this act passed, $25 million here, $40 million here. 
The fact is we voted in this Chamber to the auto industry $25 billion. 
We voted within the week to give the battery industry a couple of 
billion dollars. People are tripping over themselves in this place, 
tripping over themselves in this place, to give millions of brokers and 
bankers $700 billion. What about people? What about the people of this 
country? That's what Mr. Oberstar is trying to say, instead of the 
railroads and the people, let's have some equity as far as these future 
considerations.
  I would simply point out this is somewhat personal to me. In 1977, my 
mother was hit by a train. She survived the experience. But more 
pertinent to this debate, the Surface Transportation Board indicated 
that railroads historically have not paid more than a small share for 
grade separation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield an additional minute.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Five to 10 percent of grade separation because grade 
separations, and this is the STB, primarily benefit the community and 
not the railroad.
  Well, in northwest Indiana on July 8, three people died in a crossing 
accident in Gary, Indiana. On July 25, in northwest Indiana in the 
community of Griffith, there was a rail accident where three additional 
people were injured. In Portage, Indiana, this month, on September 3, 
another woman was killed in Porter County. There is one person getting 
killed at a train accident in the 1st Congressional District every 21 
days since July 8.
  I support the chairman's legislation that says let's think about 
people for a change. Let's have some equity in this so that people and 
communities are protected, just like the railroads are.

[[Page H10161]]

     [From the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times, July 8, 2008]

                     Three Dead in Car-Train Crash

                            (By Dan Hinkel)

       Gary.--Three people died when a freight train blasted 
     through a car that drove around crossing gates Monday 
     afternoon in Gary's Miller neighborhood, police said.
       The victims were Marvin Alvarez, 20, of Gary, and Nicole 
     Thomas, 21, and Rosie Godines, 18, both of Hobart, according 
     to a spokeswoman from the Lake County coroner's office.
       The busy scene at Miller Avenue and Lake Street devolved 
     into turmoil in the hours following the 5 p.m. wreck. Irate 
     mourners scuffled with police officers and attacked cameramen 
     from television news crews. An officer appeared to fire a 
     Taser on a sobbing, shrieking man who joined a group of 
     people fighting with a man who appeared to be a police 
     detective.
       All three died at the scene after the southbound Ford 
     Taurus pulled around the gates into an eastbound CSX train's 
     path, police said. None of the victims wore seat belts, and 
     two of them were thrown from the car, said Gary police Cpl. 
     Agnes Roberts. The bodies were covered with sheets near the 
     car as firefighters cut the third body from the vehicle's 
     wreckage in front of witnesses and bystanders gathered along 
     the commercial strip.
       ``I still can't believe it and I'm standing right here 
     looking,'' said Sandra Mays, of Gary.
       Mays drove the first northbound vehicle in line behind the 
     gates before the wreck. She was prepared for a long wait 
     before the Taurus came ``out of nowhere'' around the gates, 
     Mays said. She called 911 after the train plowed into the 
     car's passenger side and pushed it about 50 feet east down 
     the tracks. Mays said she could see that all the victims were 
     dead.
       ``It happened so fast, like something you see on TV,'' she 
     said.
       Shirley Taylor, of Merrillville, was in the nearby Chase 
     bank when she heard the train's horns blowing and its brakes 
     screeching, she said. The bank manager ran outside to help, 
     but he returned with shock on his face, Taylor said.
       ``He came over and told everyone there was nothing he could 
     do,'' Taylor said.
       The victims' relatives descended on the scene about 6 p.m. 
     A small group of furious men alternated between sobbing 
     inconsolably and bellowing profane threats at police, 
     firefighters, clergy, bystanders and news reporters. A man 
     who identified himself as Alvarez's brother struggled with 
     officers. A man threw a rock at a television cameraman. 
     Another man was arrested after a fight in the Chase bank 
     parking lot. He was handcuffed and apparently stunned with a 
     Taser. Gary police were not available Monday night to comment 
     on the fights after the crash.
       The train's nine cars and two locomotives were headed from 
     Chicago to Columbus, Ohio, said CSX spokesman Gary Sease. No 
     one on the train was hurt, Sease said.
                                  ____


