Mr. Speaker, not to oversimplify this issue, but to put it in very plain terms, there is more money being collected in taxes from workers in railroads than is necessary to pay out benefits under the current system. The agreement reached does equity for both the railroads and the workers. The railroads, on the one hand, get money they can invest in improving their infrastructure, rolling stock, and trackage, and the workers--specifically retirees, widows and widowers, get benefits that they would not otherwise receive. That is what this is all about. I want to point out that there was not 100 percent agreement between rail management and rail labor. Just after the agreement was reached, representatives of those labor unions, the majority, that supported the agreement and those labor unions, the minority, that opposed it, asked for my support, each on their terms, to support their viewpoint. I felt it would be in everyone's best interests if rail labor were united in support of the agreement.
James Oberstar: “Mr. Speaker, not to oversimplify this issue, but to put it in very plain terms, there is more money being collected in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an agreement on railroad worker benefits and tax collection.
Share
More from James Oberstar
First, I am grateful for the indulgence of our colleague on the committee, our ranking member and senior Republican, Mr. Mica, for responding so quickly to the action of the other body. We are unaccustomed to such prompt unanimous action…
I have worked with the gentleman and our committee staff to craft this language. It's important to note that these are not taxpayer dollars paying for restoration, but rather proceeds from a penalty provided in this provision that is very…
I wish to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, who made a very elaborate statement about the provisions of the bill. I will not elaborate on it, except to concur with him that we are getting the…
I thank the gentlewoman for her courageous lead on this issue. This $35 billion for Afghanistan is roughly equivalent to the amount in the Recovery Act for highways and transit. If instead of Afghanistan these funds were invested at home…





