[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7654-H7686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 512 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 Senate 
amendments to the bill, H.R. 22.
  Will the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1504


                     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 Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under 
TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken into account 
for purposes of determining the employers to which the employer mandate 
applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with Mr. 
Palazzo (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-32 was 
pending.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, amendment No. 1, printed 
in part A of House Report 114-326, may be considered out of sequence.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 56, line 8, after ``diesel retrofits'' insert ``or 
     alternative fuel vehicles''.
       Page 56, line 9, insert ``or indirect'' after ``direct''.
       Page 56, line 14, insert ``or indirectly'' after 
     ``directly''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is cosponsored by 
Congresswoman Napolitano and is endorsed by the Natural Gas Vehicles 
for America, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and the 
National Propane Gas Association.
  The amendment addresses one specific provision in the bill, section 
1109, which modifies how Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, 
funds can be used in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. ``PM'' 
stands for ``particulate matter.''
  The purpose of the CMAQ Program is to fund transportation projects or 
programs that will contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. All projects and programs that 
are eligible for CMAQ funds must come from a conforming Federal or 
State transportation plan. The program is designed to allow States to 
identify the right solution for their air quality challenges and 
utilize CMAQ funds to implement them.
  Without the Ryan-Napolitano amendment, the language in section 1109 
may restrict States' discretion in identifying the most cost-effective 
emissions reduction technologies and effectively limit their options to 
only diesel retrofits. Specifically, the priority consideration and use 
of funding provisions for the section seemingly restrict local 
authorities' ability to consider other alternative vehicle technologies 
that can be adopted to meet the goals of this section.
  Other technologies, such as natural gas, propane, or electric 
vehicles, also reduce PM2.5 and provide other air quality benefits. In 
my State of Ohio and the chairman's State of Pennsylvania, being two of 
those States, they

[[Page H7655]]

allow for the use of CMAQ funds for a variety of alternative fuel 
vehicles. However, section 1109, as written, may limit their and other 
States' solutions in using CMAQ funds to address the nonattainment 
issue.
  We should not be directing States on how to use these funds, and it 
is important that we keep the utilization of CMAQ funding technology 
neutral. Giving States the flexibility in utilizing these funds allows 
them to select the best vehicle technology to address PM2.5 concerns. 
Modifying the priority consideration and the use of funding language in 
this section allows us to meet the environmental goals while avoiding 
picking winners and losers.
  I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for his help and Ranking 
Member DeFazio and their staffs for working with us on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano), the amendment's cosponsor.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support as a 
cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
for offering it. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to cosponsor it 
because this is an important issue for my area.
  In section 1109(c), this amendment would clarify language in the bill 
in order for local transportation agencies to continue to fund not only 
highway, but transit, bicycle, and pedestrian, projects with Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds, called CMAQ. This amendment 
would also allow for alternative fuel vehicles to be eligible for 
recipient funds along with diesel retrofit projects.
  A concern was brought to my attention by the metropolitan planning 
organizations in California, including the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the cities they represent, 
which includes my district in the San Gabriel Valley, that important 
transportation projects would no longer be prioritized for CMAQ 
funding.
  In 2014, southern California transportation agencies--mind you, they 
represent over 20 million people--used CMAQ funding to provide $51 
million in traffic flow improvements, $50 million in transit, and $22 
million in bicycle and pedestrian projects. This amendment would 
clarify that these projects are still prioritized for CMAQ funding.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with 
us on this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
conference to further clarify that traffic flow, transit, and bicycle 
and pedestrian projects continue to be eligible for CMAQ set-aside 
programs as they are now.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, currently under the CMAQ Program, funds 
may be used to purchase publicly owned alternative fuel vehicles, 
including passenger vehicles, service trucks, street cleaners, and 
others.
  This is a good amendment that ensures alternative fuel vehicles are 
still eligible under this bill. I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 73, line 24, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 73, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(n) Facilitating Commercial Waterborne Transportation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or rights granted 
     thereunder, and provided that the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) are met, a property owner may develop, construct, 
     operate, and maintain pier, wharf, or other such load-out 
     structures on that property and on or above adjacent beds of 
     the navigable waters of the United States to facilitate the 
     commercial waterborne transportation of domestic aggregate 
     that may supply an eligible project under this section, 
     including salt, sand, and gravel, from reserves located 
     within ten miles of the property.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the roads, bridges, and other 
infrastructure projects we seek to advance in the legislation before us 
today require a steady supply of aggregate and gravel. Without it, we 
might as well not even be here debating this legislation.
  In fact, a report from the U.S. Geological Survey--2011 USGS Report: 
Aggregate Resource Availability in the United States--found ``a 70 
percent increase in annual aggregate production may be required to 
upgrade our transportation infrastructure.''
  The report went on to say, ``There is an indisputable need for an 
uninterrupted, large supply of aggregate for the restoration and 
rehabilitation of the infrastructure.''
  It is also important to note that a substantial portion of the cost 
of aggregate is its transportation costs, and lowering those costs will 
reduce the cost of construction projects.
  My State of California is just one example of where the need is 
great. According to a recent report, California goes through 200 
million tons of high-grade aggregate every year, which is the 
equivalent of more than 7 million trips by large diesel trucks.
  So here is what my amendment does:
  It streamlines access to marine-accessible sand and gravel aggregate 
supply points throughout the United States, allowing our country to 
meet the future needs of the national infrastructure projects which are 
covered in this legislation.
  With this amendment, we have the opportunity to strengthen our supply 
of raw building materials for infrastructure projects, to reduce road 
congestion and transportation costs, and to strengthen our maritime 
community.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Generally, the gentleman from California and I have worked together 
on a number of things, and this is one time when I reluctantly rise in 
opposition to his proposal.
  I have spent a good deal of time on aggregate issues in my own 
district that relate to those which are located in the marine 
environment, and I understand some of the frustrations and concerns 
that go on there. The language in this, though, is so broad that we are 
preempting both the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Truman-Hobbs 
Act, which relate to impediments to navigation.
  At this point, that sort of amendment would, for instance, overturn 
an easement that has been entered into between the joint Naval Base 
Kitsap and the owners of this aggregate. There is a concern that, if a 
dock were built in that area, it would interfere with the navigation 
that is a prime route for our strategic submarine forces in the Pacific 
Northwest and the Pacific region.

                              {time}  1515

  So we think it has unintended consequences that go far beyond any 
idea of streamlining access to maritime aggregate resources.
  So I would have to recommend Members oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from 
California's amendments.
  With this amendment, we need to start the rebirth of our Nation's 
shipping capabilities and begin to build

[[Page H7656]]

U.S.-flagged seagoing vessels to move a domestic supply of sand and 
gravel across our Nation.
  This amendment allows access to aggregate that will be available to 
restore damaged beaches, enhance fisheries habitats in the estuaries 
and littoral regions of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Pacific Ocean by providing clean sand and gravel for broad-scale beach 
replenishment projects that are so vital across the Nation.
  This amendment will also lead to establishment of a reliable U.S. 
source to meet domestic demand for major construction and public 
projects. Half of all uses for sand and gravel are used for public 
projects, building and replacing vital U.S. highways, bridges, and 
seawall infrastructures.
  Utilizing our marine transportation will save taxpayer dollars by 
reducing costs on public works projects because, simply put, moving 
containerized cargo on the water is cost-competitive, economical, and 
efficient.
  Passage of this amendment puts our country on the path to having the 
potential to create at least 20,000 more shipbuilding manufacturing 
jobs just by building at least 30 to 40 new seagoing bulk freighters 
and container carrier ships worth at least $3 billion that will result 
if we pass this amendment.
  This amendment is good for the country. It is good for our 
infrastructure, and it is good for creating American jobs across this 
country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Here is what this amendment does. If you have a quarry that does 
gravel or aggregate by any waterway, whether it is an inland waterway, 
an inlet, a sound, or the ocean, you can then develop your gravel pits 
and put that aggregate on ships--not on trucks, not on rail, but on 
ships--that have a much lower emission cost than anything else does. 
You can put them on ships, which means it is going to help the maritime 
community.
  We import sand and gravel right now from China. We get our aggregate 
right now from Communist China. Instead of doing that, let's strengthen 
our domestic supply and allow the aggregate producers around the 
country the ability to export their aggregate to domestic suppliers, to 
the national defense community, to our road makers, and to our building 
makers.
  This strengthens America. It strengthens our national security. I 
urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, this amendment waives all laws for construction of these 
transportation-related facilities, i.e., piers, wharfs, and load-out 
structures.
  Now, the problem is that, if you waive all the laws, someone may want 
to build a pier that interferes with everybody else who navigates that 
narrow channel, including the United States Navy with their boomer 
subs. That is not really, I think, a very good way to go forward; and 
that was recognized by Congress as a problem in 1899, impediments to 
commercial navigation, in this case, strategic national defense 
navigation.
  So I think there may be another way to get at more easily utilizing 
these resources. But preempting the Rivers and Harbors Act and the 
Truman-Hobbs Act, which means structures could be built which would 
impede others' navigation, is really incredibly problematic. I really 
think that this should be considered in a more deliberate way as part 
of future legislation, perhaps the Water Resources Development Act or 
something along those lines.
  Again, I would strongly oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 4 will not 
be offered.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 110, after line 23, insert the following:
       (C)(i) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (8) and (9); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted transportation plan shall be 
     selected through a publicly available transparent process 
     that includes use of criteria that directly support factors 
     in subsection (h), the national transportation goals under 
     section 150(b), and applicable State and regional goals. The 
     criteria shall be used to publicly evaluate and identify the 
     highest performing projects.''.
       Page 111, after line 3, insert the following:
       (7) in subsection (j)(3)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the priority list shall 
     come from the highest performing projects identified in the 
     transportation plan under subsection (i)(7). If a lower-
     performing project is included in the priority project list, 
     an explanation shall be included to explain why the lower-
     performing project was selected, including the goals of 
     achieving geographic balance or providing benefit to 
     economically distressed areas.'' after the period.
       Page 114, after line 22, add the following:
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted long-range statewide 
     transportation plan shall be selected through a publicly 
     available transparent process that includes use of criteria 
     that directly support factors in subsection (d), the national 
     transportation goals under section 150(b), and applicable 
     State and regional goals. The criteria shall be used to 
     publicly evaluate and identify the highest performing 
     projects.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g), in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting at 
     the end the following: ``Projects included in the 
     transportation improvement program shall come from the 
     highest performing projects identified in the transportation 
     plan under subsection (f)(9). If a lower-performing project 
     is included in the priority project list, an explanation 
     shall be included to explain why the lower-performing project 
     was selected, including the goals of achieving geographic 
     balance or providing benefit to economically distressed 
     areas.''
       Page 244, after line 9, insert the following:
       (C)(i) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (8) and (9);
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted transportation plan shall be 
     selected through a publicly available transparent process 
     that includes use of criteria that directly support factors 
     in subsection (h), the national transportation goals under 
     section 150(b), and applicable State and regional goals. The 
     criteria shall be used to publicly evaluate and identify the 
     highest performing projects.''.
       (7) in subsection (j)(3)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the priority list shall 
     come from the highest performing projects identified in the 
     transportation plan under subsection (i)(7). If a lower-
     performing project is included in the priority project list, 
     an explanation shall be included to explain why the lower-
     performing project was selected, including the goals of 
     achieving geographic balance or providing benefit to 
     economically distressed areas.'' after the period
       Page 247, after line 17, insert the following:
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted long-range statewide 
     transportation plan shall be selected through a publicly 
     available transparent process that includes use of criteria 
     that directly support factors in subsection (d), the national 
     transportation goals under section 150(b), and applicable 
     State and regional goals. The criteria shall be used to 
     publicly evaluate and identify the highest performing 
     projects.''.
       (5) in subsection (g)(5)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the statewide 
     transportation improvement program shall come from the 
     highest performing projects identified in the transportation 
     plan under subsection (f)(9). If a lower-performing project 
     is included in the priority project list, an explanation 
     shall be included to explain why the lower-performing project 
     was selected, including the goals of achieving geographic 
     balance or providing benefit to economically distressed 
     areas.'' after the period.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