     [From the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times, July 26, 2008]

                    Train Hits Truck, Injures Three

                         (By Vanessa Renderman)

       Griffith.--Three people suffered minor injuries Friday when 
     a train hit a tractor-trailer, knocking a 20-ton piece of 
     construction equipment off the truck bed and forcing the 
     truck into two occupied vehicles.
       ``I've never seen anything like this,'' Griffith Cpl. Ryan 
     Bottiger said.
       The accident occurred early in the afternoon at the 
     intersection of Main Street and Wiggs Avenue.
       The front of an eastbound Canadian National train struck 
     the back end of a Grimmer Construction tractor-trailer that 
     was crossing the tracks. The crossing has no gates, but the 
     lights were working, Bottiger said.
       A westbound train on parallel tracks had just gone through 
     the crossing.
       The driver of the tractor-trailer, who declined to give his 
     name, said the car in front of him crossed the tracks, and he 
     started to cross. Because of the angle, he didn't see the 
     eastbound train coming. By the time he did, it was too late, 
     and the back end of his truck got clipped, he said. The 
     driver suffered an abrasion to his chin.
       The force shook loose a 20-ton piece of construction 
     equipment that was chained to the rear of the tractor-
     trailer. The equipment rolled, gouging chunks of asphalt from 
     the street. It landed on a grassy residential corner and 
     leaked diesel fuel and hydraulic fluid, which crews cleaned 
     up, Bottiger said.
       The tractor-trailer hit two vehicles that were in the 
     oncoming lane, including the gray Mercury Montego that 
     Merrillville resident John Holliday was driving.
       Holliday said he was waiting for a westbound train to pass. 
     When it did, a vehicle in the oncoming lane crossed the 
     tracks. Holliday then heard a train whistle and saw the 
     tractor-trailer cross the tracks and get hit, before 
     barreling toward his car.
       ``At that point, all I could see was a truck coming head 
     first, straight on,'' he said. ``It's kind of a bad feeling, 
     seeing a truck coming right at you.''
       Holliday's car was hit on the front passenger side. The 
     airbag deployed, which burned his hand. He saw the 20-ton 
     piece of construction equipment roll off the truck.
       ``It looked like out of a movie,'' he said.
       Although Holliday was alone in his car, the other vehicle 
     that was struck had four occupants, three of whom were 
     children. The driver was transported to a hospital with 
     nonlife-threatening injuries and a relative picked up the 
     children, Bottiger said.
       Bottiger said Friday afternoon he didn't know whether any 
     citations would be issued.
                                  ____


        [From the Northwest Indiana Post-Tribune, Sept. 4, 2008]

               Portage Woman, 43, Dies When Hit by Train

       Portage.--Police are continuing to investigate the death of 
     a Portage woman who was killed Tuesday night when a train hit 
     her.
       Linda Evola, 43, of 5075 Lincoln St., was declared dead at 
     11:04 p.m. Tuesday from massive blunt force trauma, Porter 
     County Coroner Victoria Deppe said.
       Evola was hit by an eastbound CSX train near Don's Motel, 
     5500 U.S. 20, around 10 p.m. Tuesday, according to a Portage 
     Police Department release.
       Sgt. Keith Hughes said two engineers on the train saw Evola 
     walking west on the tracks and sounded the train's horn. The 
     engineers said Evola looked up, Hughes said, but she did not 
     move off the tracks.
       ``At this time it's still unknown whether she intended to 
     do it,'' Hughes said.
       Deppe said that right now her office is ruling the death an 
     accident.
       ``She did live near the train,'' Deppe said. ``That was a 
     place people cut through.''
       She also said that it does not appear drugs or alcohol 
     played a part, although her office is running toxicology 
     tests.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SHUSTER. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would like to yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
to what the gentleman mentioned about the automotive industry and the 
$25 billion loan they want and about the $700 billion.
  Well, the good news in this debate today about the railroad industry 
is that the railroad doesn't need it. The railroad industry is 
successful, and we need to make sure that they continue to be 
successful and that they don't require any kind of assistance from the 
Federal Government. They're the only freight rail system in the world 
that doesn't require the Federal Government's propping it up. So that's 
a good news story here today, and that's what we want to keep doing.
  I would also like to submit for the Record a letter from the 
Association of American Railroads and the short lines in this country 
that are directly affected by this legislation, and they are opposed to 
it.

