[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6256-6258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3550.

                              {time}  1745


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, 
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Simpson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, the amendment numbered 17 printed in part B of House 
Report 108-456, offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), had 
been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in House 
Report 108-456.


       Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire 

  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SECTION 1. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS.

       (a) The next to the last sentence of section 127(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Interstate Route 95'' and inserting ``Interstate Routes 89, 
     93, and 95''.
       (b)(1) In General.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the State of New Hampshire shall conduct a 
     study analyzing the economic, safety, and infrastructure 
     impacts of the exemption provided by the amendment made by 
     subsection (a), including the impact of not having such an 
     exemption. In preparing the study, the State shall provide 
     adequate opportunity for public comment.
       (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $250,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out the study.
       (3) Applicability of title 23, United States Code.--Funds 
     authorized by this section shall be available for obligation 
     in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall remain available until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment for consideration by the 
Congress so that it can strictly apply to the State of New Hampshire, 
raising the weight limits on trucks that travel on Interstate 89 and 
Interstate 93. Currently, right now, Mr. Chairman, we have trucks 
avoiding our main highways and driving through some of the most 
populated towns in our State in order to avoid the weight limit.
  Mr. Chairman, when I proposed this amendment to the Committee on 
Rules, I submitted for the record letters from many public safety 
people throughout our State, including the Department of Safety, the 
Department of Transportation, local police chiefs, as well as town 
councilors, and others supporting this amendment.
  The reason people in New Hampshire support this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, is that our trucks are riding on roads where there is no 
weight limit up to 99,000 pounds, presenting significant public safety 
issues, going by schools and other places of assembly. We need to get 
these trucks on our highways where they are safer and where they are 
designed to be operated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I 
yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress, some years ago, granted New Hampshire limited 
exemptions from the Federal truck size and weight limits. We required 
that the

[[Page 6257]]

State complete the study of the impacts upon the State's 
infrastructure, and even allocated $250,000 to undertake the study. The 
State has not completed its study. DOT, U.S. Federal DOT says that 
80,000-pound six-axle trucks pay only 90 percent of their 
infrastructure damage through fuel taxes. Six-axle trucks operating 
100,000 pounds pay only 40 percent of their costs.
  These trucks have a huge adverse impact on our highways and bridges, 
especially our bridge infrastructure. I will return to that subject 
later.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume to respond that perhaps my esteemed colleague is not 
aware of the fact that New Hampshire requested this exact type of study 
to be done in the last transportation authorization on Route 95, which 
is the north-south route that goes all through New England. When a 
study was done by the Maine Department of Transportation, while it has 
not been published, all indicators are that there have been no safety 
impacts and negligible costs to the infrastructure from raising the 
weight limits from 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to 99,000 pounds, 
exactly what we are asking for Route 93 and Route 89.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the money has already been appropriated in the last 
transportation appropriations bill. There is no impact on the budget. 
We will not permanently raise the weight limit in the absence of this 
study. We are asking for the authorization to go ahead with the weight 
limit increase while the study is being performed.
  And as I said, all of the public safety officials in my State are 
supportive of this weight limit increase. Because currently, right now, 
we have large trucks avoiding the weight limitation station and driving 
through two of the most populous communities in the State, where there 
are schools and where there are many kids on bicycles. We need to get 
these trucks on the highway.
  As I said, the study that was done on Route 95 will show no 
negligible safety or infrastructure effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman referred to a study, but he is referring only to 
preliminary results. The study results are not final.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and with all due respect to my colleague from New Hampshire, 
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment is about opening the door to allow bigger and bigger 
trucks on our interstate highway system. And although this amendment is 
drafted in a form that appears to apply only to the State of New 
Hampshire, its impact will reach all States, all taxpayers, and all 
motorists.
  Allowing these superheavy trucks on the interstates in New Hampshire 
would cause substantial bridge damage, cost the taxpayers money, and 
threaten the safety of motorists, and not just impacting the people of 
New Hampshire but people all across this country.
  Let me explain. Operating 99,000-pound trucks on New Hampshire's 
interstates would require replacing and strengthening interstate 
bridges, at a huge cost to taxpayers all over this country. Heavier 
single tractor trailer trucks do not pay for all the damage they do to 
roadways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a 
100,000-pound six-axle single tractor-trailer truck pays only 40 
percent. Taxpayers pay the rest. Not just taxpayers in New Hampshire, 
but all across this country.
  Heavier singles 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.
  Now, I believe that 80,000 pounds is enough on the interstate, on 
urban connectors, and all roads. So there are consequences here that go 
far beyond what the gentleman has outlined. So while I have great 
respect for him, and I understand his concern about safety, I think the 
debate should be about the fact that these trucks get bigger and bigger 
and bigger. I think that is what poses the safety risks to the people 
of New Hampshire and people all over the country.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume to respond to the criticisms of my esteemed colleague 
from Massachusetts, and remind my colleague from Massachusetts that I, 
from New Hampshire, ask only the same consideration and the same laws 
with regard to truck weight limit that now apply in his State of 
Massachusetts, which on all highways, to the best of my knowledge, 
allow at least 99,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, and in some 
instances, with a waiver, up to 120,000 pounds.
  I would also remind my colleague that when we are talking about 
public safety with regard to New Hampshire, the commissioner of the 
Department of Safety, the commissioner of the Department of 
Transportation, local police chiefs, fire chiefs, town councilors, 
elected officials from the impacted communities where trucks are 
leaving the highway and going downtown, where there is traffic, where 
there are kids, where there are schools and churches, and where there 
are community centers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, we all want to 
try and get these trucks on our highways where the safety impact to 
people's lives and well-being will not be hurt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair the 
time remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Bradley) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume, and in closing I would ask the consideration of the 
body for this request.
  This applies only to the State of New Hampshire. All of the public 
safety officials in my State are supportive of this change. It is 
designed to protect the lives of people in the communities where there 
are, as I have mentioned before, schools, traffic, downtown crossings.
  I would ask the consideration of the Congress for this sensible 
change. There is no impact on the budget, as the money for this study 
was appropriated in the last transportation authorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from New 
Hampshire that the difference between Massachusetts and New Hampshire 
is that the trucks that he is referring to operate on toll roads, and 
the taxpayers of Massachusetts are paying for the damage that is done 
by these heavier trucks on these roads, not the taxpayers across the 
country. That is a major difference.
  Again, I oppose this amendment for all the reasons that I stated, and 
I would simply remind my colleagues that this bill that we have before 
us today is underfunded. It does not meet all of what DOT says we need 
to have to be able to maintain the status quo in terms of maintaining 
our transportation infrastructure.
  This, in my opinion, opens the door to bigger trucks, not only in New 
Hampshire but in other parts of the country as well.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 6258]]