[[Page H7657]]

  

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on the 
bipartisan Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act that rebuilds public 
trust by promoting evidence-based decisionmaking in the transportation 
investment process. This commonsense amendment helps States and 
metropolitan planning organizations offer the highest return for 
taxpayers and commuters through increased transparency and improved 
accountability.
  Americans of all types are suspicious of government right now. In the 
context of transportation funding, many Americans believe that highway 
and bridge project decisions are based on politics and insider 
connections rather than statewide and regional transportation goals.
  In many areas of the country, local commuters have little idea how 
State Departments of Transportation and MPOs make their project 
decisions or why they choose one project over another; yet, every year, 
lawmakers ask taxpayers to spend more and more of their hard-earned 
dollars on infrastructure projects with minimal transparency and 
accountability.
  This amendment requires State and regional transportation plans to 
include project descriptions and to score projects based on criteria 
developed by the State or the region, not the Federal Government.
  Requiring that projects be assessed with objective criteria ensures 
that limited transportation resources are invested in projects that 
provide the highest return on investment to commuters. Furthermore, 
requiring transportation decisionmakers to communicate how projects are 
chosen enhances the public's understanding of and confidence in the 
project selection process.
  Many States and MPOs are incorporating project priority criteria 
today: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, 
Washington State, Minnesota, Massachusetts, amongst others. There is 
plenty of early evidence that this has increased confidence within the 
commuting public.
  Effective and efficient transportation systems are critical to our 
growing and prosperous U.S. economy. We cannot allow diminishing 
resources to be directed toward bad investments. This amendment ensures 
that the public has more complete information to judge the merits of 
projects for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the debate about America's crumbling 
infrastructure is about how we are going to find the necessary money to 
match the need. As responsible legislators, we should ask ourselves how 
we can most efficiently invest the resources we already have.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, good governance 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would impose 
burdensome new requirements on States and metropolitan planning 
organizations, significantly delaying project selection and 
construction.
  States and MPOs already, under current law, are subject to extensive 
planning requirements and take multiple factors into accountant in 
developing their short- and long-range plans. It is critical that they 
have the flexibility to weigh tradeoffs in different priorities without 
being hamstrung by a strict ranking process.
  Transparency and the opportunity for participation by stakeholders 
and the public is a hallmark of the planning process. States and MPOs 
are required to have a participation plan to ensure that any interested 
party can be heard.
  The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 
and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials all oppose this amendment, and they are the very people that 
deal with this.
  I oppose the amendment, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose 
it, also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the chairman, I 
want to thank him for his consideration.
  I do believe, having seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area, that 
the incentive and the requirement to do more will actually help with 
the transparency, as I have stated earlier.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise as designee of Representative 
Grijalva, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1301 through 1313.
       Page 168, line 12, strike ``this Act,''.
       Strike sections 1315 through 1317.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this bill uses ``streamlining'' the 
regulatory process, which is a euphemism for ``steamrolling'' over 
bedrock environmental laws. In fact, it dedicates 50 pages of this bill 
to paving over the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as 
NEPA, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA.
  I know it is popular in Republican circles to blame environmental 
regulations for all of our Nation's ills, but that doesn't make it 
true. In fact, the evidence tells us an entirely different story.
  The Federal Highway Administration reported several years ago, before 
all of this steamrolling started, that more than 90 percent of NEPA 
reviews for highway projects were accomplished through a categorical 
exclusion process that takes only a few days. For the few--and we are 
talking about only 4 percent--highway projects which do require an 
environmental impact statement, the end result is often savings for the 
taxpayers and better projects that cause less harm to the environment 
and to our communities.
  Earlier this year, a plan to improve U.S. Route 23 in Michigan was 
modified to avoid the largest loss of wetlands in the State's history 
and to preserve that habitat for migratory waterfowl prized by hunters.
  In New Jersey, in 2012, construction on the Route 53 causeway to 
Ocean City was completed after NEPA review helped them minimize private 
property takings as well as damage to tidal marshes.
  In my own home State of Pennsylvania, construction of the 
Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project is underway after a 
thorough and public NEPA review, which was conducted with the input and 
support of local residents and local government officials. This process 
led to the selection of a design with the fewest impacts to homes, 
businesses, and the local environment.
  NEPA does not lead to unnecessary delays; it leads to better 
outcomes. The real culprit in delaying highway projects is a lack of 
funding. To address that problem, the House majority will need to first 
look in the mirror. It is their draconian budget slashing that has left 
our transportation infrastructure in the disrepair that is in existence 
today.
  My amendment is simple, Mr. Chair. It would require us to evaluate 
the impacts of the last two rounds of regulatory steamrolling passed in 
the

[[Page H7658]]

SAFETEA-LU bill and the MAP-21 bill before we take any further steps to 
gut environmental protection and historic preservation.
  This approach is perfectly reasonable because, while there is ample 
evidence that regulatory reform was not needed in the first place, 
there is exactly zero evidence that it has had any positive impact at 
all because no information has been collected on the matter.
  So the very least we can do, in the interest of responsible 
government, is evaluate the effects of the laws we pass before we 
declare the need for more of the same. Shirking our responsibility to 
appropriate highway dollars and instead just scapegoating laws that 
protect the American people from harm is simply dishonest.

                              {time}  1530

  I do believe the sections of this bill that this amendment strikes 
are seriously flawed, and I do look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
administration, and our friends in the Senate on achieving a more 
reasonable outcome.
  Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), I withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 225, strike lines 4 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     permit the acknowledgment of roadside maintenance with the 
     use of live plant materials.
       (b) Term.--The Secretary shall carry out the program for a 
     10-year period. Upon the request of a State, the Secretary 
     may continue to carry out the program for that State for an 
     additional 10-year period.
       (c) Participating States.--The Secretary shall select 10 
     States to participate in the program.
       (d) Guidelines for Selection of States.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish guidelines 
     for selecting States to participate in the program.
       (2) Discretion of states.--The guidelines shall not limit 
     the discretion under subsection (e) of any State 
     participating in the program. Any other guidelines relating 
     to the participation of a State in the program shall be 
     established by that State, subject to subsection (e).
       (3) Priority.--In selecting States to participate in the 
     program, the Secretary shall give priority to any State that 
     can provide documentation demonstrating that the State, or 
     its agents, prior to November 2015, actively reviewed, or 
     stated an interest in, innovative approaches using live plant 
     materials for acknowledging a substantial contribution to 
     roadside maintenance.
       (e) Inconsistent Laws, Regulations, or Manuals.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, States 
     participating in the program may permit acknowledgment of 
     roadside maintenance through the use of live plant materials 
     without being limited by any Federal, State, or other law, 
     regulation, or manual that limits or regulates procurement 
     actions, acknowledgment signs, advertising, landscaping, or 
     other uses of, or actions relating to, highway rights-of-way 
     or areas adjacent to highway rights-of-way.
       (f) Funds Exclusively for Roadside Maintenance.--Any funds 
     paid to a State under the program shall be considered to be 
     State funds (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code), and shall be made available for expenditure 
     under the direct control of the State transportation 
     department (as defined in that section) exclusively for 
     roadside maintenance.
       (g) Report.--Before the expiration of the first 10-year 
     period referred to in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is only a 
technical change to a pilot program that is already included in the 
underlying bill. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for including the base language in the bill.
  This legislative language in our proposed amendment is a means for 
State Departments of Transportation to increase their revenues without 
additional burden on the taxpayer. Everybody knows that every State is 
hurting for transportation dollars. This helps them.
  By acknowledging contributions of third parties to a State DOT's 
roadside maintenance through a corporate logo made of live plant 
materials rather than conventional metallic material, State Departments 
of Transportation will have innovative new means for funding highway 
maintenance needs. This will free up funds for other highway projects.
  I support this program because Caltrans, my State DOT, and six other 
State DOTs asked for the authority to operate this kind of innovative 
program. The pilot program does not cost the State or Federal 
Government a penny to operate. Estimates are that my State of 
California could conservatively save millions of dollars annually in 
roadside maintenance costs from this program. Other States would enjoy 
other similar tangible benefits.
  The legislative language for the pilot program, as it appears in the 
underlying bill, does not specifically permit acknowledgment through 
live plant materials and places no limitations on what guidelines the 
U.S. Department of Transportation would develop for innovative 
approaches under the pilot program.
  The legislative language in our proposed amendment paves the way for 
State DOTs to implement an acknowledgement program with live plant 
materials by specifying this particular approach in the legislative 
language and by providing some specificity on the guidelines that the 
U.S. Department of Transportation should develop and what matters are 
best left to the States to assure the success of this innovative new 
approach.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow commercialization within the 
Federal right-of-way, and that causes concern as to the potential for 
proliferation.
  We have had many debates over the years that I have been on the 
committee over advertising proximate to interstates. We have come to a 
pretty good stasis on that issue. This amendment is not new. It is not 
widely supported.
  We did not hear from California that they were in support. We were in 
touch with them numerous times. Perhaps they are, but we didn't hear 
that. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America does not support 
the amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for taking the initiative on offering this amendment, which 
simply modifies the pilot program already created in the manager's 
amendment.
  My endorsement of this amendment stems from the fact that Florida's 
DOT currently has a cosponsorship program, and a multitude of other 
State DOTs have also offered their support. This program permits States 
to partner with private sector organizations, which will fund further 
roadside maintenance. The private sector, not the government, will be 
responsible for the fabrication, installation, and maintenance of the 
signs, resulting in zero expense to taxpayers.
  This amendment enables State DOTs to implement an acknowledgment 
program with live plant materials. Furthermore, it provides specifics 
on the guidelines USDOT should develop and lets States decide which 
matters are of significance to them.