                            Association of American Railroads,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2008.
       Dear Representative: The House may consider H.R. 6707 on 
     the suspension calendar today. The Association of American 
     Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional 
     Railroad Association (ASLRRA) strongly oppose H.R. 6707--
     Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act.
       Under current law, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) 
     must evaluate the merits of a railroad merger transaction 
     under a ``public interest'' standard if it involves two Class 
     I railroads. The STB's evaluation takes into account and 
     weighs all issues relevant to the public interest including 
     efficiencies, productivity gains, capacity improvements, and 
     environmental benefits that the transaction will realize.
       H.R. 6707 would distort that standard and STB evaluation 
     process by requiring the STB to specifically weigh the 
     adverse impacts on safety and local communities against the 
     transportation benefits of a merger.
       The bill's mandate for the STB's evaluation to 
     specificallly focus on the impact on local communities as a 
     counterweight to the overall transportation benefits that a 
     merger would otherwise realize can result in the disapproval 
     of mergers with significant benefits to the public and to the 
     nation solely because of ``nimby''ism. This would clearly be 
     at odds with rail transportation policy at 49 USC 10101 which 
     has as a goal the development sound transportation system to 
     meet the needs of the public.
       The bill's requirement for a specific STB focus on local 
     impacts creates an additional regulatory burden and imposes 
     potentially conflicting regulatory requirements. The costs 
     and uncertainties arising from the proposed regulatory 
     process will further discourage parties from entering into 
     transactions that could otherwise bring significant 
     transportation and other public benefits,
       For all of the above reasons we strongly urge a no vote on 
     H.R. 8707.
     Edward R. Hamberger,
       President & Chief Executive Officer, Association of 
     American Railroads.
     Richard Timmons,
       President & Treasurer, American Short Line & Regional 
     Railroad Association.

  Mr. SHUSTER. I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

[[Page H10162]]

