[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22367-22369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               TRUCK WEIGHTS ON MAINE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the continuing 
resolution, H.R. 3082.
  My amendment will rectify an impediment to international commerce 
flowing through Maine, and protect Maine drivers and pedestrians. For 
the past year, Maine truckers have operated under a pilot program that 
allows trucks over 80,000 pounds to move from local roads to safer 
interstate routes, far from schools and homes. The pilot project has 
been a great success, and I seek to make it permanent.

[[Page 22368]]

  Unless we take action before December 17, trucks over 80,000 pounds 
traveling to or from the Canadian border or within upstate Maine will 
be forced onto secondary roads, many of them two-lane roads, which run 
through towns and villages. Trucks traveling between Houlton and 
Hampden, ME, on these local roads will pass more than three thousand 
homes, several schools, and hundreds of intersections. Tanker trucks 
carrying fuel will again be traveling past elementary schools and 
libraries, and competing with local traffic. Not only is this an 
inefficient method of moving goods, but it also unnecessarily increases 
risks on narrow local roads.
  What is the result of such truck traffic on local roads? According to 
a study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic 
fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times 
greater on secondary roads in Maine than on exempted interstates. 
Serious injuries are seven times more likely. The past year's pilot 
program has proved that Maine's rural interstate is a safer place for 
large trucks.
  Maine Department of Transportation officials strongly support this 
program. Extensive studies and infrastructure inspections have left 
State DOT officials confident that heavier trucks carrying interstate 
and international loads belong on the interstate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on the tax bill 
compromise that was fashioned by the President and Republican leaders 
in the Congress.
  I voted against the compromise.
  I recognize that the Republicans in Congress put the President in the 
position of having to agree to things in the compromise that he 
strongly objected to. And I also realize that compromise is essential 
to move forward and to try to fix what is wrong with our economy.
  But here is the dilemma. We have two very serious problems that can 
undermine America's economic future. First is the crushing debt in our 
fiscal policy. Our debt is currently over $13 trillion with a yearly 
deficit of over $1 trillion. This proposal will substantially increase 
that debt which I believe will continue to undermine the confidence 
people have in this country's future.
  The estimate that this agreement will increase the debt by over $1 
trillion is far short of what will actually happen. The tax cut 
extensions are for 2 years and I am certain that in 2 years, in the 
middle of an election campaign, the tax cuts will be further extended. 
The total cost of those tax cuts for a decade will be to add $4 
trillion to the Federal debt. Again, I think that will undermine any 
confidence the American people or, for that matter, others in the world 
will have about our ability to rein in a fiscal policy that has us 
borrowing 40 percent of everything we spend in the Federal Government.
  The second serious problem that we face is the slow rate of economic 
growth that is unlikely to create jobs at a pace that we need. I 
understand that in order to address this problem we would want to have 
a further economic stimulus to extend the growth of the economy. 
However, this economy has been about as stimulated as any economy in 
history. Adding more stimulus through borrowing seems to me is not the 
way to promote confidence or economic growth.
  Earlier in the week I voted for cloture because I did not want to 
block a compromise on these matters. However, the specific compromise 
which we voted on yesterday I believe falls short of what the country 
needs, especially in dealing with what I believe is the controlling 
issue of a crushing Federal debt and therefore an erosion of confidence 
in our economy.
  The fact that this agreement was flawed was not the President's 
fault. Rather, it was due to the position of the Republicans insisting 
on the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Without that 
concession, the Republicans made it clear they were going to block any 
compromise.
  If our country is going to remain a world economic power we need to 
make good decisions and courageous decisions to fix the things we know 
are wrong. In order to do that, the President is going to need help. It 
requires more willingness to compromise on the part of the Republicans 
than they have shown recently.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate took an 
important vote to prevent the largest tax increase in American 
history--and help get America's job creators off the sidelines.
  I voted for this bill for one simple reason: raising taxes during a 
recession on anyone is not a good idea.
  This bill prevents tax increases on every American who pays income 
taxes, because it keeps the lowest bracket at 10 percent; keeps the 
highest bracket 35 percent; preserves relief from the marriage 
penalty--as well as the $1,000 per child tax credit; blocks higher 
taxes on capital gains and dividends; protects at least 21 million 
families from the alternative minimum tax; and reduces the ``death 
tax'' by 20 percent from what it would have been on January 1.
  Some of my fellow conservatives have reservations about this bill, 
and I share them. This bill certainly falls far short of what I think 
we would see if Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and 
the White House. I think we would see a permanent extension of all the 
2001 and 2003 tax relief; a much lower estate tax; and zero new 
spending or tax breaks for special interests.
  But given that President Obama will hold the veto pen for at least 2 
more years--and given all the class-warfare rhetoric that the President 
and the majority have indulged in over the last few years--I consider 
an extension of tax relief for every American taxpayer to be a 
remarkable legislative achievement for Republicans. One pundit summed 
up the agreement this way: ``If someone had told me, the day after 
Election Day 2008, that tax rates on income and capital would not 
increase for the next four years, I would have laughed at them. Now 
it's about to come true, and Presidents Obama and Clinton are helping 
make it happen.''
  The only thing I would add to that statement is that several of my 
colleagues deserve credit for making this agreement happen--especially 
Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, and Senator Grassley.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also raised 
objections to this legislation--and I would like to respond to just one 
of those objections: the claim that it is hypocritical to say you are 
concerned about the deficit but then vote to keep taxes low on American 
families and small businesses.
  Let me set the record straight on what actually happened to the 
deficit once the tax relief Congress originally passed in 2001 and 2003 
began to kick in to our economy. As our colleagues remind us 
constantly, deficits did go up during the first years of the Bush 
administration--in part due to the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the 
recession, and 9/11. In fact, by fiscal year 2004, the deficit was up 
to $413 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP.
  But then, just as the 2001 and 2003 tax relief started to kick in, a 
strange thing happened to the deficit: It went down to $318 billion in 
fiscal year 2005, then down again to $248 billion in fiscal year 2006, 
and then down to $161 billion in fiscal year 2007. By then our deficit 
was only 1.2 percent of GDP.
  Now why did the deficit go down in those years? One big reason is 
that tax relief helped grow the economy; got about 8 million more 
people on the payroll between 2003 and 2007; and therefore generated 
more tax revenue.
  I think the person who said it best was Austin Goolsbee, the chairman 
of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. On ``Meet the Press'' 
Sunday, he had this to say: ``You cannot reduce the deficit if the 
economy is not growing, period.'' I agree.
  Now I also agree that preventing a massive tax increase is not the 
only thing we must do to get our national debt under control. We must 
cut government spending--and that means killing the $1.3 trillion 
omnibus spending bill the majority introduced yesterday. We must study 
the proposals of

[[Page 22369]]

the President's Debt Commission--and take action to prevent the looming 
fiscal catastrophe that they described. We must address head-on the 
need for reform in our entitlement programs like Social Security and 
Medicare--and put them on a sustainable path. And we must pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  We can begin addressing all of these tough decisions in just a few 
weeks--once the new Congress elected by the American people is sworn 
in. Today, our urgent decision is whether we want taxes to go up on 
January 1, or rather extend the tax relief and remove a huge element of 
uncertainty among our job creators.
  I believe the choice is clear, and so do the American people. 69 
percent of the American people support this legislation, according to a 
poll released yesterday by the Washington Post and ABC News.
  As usual, the American people have got it right.

                          ____________________