[[Page H7659]]

  I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those things that I kind of 
thought everybody would enjoy. It is environmentally friendly, it uses 
plants and flowers, and it doesn't cost anybody anything. I mean, this 
is one of those deals that I am surprised is opposed by any Member.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my State of Florida could receive 
$35 million in revenue and $8.7 million in maintenance savings annually 
for the program.
  At this time, revenue is flat-funded. This is a ``may.'' The States 
don't have to participate in it. It is a pilot program. It is flowers, 
and it is friendly. I support it, and I would urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill itself establishes this. The gentleman has 
proposed an up-to-20-year pilot program. That seems pretty permanent in 
terms of most people's life spans.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. It takes a long time for these flowers to grow.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I guess we are putting in 
perennials, not annuals. Okay.
  In any case, the bill itself does establish a pilot program that 
would establish that five States would be allowed not just to do logo 
flowers, but to do other innovative projects that could generate 
revenues for use in the maintenance of the rights-of-way, and this 
would be five States. There would be guidelines published by the 
Secretary. They would terminate after 6 years, and then we would see if 
there was wisdom in expanding it.
  One problem that is raised is we have gone through, as I said, many 
controversies over billboards, particularly when they went to 
billboards that would change as you were driving.
  There was heavy regulation of that because of the period of the 
change so as not to distract drivers and cause potential traffic 
accidents. I can imagine you are driving along and you are really 
wanting to read that logo as you are going by, and this could 
contribute to distracted driving. So we must oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am looking at some of the designs that 
have been already done. One is a Nike swoosh. You don't have to read a 
swoosh. You just know it is a swoosh because we all know what Nike 
swooshes look like.
  You have the Pepsi logo. You don't have to read that. By going with 
the gentleman's argument, you couldn't have any billboards up anywhere. 
There are tons of billboards that you have to read.
  These are just logos, and the corporations want to pay the State DOT 
to put these logos on the side of the road. This is free money for the 
States, free money for States' transportation.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of Division A, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. __. FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 14501(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended ---
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6) respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Additional limitations.--
       ``(A) A State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or 
     enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the 
     force and effect of law prohibiting employees whose hours of 
     service are subject to regulation by the Secretary under 
     section 31502 from working to the full extent permitted or at 
     such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any 
     additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees 
     work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under 
     such section, including any related activities regulated 
     under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) A State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or 
     enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the 
     force and effect of law that requires a motor carrier that 
     compensates employees on a piece-rate basis to pay those 
     employees separate or additional compensation, provided that 
     the motor carrier pays the employee a total sum that when 
     divided by the total number of hours worked during the 
     corresponding work period is equal to or greater than the 
     applicable hourly minimum wage of the State, political 
     subdivision of the State, or political authority of 2 or more 
     States.
       ``(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit 
     the provisions of paragraph (1).''.
       (4) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)--'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)--
     ''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall have the force and effect as if enacted on the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-305).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Congress enacted the Federal 
Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or F4A, to prevent States 
from undermining Federal deregulation of interstate commerce through a 
patchwork of State regulations. Since 1994, motor carriers have been 
operating under the Federal meal and rest break standards until a 
ruling by the California Ninth Circuit Court. This amendment would 
remedy that issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unfortunately, the language of this amendment is so broad that it 
would basically preempt meal, rest break, and other laws that relate to 
truck drivers in 21 States. So I think this is an issue of states' 
rights.
  It is an issue of an overly broad attempt to address what is a real 
contradiction that was created by the ninth circuit, that if you have a 
truck driver who is operating long haul through a number of States 
having to comply with new rest or meal break requirements on the 
Federal clock, which I can barely understand with the new requirements 
on rest, every time the driver crosses a State line, it is confusing 
and I think is a potential impediment to interstate commerce.
  We offered an amendment that would have specifically addressed that 
concern. Unfortunately, we weren't able to reach agreement on that. Mr. 
Larsen of Washington State submitted that amendment to the Committee on 
Rules. It was not allowed. Unfortunately, we only have this overly 
broad amendment.
  This would not just affect interstate trucking; it would preempt 
California's wage, hour, and rest break rules for intrastate trucking 
in the State of

[[Page H7660]]

California and 20 other States. In fact, the case that was before the 
ninth circuit was intrastate truck drivers who were delivering 
appliances.
  It also would go further. We spent a lot of time when I chaired the 
subcommittee on the issue of these, basically, pressed labor, who were 
theoretically purchasing their drayage trucks to haul cargo out of Long 
Beach and out of Los Angeles, who were really basically being enslaved. 
They were never going to pay them off. They were never going to own 
them. In fact, they were hot-seated. Other people were also buying the 
same truck at different hours of the day. Nobody ever got the trucks.
  This would basically preempt any laws in California so that drivers 
could be paid on a piece rate no matter what the congestion conditions: 
Sorry. Gee, we paid you for that load. So it took you 8 hours. That is 
the way it is. So you only earned 49 cents an hour. Sorry. Because wage 
and hour laws don't apply to you.

                              {time}  1545

  It is just an overly broad attempt to address what has, at its core, 
a contradiction under the FAAA Act, the ruling about interstate 
commerce. So I would have to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Oregon. He was here 
in 1994 when Speaker Foley pushed this issue through. He understands 
the issue. While his language did not fully address the issue, we are 
going to continue to work together to resolve this as this amendment 
moves forward.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, let me just say first to Mr. Shuster 
and Mr. DeFazio that I want to thank them for their leadership in 
getting this bill to the floor. I am just going with the new Speaker, 
who said, ``the will of the House.'' And I am sure the will of the 
House will pass this amendment. Why? Because one thing is that 
transportation is intermodal.
  I was here in 1994, when we said we were not going to have a 
patchwork and we were not going to have each State with their own rules 
and regulations. I say let's move forward. In my opinion, we need to 
reinstate the intentions of the Congress in 1994.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note that 90 percent of the trucking industry is 
represented--not necessarily in terms of volume, but in terms of 
value--by OOIDA, and they are opposed to this.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank Mr. DeFazio for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would 
overturn a Federal court decision that determined California meal and 
rest break laws apply to truckers.
  On July 9, 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as was 
mentioned before, ruled that trucking operators in California must 
allow for 30-minute breaks after 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest 
break after each 4 hours. This meal and rest break standard is very 
reasonable when you consider the truck drivers can be subject to 14 
hours of on-duty time.
  The amendment would not only preempt California's law with regard to 
trucking operations, but would preempt laws in 21 other States and 
territories that guarantee a meal break. I won't go into the States' 
names. The States must be allowed to set meal and rest break standards 
as they see fit for the health and safety of their workers. One size 
does not fit all.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is needed 
to keep interstate commerce moving and to correct a misguided rule 
issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here, we are faced with 
an overactive judiciary legislating from the bench with very real and 
very adverse economic consequences as a result of this misinformed 
decision.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has taken deliberate action in the past to 
preempt States from getting in the way of a nationally uniform set of 
rules for motor carriers. This amendment makes clear the intent of 
Congress that States can't impose their own requirements on drivers 
whose working hours and breaks are governed under nationally uniform 
Federal regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, under current Federal safety regulations, drivers who 
need a break are always entitled to take one. This amendment does not 
change that. Likewise, current Federal whistleblower laws protect 
drivers from carriers who stand in the way of that, and this amendment 
does not change that.
  But as a result of the Ninth Circuit Court decision, motor carriers 
will now be forced to plan their routes and services around the 
obligations of individual State break requirements. This will deprive 
businesses and drivers of the flexibility currently afforded under 
Federal law for interstate commerce. It will reduce shipping capacity. 
It will increase shipping costs, and it causes confusion and cost.
  If not corrected, who will pay the price for the decision of the 
unelected judges of the ninth circuit? In my district, it will be the 
small businesses and consumers who face higher prices, and it will 
prove more costly to transportation professionals whose livelihoods are 
directly dependent on an efficient and streamlined shipping and 
trucking industry.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. May I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  My friends across the aisle regularly reject legislation because it 
encroaches on states' rights, yet their commitment to State sovereignty 
disappears when it comes to protecting workers.
  This amendment does more than just clarify the Federal Aviation 
Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It changes and expands its 
application to preempt the will of States such as mine.
  California's meal and rest break laws ensure a safe working 
environment for truck drivers traveling within the State, and the U.S. 
Court of Appeals specifically ruled these laws are not preempted by the 
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.
  This amendment overrules the court and State legislatures to weaken 
labor protections at the industry's request.
  As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and as a 
Californian, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).
  Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Chairman, I am proud today to stand with 
Representative Denham as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  This amendment reinforces--make no mistake--a current law that has 
been on the books for over two decades. It promotes interstate 
commerce, ensures economic growth, and fortifies safety requirements.
  This amendment will allow a vital industry in my district and a vital 
industry to our Nation, the trucking industry, to operate without a 
patchwork of State regulations.
  In my home State of Nebraska, we have several of the Nation's largest 
motor carriers. These employers haul freight throughout the country and 
provide good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, these employers may now face 
litigation that could cost tens of millions of dollars and create 
regulatory uncertainty across this country.

