Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act

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

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

We have none. I am prepared to close.

I have how much time left?

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Chair of the water resources appropriations subcommittee.

I yield an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman if he has any further speakers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.