Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today to consider one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will undertake this year, as the chairman pointed out, the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are here today to consider one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will undertake this year, as the chairman pointed out, the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2007.
As the chairman pointed out, there are still accidents that occur and there are still deaths that occur on rail, but to put that into perspective, in 2006, it was in fact the safest year ever in our Nation's railroad history.
Over the past 30 years, we have made tremendous progress in reducing the number of train accidents and deaths that occur around our rail yards and railroad lines. Let me give you some of those statistics.
In 1996, there were 33 railroad employees that were killed; in 2006, it's down to 16. Now, that's 16 too many, and we can continue to reduce that as we're attempting to do in this bill, but as you can see, there has been definite improvement.
Passenger trains, which were carrying, in 1996, 397 million people, in that year, there were 12 passengers killed. In 2006, there were 549 million passengers that were transported by train, and there were only two killed in 2006. Once again, a significant decrease. Any death is too many, but we're seeing positive results in the rail industry. In 1996, 488 people were killed at grade crossing accidents; and in 2006, that number, again, is down to 369.
While those numbers are high, this bill is going to address, as I will talk about here, how it's going to address those unsafe conditions and how we can improve making them safer for the traveling public and, of course, the rail industry.
One of the biggest issues we address in this bill is limbo time, the time that train crews must wait for pickup at the end of a run. Limbo time is very complicated. We went through some complicated negotiations, but in the end, limbo time will still exist. And I think it's important that people know that the limbo time that employees wait at the end of their run, they are being paid for limbo time, but it extends that waiting period and can result in crews being fatigued. So we phased that down in this bill. We phased down limbo time to 10 hours per month over a period of 3 years. Complete elimination of limbo time would have had some unintended consequences, like forcing train crew members to relocate their homes to new reporting points. The compromised language in this bill avoids disrupting the lives of rail workers and should permit railroad operations to continue smoothly and safely.
Another safety concern addressed in this bill is installation of positive train control, or PTC. The bill mandates that PTC be installed by the year 2014, but also provides up to 2 years of leeway in case a better or more effective system is developed.
Installation of PTC will likely cost about $3 billion, but the people that use the system will pay for that. That's not going to be passed on to the taxpayers, but the people that use the system and the rail industry will see some positive things happening in their operations to help them lower their costs. That's why I think it's important that we install an effective and reliable system, and this bill will ensure that.
I must admit that I think the bill still has some weaknesses, and we need to continue to improve in some critical areas. Grade crossing and trespassing fatalities, still the numbers are high. As I mentioned earlier, in 1996, there were 471 fatalities. That number went up, trespassers that died in 2006, to 517. And trespassers are people that are going onto rail properties illegally, they don't belong there, but those trespassing deaths are something we have to address.
Grade crossing fatalities. Again, we've seen them decrease, but we need to do more. I am grateful to Mr. Graves, who submitted an important amendment in the committee markup. The amendment is now part of the bill and authorizes up to $250,000 in emergency funding for a crossing which experiences a collision with a school bus or an accident where there is a fatality. Presently, if there is a fatality, that grade crossing just stays on the list, but with Mr. Graves' amendment, we're going to push it up until it's prioritized and make sure that crossing is dealt with in a timely manner.
I am also grateful to Mr. Brown from South Carolina, who helped us create a provision fostering the use of advanced warning devices at railroad crossings.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown, the subcommittee Chair, for working with me and Mr. Mica in trying to make this bill a better bill. As I said, there are still some improvements that we would like to see, and we will continue to work through the process to make the bill a stronger bill.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2095.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the distinguished former chairman of the Rail Subcommittee and one of America's experts in the rail industry.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no further speakers, so I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, through this process, we have had some significant differences, but we were able to work them out and produce a product that has bipartisan support in the committee. For me, it was a great experience working with Chairwoman Brown, but especially working with Chairman Oberstar. At times it was quite daunting to go into negotiations with somebody who not only knows the current issues of the rail history, but knows the vast history of the rail industry. So I made it through the process and learned quite a bit, and I appreciate the chairman and chairwoman for working with me, and also, of course, Mr. Mica for giving me the responsibility on this piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2095, the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, Chairman Oberstar's manager's amendment contains several important provisions. First, it codifies FRA's existing safety advisory on railroad bridges. This provision will help ensure that the recent tragic collapse of the highway bridge in Minneapolis will never be repeated on our Nation's rail system.
The manager's amendment also modifies the Swift Act, which requires locomotives to sound whistles at every crossing in the Nation. The amendment will require the FRA to take into account the impact of horn use on local communities.