  Far-flung litigation shouldn't threaten the livelihood of hardworking 
Nebraskans. It is likely that companies like those in my district will 
simply refuse to do business in certain States. This result will 
destroy jobs, hinder competition, and hurt taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

[[Page H7661]]

  

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, Congress has been clear that the patchwork 
of laws and rules dictating when drivers eat, sleep, and pull over is 
impractical. Fifty standards create an unreasonable burden on truck 
drivers and companies.
  Furthermore, dismantling the Federal standards jeopardizes safety, 
increases costs, causes significant inefficiencies, reduces 
competition, inhibits innovation and technology, and curtails the 
expansion of markets.
  I support the Denham amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  In my district, I have some of the largest trucking companies in the 
country. I recognize these are hardworking, dedicated people who play a 
vital role in the success of our economy. The growth of regulations 
under this administration has made their jobs much, much more 
difficult.
  This amendment seeks to relieve truck drivers of a patchwork of 
regulations that make their jobs very difficult, with little positive 
effect.
  Let me correct a common misunderstanding. This amendment does not 
prevent drivers from taking breaks when they think it is appropriate. 
In fact, it does the exact opposite. It allows the drivers to be 
flexible to take breaks when they think it is most appropriate and most 
safe and not to worry if they are violating the law.
  Arbitrarily predetermined break times set by 50 different States 
simply will not work, and that is why I am such a strong supporter of 
this amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Aguilar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROGRAM TO ASSIST VETERANS TO ACQUIRE COMMERCIAL 
                   DRIVER'S LICENSES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall fully implement the recommendations contained 
     in the report submitted under section 32308 of MAP-21 (49 
     U.S.C. 31301 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Aguilar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that our veterans 
deserve the very best we can offer when they return home. While we can 
never repay them for their heroism and bravery, we can reaffirm our 
appreciation by doing everything in our power to help them transition 
back to civilian life. My amendment would help us do just that.
  This amendment requires the Department of Transportation and the 
Department of Defense to work together to help veterans transition into 
civilian jobs driving commercial trucks. It would help them obtain 
commercial driver's licenses, as outlined in a report commissioned by 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2 years ago. This 
report was done at the direction of the last surface transportation 
bill, MAP-21, and my amendment requires DOT and DOD to work together to 
implement the report's recommendations.
  Along with improving access to quality health care, one of the most 
important ways we need to help veterans is connecting them with job 
opportunities. Encouraging local businesses to hire more veterans is 
one step, but helping our veterans translate those skills they used in 
the military is a crucial part of putting our veterans back to work.
  Many veterans who drove specialized vehicles in the military struggle 
to put these skills to work when they return home because of 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations. My amendment makes it easier 
for veterans to put their skills to work by requiring the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's report recommendations be put into 
effect.
  Please allow me to explain.
  My amendment writes into law the recommendations that States can 
waive driving skills tests if a veteran certifies that he or she was 
employed in the military in a position operating a commercial motor 
vehicle, or CMV, during the last year. This was included in the 
underlying bill, for which I applaud the majority and minority for 
their efforts; however, my amendment goes a bit further.
  Among other things, my amendment helps create an abbreviated 
commercial driver's license skills test for States to give military 
drivers who do not have the experience operating vehicles with air 
brakes or manual transmissions.
  This amendment also, based on the recommendations of the report, 
directs the military services to work with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators to clarify options available to servicemembers and 
veterans to obtain existing information on military licenses, military 
CMV driver history, and military CMV experience.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do better by our men and women in uniform 
who have risked and sacrificed so much to keep us safe and free. As we 
focus on growing our economy, we need to keep our veterans in mind as 
we seek to expand job opportunities. This amendment will help us do 
just that.
  The study commissioned by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration was 2 years ago. It is time to put that into action and 
to get our veterans back to work. This is about getting our veterans 
what they have earned and deserve, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this through.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman from California bringing this 
amendment forward.
  The STRR Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations by the end 
of this year to implement recommendations of a report to Congress on 
assisting veterans in acquiring a commercial driver's license. However, 
the bill does not address the nonregulatory recommendations. This 
amendment does that. It requires the Secretary to implement those 
recommendations within a year.
  This is a good amendment that will assist our veterans in making the 
transition to civilian life. I urge all Members to support the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AGUILAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1600


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Hahn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON BURYING POWER LINES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study and report the 
     findings of such study to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress regarding the feasibility, costs, and

[[Page H7662]]

     economic impact of burying power lines underground. Such 
     study shall include the potential costs and benefits of 
     burying power lines underground when building new roads.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Hahn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the Hahn-Cicilline amendment 
to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015. 
Our committee has been putting in many months, some would say even 
years, in writing this bill. So it is actually a great day to see this 
bill finally come on the floor.
  In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 
DeFazio, and the entire Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 
our hard work in crafting this legislation.
  If I might just take a moment at this point to give a farewell and a 
rest in peace to Howard Coble, who was a good member of our 
Transportation Committee, who served in the Coast Guard. In fact, we 
named our Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act the Howard Coble 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. We will miss him. 
He was a good member of our committee.
  Our amendment today looks to make our Nation's roadways safer and, 
also, more scenic by directing the Secretary of Transportation to study 
the benefits and costs of undergrounding power lines.
  Forty percent of all power outages are due to fallen trees or weather 
events, and an additional 8 percent are caused by traffic accidents.
  By placing power lines underground, roadways are safer from downed 
lines during storms, service to customers is more reliable, and our 
roadways will simply be more beautiful to drive on.
  Every year over 1,000 fatalities occur as a result of collisions with 
utility poles. In fact, according to the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety, about 20 percent of all highway deaths are due to power 
line poles and traffic barriers.
  This is a preventable tragedy, and this amendment asks the Secretary 
to evaluate if this is feasible and to share with Congress its 
findings.
  We should take this highway authorization as an opportunity to make 
our highways safer and more scenic.
  My home State of California has been a leader in undergrounding power 
lines. In 1967, California began encouraging and directing utility 
providers to allocate a portion of their budgets to replace overhead 
cables with underground cables. This has been a good start, but I think 
we could do more in this country.
  It was President Johnson, urged on by Lady Bird, who signed the 
Highway Beautification Act in 1965 to limit unsightly roadside mess.
  Upon the bill's passage, President Johnson said, ``Beauty belongs to 
all the people. And so long as I am President, what has been divinely 
given to nature will not be taken recklessly away by man.''
  By conducting a nationwide study through the DOT, we can begin to see 
where these conversions make sense across this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I, as always, appreciate the gentlewoman from California 
and her hard work. She is a valued member of the committee.
  I don't believe this amendment has to do with transportation policy. 
I think it is a good thing when you bury power lines for a lot of 
reasons--appearance, weather, all those things--but I really don't 
believe this is a Federal issue, nor do I believe the U.S. Department 
of Transportation is the appropriate agency to determine the costs and 
benefits of burying power lines.
  I really believe that should be up to the companies and their cost-
benefit analysis to determine that and not to underwrite or subsidize 
their operation by doing this.
  So, again, with great respect to the gentlewoman from California, I 
oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) to speak in support of this 
important amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her extraordinary leadership on this effort.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment would 
require the Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility, costs, and 
economic impact of burying power lines underground.
  According to Federal data, the U.S. electric grid loses power 285 
percent more often than it did in 1984, when data collection efforts on 
blackouts began.
  According to the Department of Energy, that costs American businesses 
as much as $150 billion per year, with weather-related disruptions 
costing the most per event.
  Underground power lines make up just 18 percent of U.S. transmission 
lines, yet nearly all new residential and commercial developments opt 
for underground electric service.
  During Hurricane Irene in 2011, more than 6.5 million people in the 
United States lost power, including more than 30 percent of the 
residents living in my home State of Rhode Island, as well as 
Connecticut and Maryland.
  I urge my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward 
amendment so that we can begin to create a more reliable and resilient 
electric grid.
  I want to acknowledge the work being advanced by Scenic America to 
help restore and modernize the Highway Beautification Act that 
Congresswoman Hahn just made reference to.
  A group of us, including this extraordinary gentlewoman from 
California, have been in a working group trying to work on legislation 
to really restore and modernize the Highway Beautification Act, and 
Scenic America has really taken the lead in this work.
  I think the words of Lady Bird Johnson that the gentlewoman just 
recited are incredibly important. This is an important first step to 
just get information to understand the economic impact of burying power 
lines, what a difference it will make not only in terms of the scenic 
beauty of our highways, but also to businesses, and to prevent the 
economic loss that happens both to individuals and businesses.
  It is an excellent amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for her great 
leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. HAHN. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline). 
This was our joint amendment.
  Mr. Chair, as you said, Scenic America is working on different ways 
in this country to beautify our landscape. I believe that this 
transportation bill was the appropriate place to do this, as this is 
about highways and our roads in this country.
  But, having the disapproval and opposition of my chairman--it wasn't 
that strong, but it was a disapproval--I will agree to withdraw this 
amendment, and we will work with Scenic America to find another way to 
bring the undergrounding of our utilities forward.

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island, although I 
oppose his amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I would just ask the gentleman if he would commit to 
working with Congresswoman Hahn and I and a group of others that are 
really interested in restoring and modernizing the Highway 
Beautification Act so that we might work collaboratively on restoring 
some of those important provisions.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman pushing this issue. Again, as 
I said, burying power lines I think is a positive thing. It does add to 
the beauty of the landscape. But I just don't believe that it is the 
Federal Government's role to underwrite, the taxpayers to underwrite, 
these utility companies.
  So, again, I appreciate the withdrawal. I appreciate your pushing 
this issue. I continue to oppose the amendment.