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the TRACS Act 
legislation being presented here.
  I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, for all of the 
work that he has done on this bill, and I'm really very proud to be an 
original cosponsor on it.
  I really believe in the rail system. I believe in our transportation 
system, and I think that we have always put our railroads in a very 
high context as far as being able to move our goods across this country 
and being able to ship at a reasonable rate. A situation has come up, 
something that, I think, is very unfair, and I think it is what this 
legislation will address.
  In considering a merger, the STB is required to look at how it 
affects Congress. If there is just one major rail, just one--a class 
A--then they don't have the same requirements that other mergers have. 
If it's a class 1 and more than a class 1, then the STB, the Surface 
Transportation Board, is required to consider the safety and 
environmental effect of the proposed transaction, including the effects 
on local communities: the traffic congestion, the grade crossing, the 
public safety, the socioeconomic impact, and the traffic congestion--
commuter rail and Amtrak.
  The clarification that we want to make is, if there is just one of 
the class 1 rails, then they need to take these same things into 
consideration.
  Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky talked about the rural area. I think we're 
really looking at congested areas, when a merger is to take place that 
will affect an area of densely populated areas such as the suburbs of 
our great cities. It's not just one area that's going to be affected. 
Mark my words that these types of merger requirements will affect so 
many more than just the Chicago area, as was suggested by the chairman 
of the subcommittee.
  I don't think that our purpose here today is to kill any merger. It 
is to clarify and to make sure that there is fairness in what the 
Surface Transportation Board will look at. Will they look at just the 
commerce and competitiveness of two rail lines and how it will affect 
all of the competition between all of the rails or will they also take 
into account the effect on the public interest and on the communities 
that are involved?
  Now, in the area that we've been talking about in Chicago, I have to 
say that this is an area that has grown up around the railroads. It has 
increased to such a dense population that socioeconomic issues are 
affected, that public safety is affected and that traffic congestion is 
affected. All we want is to clarify that the Surface Transportation 
Board can take that into account.
  I have just one other clarification about mitigation. I didn't want 
to get into specifics, but in this issue, the mitigation would be $30 
million. Now, I have in my community a rail crossing that is being put 
underground, and it has nothing to do with this other line. The cost of 
that is $53 million to have a separate grade crossing. So, when we talk 
about $30 million that would affect at least 40 communities and at 
least 141 rail crossings, I think this is something to consider.
  So it's just a clarification, and I would urge my colleagues to vote 
for it.
  I thank the chairman so much for bringing this up and for having a 
hearing which, I think, was very open.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6707, the 
Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, who has displayed exemplary 
leadership on an issue of great importance to so many American 
communities.
  The need for this legislation came to my attention as a result of a 
specific situation spanning several districts in Illinois and in 
Indiana, but the issue it addresses is national. Let me explain.
  For several months, families and businesses in my district and in 
nearby districts have overwhelmingly declared their opposition to 
Canadian National's potential acquisition of the Elgin, Joliet and 
Eastern Railway, which is currently pending before the Surface 
Transportation Board. I have heard from many of my constituents in 
public forums, on the phone and in private meetings. They've held 
rallies and have petitioned the STB in writing, but their voices have 
gone unheard. At this point, the only criterion the STB must consider 
in evaluating this deal is whether the proposed transaction would have 
an adverse effect on competition among the rail carriers in the 
affected region.
  Sadly, the public interest has been largely left out of this process 
even though the public stands to lose the most in this transaction. 
There will be no improvement in the quality of life in the region and 
no economic upside. The recently released draft of the STB's 
environmental impact statement estimates the acquisition will lead to a 
loss of 300 jobs in the region. It will also unreasonably saddle local 
taxpayers with the cost of the mitigation of this project. The study 
provided, at best, a vague and incomplete study of the 133 grade 
crossings in the area and, from this, recommended that Canadian 
National pay only 5 to 10 percent of the mitigation cost. Grade 
separations cost approximately $50 million each, and the STB apparently 
expects local communities to shoulder most of this burden.
  Let's see: Private profits, socialized bailout costs. Does that sound 
familiar to anyone around here?
  The deal also raises serious public safety concerns, many of which 
are simply glossed over in the draft study. Increased traffic on the 
EJ&E will raise the probability of train accidents by 28 percent. 
Further, the ability of local police, fire and EMS services to respond 
to emergencies in the affected communities will be hampered by blocked 
intersections. Once again, Canadian National is not directed to help 
fund projects that will mitigate this potentially life-threatening 
problem.
  Now, how does H.R. 6707 address this type of situation? Simply 
speaking, H.R. 6707 would compel the STB to consider the public 
interest as well as purely commercial considerations in its judgment of 
a proposed railway merger. The legislation would require the STB to 
determine a transaction's effect on public safety, on grade crossing 
safety, on hazardous materials transportation, and on emergency 
response time. Such a proposal would be approved when it is consistent 
with the overall public interest and rejected when it is not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6707 is a much needed enhancement of 
current statute. While this legislation is an immediate response to one 
proposed acquisition, it will ultimately protect communities across the 
country.
  To be clear, I do not mean to oppose all railway transactions. 
Railways are an extremely efficient means of transportation, and their 
use can and should increase in response to rising fuel prices. However, 
transactions like the EJ&E acquisition should only proceed when there 
is an overall commercial and economic benefit. This is not the case 
here. There is something seriously wrong with a process that leaves out 
the public and that deflects the cost of these acquisitions and traffic 
increases on to local communities. H.R. 6707 will help change this.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his 
leadership and for his willingness to listen and for his thoughtful 
approach on this and for how he has brought, really, a bipartisan group 
together in trying to drive towards a solution.
  Since coming to Congress, I've noticed that, many times, what we need 
to do is to spend time bringing statutes up to date, and this is just 
one of those examples. We've been struggling over these past several 
days with the financial markets and, in many cases, with a regulatory 
environment that isn't regulating properly. Well, here is an