For example, the town of Baldwin, Florida, is only a mile wide, but has a number of rail crossings and heavy train traffic. According to Mayor Godbold of Baldwin, locomotives sound their horns over a thousand times per day in this small town. The amendment will help Baldwin and other towns balance issues of safety and noise pollution.
Finally, the manager's amendment makes some technical corrections deleting the preemption and the police provisions which have already been enacted in the 9/11 bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns with this amendment which attempts to regulate railcar brake inspections in Mexico.
As I understand it, this issue has already been dealt with by the FRA. The Union Pacific Railroad had requested a limited waiver to do certain air brake testing in Mexico, but the Federal Rail Administration denied that waiver. So air brake and other safety inspections are actually being done on the American side of the border.
A potentially larger issue is that this amendment attempts to regulate labor conditions in Mexico. This amendment would interfere with the existing flow of commerce across our southern border. I do not have an answer to that, but I am concerned it could be construed as violating NAFTA.
While I agree with Mrs. Napolitano's intent of ensuring a safe U.S. rail system, I have great concerns. But I hope we can work together as we go through conference to take care of my concerns. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with STB preemption of laws regarding railroad waste transportation facilities. The Rail Subcommittee has held several hearings on this issue, one last year and another just yesterday.
I've a great interest in this issue, as my home State of Pennsylvania is the number one recipient of imported waste from other States, most of it coming from New Jersey and New York City. So, as I said, I've great concern.
At yesterday's hearing, we heard many complaints from local communities about illegal railroad, or not
even railroads, but people who claim the railroads, that are waste facilities. We also heard from the STB that most local laws are not currently preempted by Federal law. In fact, many entities claiming Federal preemption do not have legitimate claims.
I think it's clear that this law has to be clarified to make it easier to stop unscrupulous operators that Mr. Pallone mentioned in his State of New Jersey, but regarding Mr. Pallone's amendment, the STB has told our rail staff that this amendment needs improvement to accomplish that, to accomplish the stated goal of regulating railroad waste facilities.
In fact, I quote from a letter from the chairman of STB that says his ``general concern with the Pallone amendment is that it is overbroad and could result in local land use and zoning agencies exerting jurisdiction over legitimate rail transportation projects and impeding interstate commerce.''
In addition, the STB is already in the process of addressing many of these issues, which they need to do. If people were out there operating waste facilities in an illegal or unscrupulous manner, that needs to be addressed.
I would like to work with Mr. Pallone on this issue, but I'm going to oppose this amendment on those grounds. We need to encourage States to deal with their trash problem, all of us across this country. We all produce waste. We've got to make sure in our neighborhoods that we're taking care of our own waste and not shipping it to other States, and I'm just concerned that that's what will occur if this amendment is passed. And so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve my time.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the chairman said. Again, I don't disagree with the situation that is occurring that appears significant in New Jersey.
I am concerned, as I stated, that this language is going to allow communities to stop legitimate and law-abiding rail entities and operations, to stop them when they don't like it. I have great concern in that.
I believe the trash issue, as I said, is significant. Pennsylvania is the biggest importer of trash in the Nation with 10 million tons every year coming across the border into Pennsylvania.
My concern is that this problem will get pushed out of New Jersey and out of other States into States that are more willing to handle it, and as I said, we all produce trash. I'm sure today I've got half a waste can or more in my office. My community produces trash. Communities have to deal with that problem.
Again, nobody wants a landfill in their backyard, but the reality is we've got to have landfills. We've got to have these waste transfer stations. We've got to make sure, though, that people that are operating them are operating them properly so that we're not damaging the environment, that we aren't doing negative things to our communities because, as we heard yesterday, outside of Philadelphia and Bensalem, Mr. Murphy's district, they were trying to redevelop their town, and right across the street, somebody wants to come in and put in a waste treatment facility or waste transfer station that's not going to be positive for that community.
So, again, local communities have to have some say, but we've got to make sure they're not overstepping and stopping legitimate operations.
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
I appreciate and look forward to having those discussions. I, again, oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, this authorizes a program to install a pilot electric conveyer system for cargo. There have been several concepts developed for the Port of Los Angeles to move cargo using electric trucks, LNG trucks, automated shuttles, and even maglev. The general idea is, as Mr. Rohrabacher has pointed out, to get rid of the diesel trucks and move the cargo to outlying areas for transload to trains or truck. This would cut air pollution and potentially cut the congestion that exists now in the Port of Los Angeles, and would certainly benefit all of the Nation as we develop these types of transportation ideas.
I support Mr. Rohrabacher's goal of reducing congestion and pollution and urge support of the amendment.