[[Page H7663]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Heck of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1431. STORMWATER REDUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 330. Stormwater reduction assistance program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `green 
     stormwater infrastructure' refers to stormwater management 
     techniques that address the quality or quantity of stormwater 
     related to highway construction or due to highway runoff.
       ``(b) Federal Highway Runoff Management Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal 
     agencies, shall develop and publish best practices and 
     guidance for the installation, use and maintenance of green 
     stormwater infrastructure, including the adoption of 
     permeable, pervious, or porous paving materials or other 
     practices and systems that are designed to minimize 
     environmental impacts of stormwater runoff and flooding.
       ``(2) Contents.--The guidance shall include best practices, 
     guidelines, and technical assistance for the installation and 
     use of green stormwater technologies, including--
       ``(A) identification of existing and emerging green 
     stormwater infrastructure technologies;
       ``(B) cost-benefit information relating to green stormwater 
     infrastructure approaches;
       ``(C) performance analyses of green stormwater 
     infrastructure technologies in typical use scenarios; and
       ``(D) guidance and best practices on the design, 
     implementation, use, and maintenance of green stormwater 
     infrastructure features.
       ``(3) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     publication of the guidance under this paragraph, and not 
     less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other relevant 
     Federal agencies, shall update the guidance, as 
     applicable.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, small towns and cities alike 
have reasons to manage their storm water runoff. Our streams, rivers, 
lakes, and estuaries are all at risk of dangerous pollution following a 
downpour.
  Trust me, those of us from western Washington know this full well, 
and places like Puyallup, Washington, are actually finding ways to 
adjust their neighborhoods to protect surrounding waterways from 
pollution.
  Since 2009, Puyallup has helped residents install rain gardens to 
absorb the rainfall. These rain gardens are linked by pipes that 
collect the excess water from the roofs and direct it to the gardens 
rather than to the streets and then into the sewer.
  This is just one innovation of several great ideas that are innovated 
throughout this country in places like Puyallup.
  My amendment today builds on the success on the ground by simply 
asking the Department of Transportation to develop best practices for 
storm water management, to collect the information, and a guide on how 
to implement, install, and maintain green storm water infrastructure, 
and help any State that requests help with the development of such a 
plan--a voluntary program, not a requirement, no new money.
  Many of these innovative infrastructure practices--permeable 
pavement, natural drainage swales, green roofs--are economical and 
increase property values and invest in the people that make their 
careers designing and building these inventions.
  These new tools are both flexible and yield a strong return on 
investment. The people of Puyallup, Washington, get that.
  They know and I know and you know that we can't let water carry oil 
from our cars, pesticide from our lawns, and other pollutants into 
Clarks Creek or the Puyallup River or the Puget Sound.
  We can't do that and keep a strong economy or a desirable location 
for business and living. We can't let runoff kill, as an example, our 
cherished Coho salmon.
  So I ask you to support the promise of these innovative economical 
ideas to manage our storm water and to get DOT involved.
  This is the best of federalism. No new money, no mandatory program, 
just a way to get the information out, which the Federal U.S. DOT is in 
the perfect position to collect and make available.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from the Sixth Congressional 
District of Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
  Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentleman from Washington's Tenth District.
  In my neck of the woods, we take pride in the Puget Sound and we 
understand that it is in danger. That is why I join my colleague today 
to talk about the treasures the Sound holds: the water, the salmon, the 
oysters, the orcas, an entire ecosystem that is currently under attack. 
This is a threat that happens every time a thunderstorm or a rain 
strikes cities like Tacoma.
  When heavy rains hit, that water will wash toxic mixtures of oil and 
heavy metals off of our city streets and highways and into waterways 
like Puget Sound.
  The Seattle Times recently wrote about a new study that found some 
runoff was so toxic that it killed Coho salmon in 2\1/2\ hours.
  It is something we don't often think about, but this storm water mix 
creates a pollution that lingers. Folks in the region I represent are 
doing groundbreaking work putting in green storm water infrastructure 
to capture this runoff before it hits our waters.
  These are projects like rain gardens, green roofs, and natural 
drainage swales. Instead of letting storm water slide along and collect 
more dirt and grime and end up in our bodies of water, it captures it.
  Our amendment would encourage the growth of these projects. It would 
give our local governments and places like Tacoma and Puyallup and 
elsewhere a clear playbook on the most effective ways to implement 
green storm water infrastructure.
  It demonstrates that the Federal Government and local stakeholders 
can be partners in cleaning up our waters. This matters. It matters to 
Tacoma and other cities. It matters to bodies of water like the Puget 
Sound.
  Storm water runoff may be hard to spot, but it is taking a toll on 
Puget Sound and other bodies of water. That is why this amendment is 
important. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand what the gentleman 
from Washington is trying to accomplish here.
  The reason I oppose it is not because of what he is attempting to do, 
but the Federal Highway Administration currently has strongly supported 
and encouraged the use and implementation of green infrastructure in 
the Federal aid transportation projects to mitigate highway runoff 
impacts.
  FHWA recently published a new storm water runoff model, and it is 
engaged in various storm water research, including storm water 
performance measures.
  The Department of Transportation also is part of a Federal agency 
green infrastructure collaborative. This initiative includes working 
with States to implement integrated ecosystems, including landscape-
scale mitigation. So I don't believe we need to legislate further on 
this.
  I also would make note that just last night, we agreed to the 
amendment of Ms. Edwards of Maryland on storm water mitigation to put 
the States in the metropolitan planning process.

                              {time}  1615

  Again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish. I 
think it is already in the legislation. I think it is already in 
current law, so I would oppose the amendment

[[Page H7664]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. With all due respect to the chair of the 
committee, that isn't included in the current legislation and is 
clearly not the intent of the amendment. The intent of the amendment is 
to ask them to accumulate best practices. Yes, they have programs where 
they promote and they advocate. This is to ask them to go out and find 
these programs like we talked about in Puyallup which are unusual and 
innovative and which aren't yet in the manual so that they can share. 
This is information sharing on a scale that they don't currently do.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, it would help with a serious problem; but 
given the Chair's opposition to this, I will only ask that he consider 
taking a deeper dive into what we are trying to accomplish here because 
it solves a problem.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work with the 
gentleman. The gentleman is correct. It is not in current law, but the 
Federal Highway Administration is working on these things 
collaboratively with the States, and I think that we ought to let them 
continue at that pace.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


              Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act, including the 
     amendments made by this Act, may be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage 
     requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon 
     Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I have 
offered in the past, and it will be known as the amendment that 
eliminates the effect of the Davis-Bacon Act. The substance of it is 
this:
  None of the funds made available by this act may be used to 
implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage, which is 
the effect of this amendment, and it is effectively the Davis-Bacon 
Act. It seems to get the attention of some of my colleagues.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I have worked with this issue as long 
as anyone in the United States Congress. I have worked back for years, 
as I began about 5 years in the construction site as an employee. 
Multiple times I received Davis-Bacon wage scales; sometimes I did not.
  As I became a contractor in 1975, we began hiring employees. 
Sometimes we paid Davis-Bacon wage scales, and sometimes we did not; 
but I was always aggravated by the Federal Government's deciding that 
they knew what we had to pay our help and what they were worth.
  I recall many debates on the floor of the House of Representatives 
when people from the other side of the aisle would say that anytime 
there is a relationship between two or more people that are consenting 
adults, the Federal Government has no business sticking themselves in 
the middle of that relationship. Yet the Davis-Bacon Act tells me what 
my son, who is now sitting in the gallery, has to pay me if I am going 
to climb in the seat of one of his machines, say an excavator, a 
scraper, a bulldozer, or a motor grader.
  So we are 40 years in the construction business. I have watched the 
inefficiencies that are created by the Davis-Bacon Act. You might need 
somebody on a shovel, and he decides it pays more to get on a motor 
grade; or you might need somebody on a scraper, and he decides it pays 
more to get on a bulldozer. This wrecks the efficiency as well as puts 
an extra high price on the cost of the products that are being produced 
under the contracting business in the United States.
  So I would say this, Mr. Chairman, that over our years in the 
construction business, the extra costs for Davis-Bacon ranges somewhere 
between 8 and 38 percent additional, depending on the type of project 
and the location where you are. The average is someplace between 20 and 
22 percent.
  So to boil this all down, if we want to be responsible to the 
taxpayer, then we want to get the best dollar out of that.
  Somebody is going to say that it is second-rate work. That would be a 
direct insult to me. It would be a direct insult to my son, who owns 
King Construction today and who is listening to this debate. Our 
quality work stands with anyone's, and it is superior to many; and 
sometimes it is Davis-Bacon wage scale, and sometimes it is not. But we 
know what they are worth. The government doesn't know what they are 
worth. We want to hire the best help, keep the best help, and keep the 
best help on. That is just here in this microcosm of King Construction, 
but it is extrapolated across the Nation.
  So do we want to build 4 miles of road under government-mandated 
wages or do we want to build 5? I want to build the 5 miles. I want to 
build five bridges, not four. I want the best dollar for the taxpayers, 
and I want the highest efficiency that we can get. That is the 
substance of this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a time in America in 1931 when people were 
desperate, and unscrupulous contractors would move people from place to 
place, put them in work camps, and undercut the wages in communities. 
The wisdom of the Congress back then was this is not proper. 
Communities have different wage rates.
  This is not a diktat from Washington, D.C., about the wages. It says 
you will pay the wages that prevail in your community. For instance, in 
the gentleman's community, the median wage is $49,427. But under Davis-
Bacon, an electrician--a pretty darned skilled person in my opinion--
would only get $36,500 if they get the minimum Davis-Bacon wage. So I 
don't see that that is outrageous.
  What we are trying to prevent here is the abuse of construction 
workers and people, moving them from place to place, bringing them from 
a very low-cost State and saying: Hey, when you go home, you are going 
to be doing good. We will put you in a little work camp and a tent. You 
come here to this State; you undercut all the local workers; you do the 
job; and you go home. We don't want to go back to those days. Those 
were not halcyon days in America.
  So this is really a way to provide people with a living wage, 
certainly not an extravagant wage. I don't think $36,500 for an 
electrician in Iowa is an extravagant wage, and I don't see why we 
should pull that floor out from underneath them and say: Oh, hey, well, 
that is a little too high. We want to be able to pay our electricians 
less than that.
  This is about trying to create a race to the bottom like we have in 
too many other things in this country, our trade agreements and a whole 
host of other things that are going on that are creating income 
inequality. This will exacerbate income inequality. This amendment 
should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King amendment.
  This amendment would prohibit the application and payment of 
prevailing wages provided under the Davis-Bacon Act for funds expended 
on construction projects in this bill.