[[Page H10163]]

opportunity for us to be proactive and to bring a regulation up to date 
to really deal with current needs. Giving the Surface Transportation 
Board the authority to consider a couple of things, I think, is very 
thoughtful and very wise and very measured. This is what this bill is 
about.
  It says that the Surface Transportation Board in these transactions 
has to consider a couple of things. It has to consider the impact on 
safety and the environment. It has to consider the impact of grade 
crossings, of HAZMAT, of emergency response time, and of noise. In my 
view, those are not unreasonable requests. It doesn't predetermine an 
outcome. It doesn't say what they need to do with that information, but 
it says, as a matter of record, that they have to consider that.
  Now a word about Canadian National: Whether or not Canadian National 
decided to show up at a hearing is really their prerogative. I just 
confirmed with the chairman that they were welcomed to show up. This is 
a pattern, frankly, that we've seen with Canadian National in our 
community where we were told they would show up at any time and at any 
place to talk to anyone, but when a forum was created, they waived off 
of that.
  Now let's just set that aside. Here we have a chance to create a 
statute that says, if you're going to increase rail traffic through a 
community, you've got to consider the cost, and you've got to consider 
the cost on the community.
  The gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) spoke a couple of minutes 
ago about the cost of one of these rail crossings and of the cost of a 
grade separation. They are a thing to behold, and they are incredibly 
expensive. The fact that Canadian National in this particular case has 
several tens of millions of dollars on the table doesn't anywhere near 
answer the cost to local taxpayers who would be asked to bear the 
burden with very little benefit.
  So I think the chairman's approach on this--the way he has brought a 
bipartisan group together around it and the thoughtfulness of it and, 
really, the holistic way that this would be evaluated--is a very light 
touch, in fact, and he is not coming down with a heavy hand. I am 
strongly supportive of it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I 
just want to reinforce what the gentleman said, however, and I yield 
myself 30 seconds.
  The CEO of Canadian National Railway not only was invited to 
participate--and I, actually, reached out to the railroad--but Hunter 
Harrison, their CEO, testified in person.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite interesting because, if 
you take a look at the Surface Transportation Board's weighing an 
application for a merger, one would think that items such as the safety 
of the people, the backup of traffic, incremental delays at crossings, 
and hundreds of school bus crossings per day on impacted tracks would 
have some type of a consideration.