  Mr. Chairman, Route 93 in New Hampshire is indeed a toll road, and we 
are asking for the same consideration that Massachusetts currently 
enjoys, which is 99,000 gross vehicle weight limit. And what is good 
for Massachusetts clearly should be good for New Hampshire.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Time of the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bradley) has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It simply comes down to this: heavier trucks are more dangerous. They 
are more costly to the Nation's highways. As truck weights increase, 
fatal accident rates go up, according to the University of Michigan's 
transportation research study.
  Heavier tractor-trailers raise the center of gravity of the vehicle 
and its load, increasing rollovers. Heavier vehicles mean increasing 
speed differentials with other traffic. Increasing truck weights result 
in greater brake maintenance problems. Brakes are out of adjustment, 
trucks take longer to stop. It is just that simple.
  I have studied this issue for many years. Heavier trucks are worse on 
the roadway, worse still on bridges, and are involved in a highly 
disproportionate greater number of accidents.
  Vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House 
Report 108-456.


                  Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       Insert the following at the appropriate place:

     SEC. ___. STATE AUTHORITY.

       Section 20153 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) State Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon application of the Governor of a 
     State, a State may assume responsibility for determining the 
     circumstances under which to require the sounding of a 
     locomotive horn when a train approaches and enters upon 
     public highway-rail grade crossings, and for enforcing such 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Review.--The Secretary shall review any program 
     established by a State pursuant to paragraph (1) every 5 
     years, and if the Secretary determines that the State program 
     inadequately protects rail, vehicular, and pedestrian safety 
     the Secretary shall, after providing the State with 24 months 
     notice of such determination, implement regulations issued by 
     the Secretary under this section in lieu of such State 
     program.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Congress passed an unfunded mandate on most 
local communities in America that maintain quiet zones in their 
communities. When the regulations were first drafted, they would 
require trains entering the City of Chicago to blow their train horns 
on entering the city until arriving into the station. This upset the 
people of Chicago. It upset the Mayor of Chicago.
  One university study showed that the original train whistle 
regulation would trigger so much noise pollution in our communities 
that it caused property losses to rise to $1 billion in Chicago lands 
alone. A redraft of this regulation offered some help, but at first 
glance the cost of implementing this regulation for Chicago communities 
rose from $4 million to at least twice that.
  My amendment would not change Federal safety standards, but it would 
allow a State to implement this regulation.

                              {time}  1800

  Half of all quiet zones are in Illinois. This is an important issue 
to my constituents, to the Speaker's and to Ranking Minority Member 
Lipinski's.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer this amendment today that would 
give governors the option of enforcing train quiet zone standards at 
this level. However, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment but would ask the chairman of our subcommittee to engage me 
in a colloquy on this.
  Mr. PETRI. If the gentleman will yield, I would be very happy to do 
so.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, many of our communities have quiet zones to 
protect their environment from needless noise pollution by trains. The 
Federal Government is poised to put forward a regulation that 
eliminates our local community quiet zones unless new, expensive, and 
very complicated rules are met. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can work 
together to address this issue in conference so that local communities 
are not overburdened with unfunded Federal mandates and cumbersome 
Federal regulations.
  Mr. PETRI. That is something that we are eager to work with the 
gentleman on. This is important not only in Illinois, it is important 
in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, and in a number of other States.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say I 
compliment my colleague from Illinois for putting this amendment 
forward. It certainly is an issue that has been uppermost in my mind 
and in Speaker Hastert's mind for a long period of time.
  In speaking to him about this particular amendment, we came to the 
conclusion that it would be more prudent and wiser to work this out as 
we move into the conference. I am sure, based upon many conversations I 
have had, that we will be able to work this out satisfactorily. I 
simply want to give him my support.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for the colloquy that they just had.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I renew my unanimous-consent request to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________