[[Page H7665]]

  Davis-Bacon sets wage and benefit standards for federally assisted 
construction projects to ensure that contractors compete on the quality 
of their work, not by undercutting wage levels in local communities. 
Negating the application of wage laws, as the King amendment proposes 
to do, often leads to shoddy construction and substantial cost 
overruns.
  This is not said to insult the sponsor of the amendment. The fact is 
that the census construction data shows that the value added per worker 
in States with prevailing wage laws is 13 to 15 percent higher than in 
States without prevailing wage laws.
  Additionally, studies conducted by the University of Utah have found 
that repealing the prevailing wage has led to the reduction or 
elimination of apprenticeship programs. Mr. Chairman, this is National 
Apprenticeship Week. We should be promoting the participation in 
apprenticeship programs, not taking up measures that would negatively 
impact this critical job training tool.
  Under prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the 
basis of who can best train, equip, and manage construction crews, not 
on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable 
workforce either locally or by importing labor from somewhere else.

  Historically, Mr. Chairman, there has been bipartisan opposition to 
repealing or suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in infrastructure programs. 
Let's continue that bipartisan tradition on prevailing wages by voting 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought I had actually made the statement, I thought 
my good friend from Virginia would pick this up, that it isn't about 
shoddy construction work that can be laid at the feet of merit shop 
operations. I am standing here on my feet in my boots having done all 
kinds of work for lots of years, and so has my family, going back about 
five generations. Our work has been competing with and superior to that 
of many, and there is nothing in the record of our company that anyone 
could point to other than quality and efficiency.
  In fact, the reason that he needs an apprentice program is because 
you can't afford to hire somebody and train them unless the government 
is willing to let you pay them less than the prevailing wage. That is 
what the apprentice program is. I have been one, and I have been 
bounced out of there because of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, when I listen to the gentleman about how 
we are going to prevent people from moving people in from a low-wage 
area to a high-wage area to take a higher wage or perhaps undercut the 
existing wage that is there, that is what started the Davis-Bacon Act. 
It wasn't to keep the low wages out. It was to keep African Americans 
out of New York City during the Depression when there was a large 
Federal building contract, and a contractor successfully bid that job. 
He was from out of town and he brought his crews in from Alabama, 
African Americans from Alabama, to do the work cheaper than the union 
scale would do in New York. That is what brought about this Davis-Bacon 
Act.
  When the Federal Government decides they are going to tell people 
what they have to pay their employees, they are the last people that 
actually know what that is worth. When you have to compete in this real 
world where equipment is expensive and time is priceless and we have 
strict specifications, strong engineers, bonds--bid bonds and 
performance bonds--and insurance contracts, we have to be efficient, 
and we have to be professional. We have to be able to not only do this 
as well as anyone, but more efficiently than anyone. That is what the 
merit shop does.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody is dragging their feet in our operation. They 
want the company to be successful. When I send people out on a Davis-
Bacon job, they are out there sometimes rolling clods because they know 
that it pays them to roll clods rather than get the job done. That is 
our expression, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if I have 1 minute 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, this is actually a pretty simple question, and I know 
my friend from Iowa tends to see this question through the lens of his 
own personal experience and his own company, but, frankly, this is a 
bigger question than that.
  I think it is right that the Federal Government has a stake in how it 
spends its money and that the Federal Government ought to be able to 
say that when we fund construction projects, we don't want contractors 
to simply pick the cheapest labor they can. Sure, we may want to build 
more roads, but we want to make sure those roads last. It is not just a 
matter of how many miles you build, but whether or not they are going 
to be done in a way that makes sure that the quality of the work 
matches the investment that this country is making.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's point. I can just tell 
you about my own experience having done development and construction in 
one of the toughest markets in America, big construction and small 
jobs. I always knew when we paid a prevailing wage that the work was 
going to be done on time and it was going to be done with quality.
  When it comes to the Federal dollar, doesn't it seem to me and all of 
us here that cheap is not always better, and that we owe it to the 
American people to deliver to them a product that is consistent with 
the quality that they would like to see in their own home? When you go 
to buy material or when you go to hire a contractor yourself for your 
own home, you don't say to yourself, ``Who is the lowest cost provider 
I can get?'' You want to make sure the job is done right.
  Secondly, the American people need a raise. We don't need the Federal 
Government to participate in this race to the bottom in undercutting 
local economies by paying people less than they are worth. We have lost 
enough in this country. It is time to end this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  For over 75 years, the Davis-Bacon Act has been protecting middle 
class families and taxpayers.
  As a son of a union worker in Snohomish County, Washington, I know 
how important prevailing wages can be for middle class families.
  A prevailing wage is not necessarily a union wage--it's set by the 
Department of Labor after surveying local labor.
  But it's a living wage, one that has helped build middle class 
economies in my district in places like Everett and Lynnwood.
  Davis-Bacon standards also ensure that taxpayers are getting their 
money's worth when it comes to construction projects.
  By paying a decent wage, Davis-Bacon projects are built by more 
experienced and more productive construction workers.
  The result is better built, longer lasting projects that save money 
over their lifetime which is especially important because poor and 
crumbling infrastructure hurts everyone.
  We shouldn't cut corners when it comes to our transportation 
infrastructure, and we shouldn't cut corners when it comes to hiring 
construction workers.
  The amendment before us would do just that.
  Workers deserve to be paid fair wages.
  I ask my colleagues to support middle class families by voting 
against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.

[[Page H7666]]

  


                              {time}  1630


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title II the following:

     SEC. __. STREAMLINED APPLICATION PROCESS.

       Section 603 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Streamlined Application Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 
     and Reform Act of 2015, the Secretary shall make available an 
     expedited application process or processes available at the 
     request of entities seeking secured loans under this chapter 
     that use a set or sets of conventional terms established 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--In establishing the streamlined application 
     process required by this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     include terms commonly included in prior credit agreements 
     that are desirable to borrowers and allow for an expedited 
     application period, including--
       ``(A) the secured loan is in an amount of not greater than 
     $100,000,000;
       ``(B) the secured loan is secured and payable from pledged 
     revenues not affected by project performance, such as a tax-
     backed revenue pledge, tax increment financing, or a system-
     backed pledge of project revenues; and
       ``(C) repayment of the loan commence not later than 2 years 
     after disbursement.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


  Modification to Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 13 printed in part A of House Report 114-326 be modified 
in the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington:

       In lieu of amendment #13 printed in Part A of House Report 
     114-326.
       Add at the end of title II the following:

     SEC. __. STREAMLINED APPLICATION PROCESS.

       Section 603 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Streamlined Application Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 
     and Reform Act of 2015, the Secretary shall make available an 
     expedited application process or processes available at the 
     request of entities seeking secured loans under this chapter 
     that use a set or sets of conventional terms established 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--In establishing the streamlined application 
     process required by this subsection, the Secretary may 
     include terms commonly included in prior credit agreements 
     and allow for an expedited application period, including--
       ``(A) the secured loan is in an amount of not greater than 
     $100,000,000;
       ``(B) the secured loan is secured and payable from pledged 
     revenues not affected by project performance, such as a tax-
     backed revenue pledge, tax increment financing, or a system-
     backed pledge of project revenues; and
       ``(C) repayment of the loan commence not later than 5 years 
     after disbursement.''.

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the modification.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from many 
midsize cities in my district that they often struggle to compete with 
larger cities for Federal transportation funding.
  While the needs of midsize cities are just as significant as those of 
larger cities, the administrative burden of accessing TIGER grants or 
TIFIA loans is often too great. My amendment addresses that difficulty 
by improving access to TIFIA loans.
  While TIFIA is a great funding source for bigger projects, sponsors 
of smaller projects can be discouraged from using it because the 
application process is complicated and requires more resources than 
these cities can muster.
  My amendment would require the Secretary to provide an expedited 
process for TIFIA applications that are less than $100 million and 
backed by real revenue. These are smaller, lower risk projects that 
aren't happening because States and localities might be scared off by 
the long and involved TIFIA loan application process.
  By creating an expedited process for these smaller, lower risk 
projects, we can open access to Federal resources for smaller cities 
and counties that we represent.
  This is a streamlined amendment that puts more power in the hands of 
State and local governments, something I know that my colleagues can 
support.
  I appreciate that Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio have 
made other improvements to the TIFIA process in the underlying bill, 
and my amendment complements these improvements in a straightforward 
way. I would appreciate the support of the leadership on the committee 
for this amendment.
  I ask support of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even 
though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's commonsense 
amendment. As usual, he brings common sense to the table.
  This amendment does and will accelerate the approval of TIFIA credit 
assistance for certain projects.
  I encourage all Members to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Culberson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 249, after line 14, insert the following:
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and'' ; and
       (D) by adding at the end of subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(iv) the applicant shall have a current operating ratio, 
     as such ratio is set forth by the Federal Transit 
     Administration using the ratio of current assets to current 
     liabilities, of 1:1.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, one of our principal responsibilities 
here is to be good stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars. It is a responsibility that I know each one of us takes very 
seriously.
  My amendment today will ensure that we apply the same commonsense 
standards to the investment of our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars that we do in the investment of our own dollars.
  You in your own life would not loan money or invest money in a 
business that was so poorly managed that it took on more debt than they 
could manage. You wouldn't put your money in a company that had taken 
on so much debt that their debt exceeded their liabilities. And, 
certainly, if you were applying for a bank loan, a bank would not loan 
your business money if your business had more debt than it had assets.
  That is all this amendment says is that the Federal Government will 
not