                              {time}  1300

  The problem is that under the present law, in an oversight made in 
1995, whenever the Surface Transportation Board tries to weigh the 
impacts on local communities, the only criteria that is used is whether 
or not it violates antitrust laws. And ironically, issues of safety are 
not taken into consideration. And that's shocking.
  It's apparent that there is a big problem in this bill. The bill has 
application across the country. It has particular application to 
northern Illinois to tens of thousands of my constituents that have to 
travel through the town of Barrington, which is in Congresswoman Bean's 
district. To these folks, the backup of traffic is significant. The 
inability to get to work on time; the fact that, from what we 
understand, Canadian National plans on putting in trains that are 2 
miles long clogging all three intersections in the village of 
Barrington at the same time. And it's through that village that there 
are 800 school bus crossings each day.
  And it's amazing that this bill tries to correct something so 
elementary as to say whenever there is a request to merge railroad 
companies, that safety should be a consideration.
  I'm here today to offer my unqualified support for the Taking 
Responsible Action for Community Safety Act (H.R. 6707). This bill, 
which I'm proud to co-sponsor, will help solve a left-over problem from 
when Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1995. The 
Surface Transportation Board, STB, took over the functions of the ICC 
with the missions of resolving railroad rate and service disputes and 
reviewing proposed railroad mergers. Current law gives the STB 
considerable discretion to disapprove transactions involving at least 
two Class I rail carriers but allows much less flexibility to 
disapprove transactions like CN's proposed acquisition of the EJ&E. In 
fact, the law states that the STB ``shall'' approve the transaction 
``unless'' the Board determines it will hurt competitiveness, restrain 
trade, or fail to meet significant transportation needs. In plain 
English, this means that the STB will not stop a transaction because of 
local community concerns unrelated to anti-trust issues. This may seem 
like semantics, but it's an important distinction that has long tipped 
the scale toward privately owned rail carriers and away from the 
communities who have to live with them.
  In northern Illinois, the community of Barrington is unalterably 
opposed to the proposed sale of the EJ&E line to the Canadian National, 
CN, Railway, as evidenced by the thousands of people that showed up to 
the STB scoping session last January and their formal hearing last 
August. This is not because of a NIMBY syndrome--everyone understands 
the need to improve the national rail transportation network and would 
be willing to compromise. But having additional freight train traffic 
traverse on the existing aging EJ&E track will not be just a simple 
minor inconvenience--it will fundamentally alter the entire nature of 
this picturesque town.
  While I do not directly represent Barrington, Illinois, I am honored 
to serve the thousands of commuters who live in southern McHenry County 
who must travel through Barrington, either by car or rail, to get to 
work or to perform daily errands. While I've been concerned about this 
deal since day one, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement recently 
relesed by the STB confirmed many of my worst fears about increased 
accident risks, increased air pollution, increased exposure to 
hazardous material, and increased traffic. The report also acknowledged 
that railroads traditionally only contribute 5 to 10 percent of the 
costs to mitigate these problems. That would leave taxpayers paying the 
tab for a transaction that solely benefits a private company's bottom 
line.
  I say it's not about what's traditional. It's about what's fair. And 
the people from the 16th District of Illinois, who I've had a plenty of 
chances to talk with over the past few weeks, agree with me.
  H.R. 6707 corrects an oversight made in 1995 and requires the STB to 
weigh impacts on local communities more heavily when considering any 
railroad transaction. In fact, the STB would have to reject a proposed 
acquisition if it finds that transaction's impacts on the affected 
communities outweigh the transportation benefits. Congress should learn 
from this experience with this particular transaction and make sure 
that no community in the Nation will ever have to go through what 
Barrington is experiencing now.
  In this particular case, I understand that this transaction could 
have some macrobenefits, but CN accomplishes that goal primarily by 
exporting the train congestion problems in downtown Chicago to outlying 
suburban areas such as Barrington. Tens of thousands of motorists in 
northern Illinois--especially those in McHenry County--travel through 
Barrington on their way to work each day, crossing the EJ&E line at 
Route 14, Route 59, and Lake-Cook Road. Approximately another 4,000 
commuters from McHenry County ride Metra rail to work in the Chicago-
land area each day, crossing the EJ&E line in Barrington. All of these 
people will be affected by additional CN freight traffic.
  At the very least, they are going to encounter inconvenient delays 
and increases in air pollution. At the worst, it could become a matter 
of life and death. Not only could emergency responder vehicles become 
trapped on all sides by a train, but school buses in the Barrington 
school district cross the EJ&E lines about 800 times a day. Additional 
freight trains could quadruple the safety risk of students who traverse 
the crossings each day.
  In closing, l'd like to express my appreciation to my friend Jim 
Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, for introducing 
this piece of legislation and for working with me and others in the 
suburban Chicago delegation in a bipartisan manner. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 6707 today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman if he has 
any further speakers.