[[Page H7667]]

invest our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in a transit agency 
that has more debt than they do liabilities.
  My amendment ensures that the minimum asset-to-debt ratio that a 
transit entity can have is 1:1. It is common sense. This is sort of a 
working guideline that I know the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, on which I work, and the Federal Transit Administration 
has for years wanted to be sure that the agencies out there--transit 
entities across America--have no more debt than they do assets.
  So the amendment says the Federal Government will not issue a Federal 
transit grant to an agency that has a ratio of current assets to debt 
that exceeds 1:1, very straightforward, very simple.
  Let's protect our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in the same 
way we would protect our own. In fact, it is actually a much higher 
obligation that we have to be good stewards of the Treasury, as 
responsible representatives.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an unusual amendment, to say the least. There is no measure 
of assets done regularly for our transit systems in America. In fact, 
the only measurement that is done is that we have an $84 billion--B, 
billion--backlog to bring our existing transit systems up to a state of 
good repair. That means, basically, I am sure everybody would fail this 
test.
  So if you want to do away with transit in America and get them out of 
the trust fund--something that Ronald Reagan made a high priority, and 
he put transit into the trust fund. He was the first Republican to 
support that, and they have been in ever since.
  He said: We cannot ignore our urban centers. They are the engines of 
economic growth in this country, and we can't ignore them. We need to 
be able to move people efficiently in those urban areas.
  So, since then, we have had a modest proportion of the trust fund--
about 20 percent, generally--going into transit.
  That is not adequate, as it is not adequate for bridges; 140,000 need 
replacement or repair. It is not adequate for highways; 40 percent of 
the system is failing and it needs total rebuilding.
  But an $84 billion backlog in transit--they are killing people right 
here in the Nation's Capital because of the state of disrepair. It is 
an embarrassment.
  There is no transit district in the United States of America who 
makes money. So what is this about? I don't get it. We are not lending 
money for them to make a profit and pay off loans. They all receive 
Federal support, and they need more Federal support.
  In fact, in my travels, I have only been one place where they claim 
the transit district made money, which is Hong Kong. I urge you to go 
ride there at rush hour and see if you enjoy that experience. It is not 
very good here either.
  But, in any case, no one else claims to make money. And I don't know 
if they really do. That is a Communist-dominated state. So it is 
probably not true.
  I don't understand the amendment, to tell the truth. I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon is confusing 
the issue here. The amendment is very straightforward.
  Let me read from the amendment itself. The applicant transit agency 
has to have a current operating ratio of current assets to current 
liabilities of 1:1. They have to have the same current level of debt as 
they do assets in order to be eligible to apply for a Federal transit 
grant.
  This isn't about making money. This is about making sure the 
taxpayers are not going to give another brick to a transit agency that 
has already got too much debt and is overloaded and is in a position 
where they may not be able to take full advantage of the grant. 
Taxpayers, our constituents, should not have to put their hard-earned 
tax dollars into a transit agency that is carrying more debt than they 
have assets. This is very straightforward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for 
him to name a transit agency that has gone bankrupt recently.
  Mr. CULBERSON. In fact, I just spoke to the chairman of the Houston 
Metropolitan Transit Authority yesterday, and he tells me that their 
asset-to-debt ratio--they have got assets.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I don't know what and who is running 
that thing.
  Mr. CULBERSON: They are going to go bankrupt.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Sir, it is my time. They have not gone bankrupt. They 
are still operating.
  The Federal Government has not had, that I am aware of, any major 
TIFIA loans or anything go into default.
  This is a bizarre amendment in search of a problem that doesn't 
exist. We have no transit agencies that are making money. I don't 
anticipate we ever will have a transit agency that makes money. No one 
in the world operates transit agencies that make money.
  It is a public service to mitigate congestion and provide for our 
major urban areas to move people more efficiently with a partnership 
between the Federal Government and local authorities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, this is not about making money. The 
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman yesterday told me that 
their asset-to-debt ratio is about 2:3:1. So they have got 2 to 3 times 
more assets than they do debt.
  That is what this amendment says, that we will, as good stewards of 
our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, only send Federal transportation 
grants to transit agencies like Houston Metro that have done a good job 
managing their responsibilities and their assets are at least on par 
with their debt. That is all it says.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon is confusing 
the issue. This isn't about making money. This isn't about repaying the 
money.
  This is about making sure that our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars are going to be wisely and carefully and prudently sent only to 
those transit agencies that have proven they can do a good job, that 
they don't have more debt currently than they have current assets.
  My amendment, quoting from the amendment, is very simple:

       Applicant shall have a current operating ratio of current 
     assets to current liabilities of 1:1.

  That is at a minimum. Houston Metro would qualify for this. There are 
transit agencies all over America that would qualify for this.
  Let's make sure that the transit entity, before they ask for our 
constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, have demonstrated that they are 
competent and capable of managing the money that they already have on 
hand and they don't have more debt than they can carry.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Actually, the amendment is to take money from New York City, 
Washington, D.C., probably Baltimore, Boston--I don't know--anyone who 
has a legacy transportation system that actually, until Ronald Reagan 
was President, pretty much was built without Federal dollars and run 
without Federal support and they have huge backlogs in terms of 
bringing them up to a state of good repair, 120-, 130-year-old tunnels.
  This would just basically say: Let's put the money in the places 
which have the most modern transportation systems, built most recently, 
and probably built since Federal support was put in place by Ronald 
Reagan and stick it to the ones who did it on their own 130, 140 years 
ago and have been struggling to keep up and only had a partnership with 
the Federal Government since Ronald Reagan was President of the United 
States.
  This does not go to the efficiency of an operation anytime anybody 
applies for a TIFIA loan or anything else. They

[[Page H7668]]

are evaluated in terms of how they are going to be able to repay those 
loans at the fare box, out of the fare box, out of operating costs, not 
what their assets to liabilities are.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1645

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 15 will 
not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I (page 233, after line 8), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1431. IMPROVEMENT OF DATA COLLECTION ON CHILD OCCUPANTS 
                   IN VEHICLE CRASHES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise the crash 
     investigation data collection system of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration to include the collection of 
     the following data in connection with vehicle crashes 
     whenever a child restraint system was in use in a vehicle 
     involved in a crash:
       (1) The type or types of child restraint systems in use 
     during the crash in any vehicle involved in the crash, 
     including whether a five-point harness or belt-positioning 
     booster.
       (2) If a five-point harness child restraint system was in 
     use during the crash, whether the child restraint system was 
     forward-facing or rear-facing in the vehicle concerned.
       (b) Consultation.--In implementing subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall work with law enforcement officials, safety 
     advocates, the medical community, and research organizations 
     to improve the recordation of data described in subsection 
     (a) in police and other applicable incident reports.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives a report on child occupant crash data 
     collection in the crash investigation data collection system 
     of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
     pursuant to the revision required by subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment is simple. It is 
identical to language that appeared in the Senate version of the 
transportation bill that required improved data collection on the types 
of child restraint systems in use whenever a child is present during a 
car crash.
  I am honored to have Representative Love as a cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I thank her for her support.
  Mr. Chair, I know that we have 81 amendments to work through today 
and a long evening ahead of us; so, in the interest of time, I will 
keep my remarks brief.
  The amendment I am offering merely requires revisions to the crash 
investigation data collection system of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration in an effort to save children's lives. The more 
we know about the type of child restraint system used, how it was used, 
and the outcome of that use, the more we will be able to avert future 
tragedies.
  After 3 years of collection of the data required by this amendment, 
the Secretary will be required to submit a report to Congress on the 
performance of various child restraint systems. It is my hope that we 
will join together at that time to craft new legislation that addresses 
what we learn.
  Again, this is a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chair. I believe it is a 
good amendment, and I think we have an opportunity to save children's 
lives.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in our jurisdiction. 
It is in the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. I understand 
the Energy and Commerce Committee supports the amendment, so we support 
the amendment also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman does not oppose 
and that the committee of jurisdiction does not oppose.
  It is very timely. We just had a study about child safety seats which 
raises questions about rear-facing seats, and I think this 
comprehensive data would be very, very important as we move forward, 
potentially changing the guidelines on how we restrain children in 
vehicles to better protect them.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman on bringing this amendment forward, 
and I hope that it is accepted.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Russell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III of division A, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. STREETCAR FUNDING PROHIBITION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal 
     financial assistance may not be provided for any project or 
     activity to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise 
     support a streetcar service. This section does not apply to a 
     contract entered into before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, streetcars, also known as trollies, are 
mass transit vehicles that operate on rail lines embedded in normal 
roadways, often drawing electrical power from overhead structures.
  From 2009 to 2014, the Department of Transportation awarded $432 
million for streetcar projects in 14 cities throughout the country.
  Streetcars are highly impractical from a public transit standpoint. 
Like a bus, but unlike a train, a streetcar's speed is constrained by 
the speed of traffic around them. Unlike a bus, however, they are bound 
by their tracks. If anything blocks the tracks, such as an accident or 
a construction project, the entire line shuts down, making it an 
inefficient form of transportation.
  Streetcars are costly to build and operate. They require extensive 
infrastructure, including tracks and overhead power, that is not 
required for buses. Per passenger, per mile, they are also 
significantly and consistently more costly to operate than buses. 
According to a 2013 Journal of Public Transportation study, they fail 
or are at the bottom of all efficient forms of transportation.
  The Congressional Research Service can find no clear evidence that 
streetcars increase transit ridership. Streetcar corridors that saw 
economic growth often benefited from other substantial subsidies. It is 
unclear if streetcars contributed to this growth.
  The main argument for this amendment, which would prohibit future 
funding, is that it would establish Federal prohibitions on any 
financial assistance to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise 
support a streetcar service unless there is a current contract in place 
that would be entered