[[Page H10164]]

  Mr. SHUSTER. We have none. I am prepared to close.
  I have how much time left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Again, I just want to reiterate the reasons that I 
oppose this bill today. First and foremost, the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee is a committee that does its homework usually, 
that works hard to understand the issues and come forth with something 
that is good legislation, and it's also bipartisan. And I think that in 
this situation, we're not able to reach that standard that we typically 
do in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Not bringing in 
the STB to have them at the table, the experts, to really understand 
how the nuts and bolts of this legislation going forward is going to 
have a chilling effect, I believe, on our rail industry.
  We do have the most efficient, the safest railroad industry in the 
world. It's the gold standard. Countries around the world look at our 
rail industry and want to copy it, want to try to have that type of 
freight industry in their countries.
  But we in Congress sometimes do our best to try to make it extremely 
difficult for them to operate, to cause them to put mandates on them 
that I don't believe serve the best interests of not only communities, 
but of the rail industry and of our economy.
  As I said, we have the most efficient and safest rail industry of the 
world, and we should continue to want to see that so that we don't, 
down the road 10 years, 15 years, see the rail industry coming to 
Congress asking them to bail them out.
  As I said, I believe there are going to be unintended consequences of 
this bill. There are going to be negative effects on the growth of the 
railroad industry which we desperately need to see going forward as I 
talked earlier about the increase and demand for rail. The retroactive 
provision is going to undermine the confidence in our regulatory 
system, and it's going to, as I said, have a chilling effect on 
investments when rail companies in the future want to merge.
  The CN and EJ&E deal, if it's killed, the increase in traffic can 
still occur on those lines. The situation is going to be, though, that 
the EJ&E is not going to have to put $40 million of money into 
mitigating some of the problems and the increase in traffic. So I think 
that's going to be bad for those communities.
  And we can't forget the benefits that decreased congestion in Chicago 
is going to have on America. And also, most importantly, as I said 
earlier, we're not hearing from those low-income communities in Chicago 
that have hundreds of trains going through their neighborhood every 
week. They are going to see a decrease. That voice of those low-income 
neighborhoods is not being heard, is not being addressed because that 
is what is going to happen here. Those neighborhoods will benefit also 
with a decrease in traffic if we are able to spread out trains to 
decrease that bottleneck that's occurring in Chicago.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation, 
and I urge other members of the committee, let's go back to the 
committee, let's work together and produce something that we can see 
improvements to the STB that will be a positive for the communities as 
well as the economy of this country.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  This is not a retroactive measure. It does not undo any transaction 
in the works or already concluded. It sets standards for all railroads, 
for all considerations of acquisition by class 1 or class 2 or class 3 
railroads, sets up standards, reinforces authority that the Surface 
Transportation Board chairman has said they thought they had authority 
over environmental review but they've never exercised it. They're 
concerned that if they did, they might have some legal difficulties. 
We're clarifying that the board has authority to act on environmental 
issues raised by communities.
  We did hear from those inner city communities who testified in person 
at the hearing at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski). I have heard railroads don't need help from the Federal 
Government. Well, they shouldn't. The Federal Government gave the 
railroads, between 1850 and 1871, 173 million acres of public land, 9 
percent of the total surface area of the United States, for the public 
use, convenience, necessity, and benefit of the Nation to own and 
control the resources above and below ground: the timber resources as 
well as the coal and, in many cases, oil and gas, and other minerals; 
and the right to sell those properties. The railroads have sold 
billions of dollars' worth of public land that were given to them for 
the public trust. And they're not without their requests to the 
Congress. They've spent a considerable amount of time, the Association 
of American Railroads, lobbying the House and the Senate for a 25 
percent investment tax credit to increase their capital investment. I'm 
for it. I think that's a reasonable investment to make. I think we 
ought to help railroads do that. I think we ought to ensure that they 
use that tax credit for those capital investments. It's a reasonable 
request, but they're not without their hand out to the Federal 
Government
  Why should the railroads take the position that they are above 
review? When other forms of transportation are subject to public 
scrutiny by the communities affected by road construction, bridge 
construction, transit, light rail, commuter rail, all are subject to 
citizen review. Railroads cannot take the position that they're above 
review. They, too, take actions that affect the citizens and the 
communities that reside along their lines. And all we're providing in 
this legislation is a process within which those actions taken by 
railroads would be subject--class 1 to class 1, and class 1 to class 2 
and class 3 should be considered in the same way.
  That's all this legislation does.
  I ask for a very resounding ``aye'' vote for this long overdue 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6707, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________