[[Page H7669]]

into before the date of the enactment of the act.
  The main argument for streetcars is often their psychological appeal. 
While this is appreciated, it is also very subjective, and it depends 
on the sentiments of tourists or local communities. They are more 
comparable to water taxis or Ferris wheels than to buses and light 
rail. The Department of Transportation is not in a good position to 
judge how tourists and locals will feel about a streetcar project. The 
agency, therefore, lacks the insight to predict the success of a 
project.
  Most streetcar funding has come from the Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery grant program, or TIGER program. TIGER is 
an extremely competitive program with 20 times more applicants than 
there is money available. Recent rule changes are expected to make it 
easier for streetcars to receive funding from the Capital Investment 
Grant Program, also known as the New Starts and Small Starts program.
  The President's administration has requested $3.2 billion for this 
program for FY 2016, including $75 million for streetcar projects, and 
at least six more are under development.
  Any further grant awards for streetcar projects will divert scarce 
Federal funding from other high-priority transportation projects. While 
we appreciate all forms of transportation, our infrastructure, our 
national defense, and the vitality of our commerce on our roads beg for 
more efficient means of transportation for our dollars, which are 
limited.
  Bus Rapid Transit projects, or BRT projects, for example, attract 
riders with higher quality stations and buses, traffic lanes that are 
fully or partially dedicated to buses, and more reliable, frequent 
service. Unlike for streetcars, there is objective evidence that the 
BRT tends to increase transit ridership and decrease trip time, 
according to the Government Accountability Office.
  Streetcar projects are expensive, uncertain gambles that depend on 
subjective local and tourist sentiments more than on objective facts. 
It is for that reason--as we face a $19 trillion deficit and as we face 
foreign policy challenges abroad that require contingency dollars and 
as we look at husbanding the strength for our transportation--that my 
amendment would make sure that these resources are used in their proper 
place.
  Local communities should, therefore, risk their own funds, like in my 
home State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City recently passed a $129 million 
downtown streetcar project, which its own citizens approved, without 
using Federal funds. While municipalities may desire streetcars, they 
should not do it with other Americans' money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would dictate to communities across America what form 
of transit they could put into their urban areas to solve problems of 
congestion and the efficient movement of people from place to place.
  The gentleman mentioned tourist destinations. Yes, some may relate to 
tourist destinations; others may relate to medical facilities, as in 
Portland, Oregon, where the streetcar terminates at the Oregon Health & 
Science University. It also then utilizes a tram, which is at both the 
bottom and the top of the hill. It is used by many patients and others 
who have to get there. So these are not just toy things or things that 
are used for tourists. They are used to solve congestion problems in 
major urban areas. They are also incredible tools for economic 
development.
  As for the fixed streetcar line in Portland, they revitalized a whole 
section of the city, which generated $3.5 billion in private economic 
development because the line was there. They didn't get any Federal 
money, but they built their projects adjacent to that line, which also 
provided a built-in ridership. Many people who reside in those pretty 
high-end apartments actually don't own cars, and they utilize the 
streetcar.
  Salt Lake has already attracted $400 million in investment. Atlanta, 
Georgia, has a very successful program. Tucson, Arizona, has seen an 
incredible initial ridership, far exceeding projections. Cities across 
America are finding great success with streetcars; so to deny them this 
tool on some sort of arbitrary basis, I think, is unwarranted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, no research supports clear economic 
growth, according to the Congressional Research Service. While there 
may be other factors--usually with heavy government subsidies--that 
also contribute to this growth, it does not have any delineation toward 
streetcars.
  This amendment does not dictate but protects scarce resources. In a 
nation that has an incredible deficit problem, we have to get to the 
point at which we can have priorities. This focuses on priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree more with my 
friend from Oklahoma City.
  First of all, the streetcar is a highly developed mechanism that 30 
communities across the country are involved with right now, and they 
all invest their own money, including Oklahoma City. I find it ironic 
that somehow there is this notion that people are picking this out of 
the air as a toy or arts and crafts. That is not the case.
  Look, I have been working on this for over 30 years, since I 
initiated a project for Portland's streetcar. I would be happy to 
introduce the gentleman to businesspeople, to local government. 
Actually, my friend from Oregon understated it. It is $4.5 billion. It 
is happening in Seattle, in Tacoma. I was in New York--in Brooklyn--
this Friday, where they are looking at a streetcar. It is an 
extraordinarily efficient way to concentrate development. It encourages 
private investment. It extends the pedestrian experience. It is part of 
the toolkit.
  I notice the gentleman has left the Chamber. I was going to ask him 
if he knew that, in his Oklahoma City, there is a TIGER grant that is 
going to build three blocks of rail line starting in 2016. It was a 
choice of Oklahoma City. They thought the TIGER grant was so important 
that they are using Federal money in a project that is supplementing 
local money.
  My friend from Oregon is correct, the ranking member, in that we 
shouldn't take this tool away from communities, large and small, across 
the country. From Kenosha, Wisconsin, to Los Angeles, people are 
understanding that the streetcar has a vital role in revitalizing 
communities, in giving people more choices, in focusing economic 
development; and it is why the tram--the streetcar--is ubiquitous 
across the world. It is why we now have 30 cities that are doing it.
  I would argue, if you look at the billions of dollars we have 
invested in transportation projects, less than a half a billion dollars 
that people competed for very aggressively, for these TIGER grants, is 
money well spent. It is well spent in my community. Some people might 
warrant Bus Rapid Transit, like my colleague from Oregon has in Eugene.

                              {time}  1700

  This is a tool that has proven its worth. Communities around the 
country, from Cincinnati to Dallas, Texas, are doing it because it 
works. It would be a tragic mistake to approve an amendment that would 
take this tool away from communities that decide to do it and would 
like to supplement their local resources with Federal money, like is 
happening in Oklahoma City next year.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.

[[Page H7670]]

  

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS OF THE WASHINGTON 
                   METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Compact'' means the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774; 80 Stat. 
     1324);
       (2) the term ``Federal Director'' means--
       (A) a voting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who represents the Federal Government; and
       (B) a nonvoting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who serves as an alternate for a member 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (3) the term ``Transit Authority'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority established under Article 
     III of the Compact.
       (b) Appointment by Secretary of Transportation.--
       (1) In general.--For any appointment made on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall have sole authority to appoint Federal 
     Directors to the Board of Directors of the Transit Authority.
       (2) Amendment to compact.--The signatory parties to the 
     Compact shall amend the Compact as necessary in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Representative Comstock of Virginia and I have an amendment that is 
at the desk, and I don't have to tell my colleagues who ride Metro 
every day to and from work of the issues that WMATA Metro has had with 
safety, performance, and management.
  Our bipartisan amendment gives the Secretary of the United States 
Department of Transportation the authority to appoint the four Federal 
members to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board. 
Currently, the General Services Administration has this sole authority 
and shares oversight responsibilities of the Federal board members with 
the U.S. Department of Transportation. The WMATA board determines the 
agency's policy and provides oversight for the funding, operation, and 
expansion of transit facilities.
  We have worked closely with Senator Mikulski of Maryland on this 
issue, and she has introduced a bill in the Senate that is cosponsored 
by all three other local Senators: Senators Cardin, Warner, and Kaine 
of Virginia.
  From various conversations we have had, the Secretary of 
Transportation is also aware of this issue and is supportive of the 
Department of Transportation taking over. The General Services 
Administration has stated that ``this was never in our wheelhouse.'' 
And WMATA does not oppose this change.
  I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz and Meadows and Ranking Members 
Cummings and Connolly for working with us since the amendment also 
falls under the jurisdiction of the House Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee. They have cleared this amendment.
  Before I close, I want to remember our late colleague--and former 
colleague on the Transportation Committee--Howard Coble, who died last 
night. He represented the Sixth Congressional District of North 
Carolina, including the town I was born in, Yanceyville, North 
Carolina. He will be sorely missed by all of us and his long-time 
constituents and his service with us. May he rest in peace.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  I don't have to tell my colleagues, some of who ride Metro each day 
to and from work, of the issues the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA) has had with safety, performance, and 
management.
  The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, 
Public Law 110-432), included the National Capital Transportation 
Amendments Act, a bill authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding for 
WMATA capital improvements. It was because of this federal investment 
and WMATA's large federal employee ridership that the National Capital 
Region Congressional Delegation created the federal board members.
  The Delegation expanded the WMATA Board from twelve members from 
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia to include sixteen 
members, establishing the four new federal member positions. The 
Delegation also believed that these federal board members would not be 
wrapped up in jurisdictional politics. Often board members from the 
jurisdictions do not recommend what is needed because their 
jurisdiction does not have the money.
  The National Capital Region Congressional Delegation gave the 
appointment authority to the General Services Administration (GSA) 
because at the time, it seemed the best federal agency to represent the 
overall federal workforce. Approximately forty percent of WMATA's 
ridership is federal employees.
  Our amendment gives the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) the authority to appoint the four federal 
members to the WMATA Board. Currently, the GSA has this sole authority 
and shares oversight responsibilities of the federal board members with 
USDOT. The WMATA Board determines the agency's policy and provides 
oversight for the funding, operation, and expansion of transit 
facilities.
  I have worked with Senator Mikulski on this issue and she has 
introduced a bill in the Senate that this amendment is based on. S. 
2093 is cosponsored by all 3 other local Senators, Senators Cardin, 
Warner, and Kaine.
  From various conversations we have had, Secretary Foxx is aware of 
this issue and is supportive of USDOT taking over. GSA has stated that 
``this never was in our wheelhouse.'' And WMATA does not oppose.
  I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz & Meadows and Ranking Members 
Cummings & Connolly for working with us since the amendment falls under 
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's jurisdiction. It 
is my understanding they have cleared this amendment.
  Since the creation of the federal board positions in 2008, GSA has 
not played an active role in oversight of the federal board members. 
GSA does not have any expertise about what it takes to operate a 
transit system, nor does it have any experience.
  Only USDOT has been committed to the oversight of the federal board 
members and trying to correct WMATA's myriad problems. WMATA's serious 
safety, operational, and financial issues have all been documented by 
USDOT. The Secretary of USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration 
have been working directly with the federal board members and the 
transit agency to get things fixed. The federal board members and USDOT 
are in regular communication.
  In addition, the local delegation led by Senator Mikulski has been 
providing the federal finding authorized in PRIIA in the annual 
Transportation & HUD (THUD) Appropriations Bill. For the last seven 
years, bill and report language has been included requiring strict 
oversight by the USDOT Secretary on how these taxpayer dollars are 
spent.
  Before I close, I would like to remember our late colleague, Howard 
Coble, who died last night. He represented the 6th Congressional 
District of North Carolina, including the town that I was born in, 
Yanceyville. Howard will be sorely missed by all of us and his long-
time constituents. May he rest in peace.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, although I don't oppose the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment 
really is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee. They are in favor of the amendment, so we are going to urge 
our colleagues to support it. We are not going to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it has been a real 
pleasure to be able to work with Mrs. Comstock on this amendment. It is 
very rare that we have opportunities to work across the aisle and also 
across the Capitol to make sure that we are doing the right thing for 
our transit system here in the metropolitan Washington area that serves 
so many millions of both Federal workers and tourists from all of our 
different States and jurisdictions.
  It is really clear that the General Services Administration in this 
day and age is probably not the most appropriate place for the 
appointment of these members of the board. It is dutifully to be placed 
with the Department of Transportation to which they have

[[Page H7671]]

agreed. I thank our colleagues for all agreeing to this as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 424, strike line 17 and all that follows 
     through page 426, line 24.
       Page 428, line 20, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 428, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 428, after line 23, insert the following:
       (4) is not a high-risk carrier, as identified by the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
       Beginning on page 449, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 451, line 22.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair, ranking 
member, and all the colleagues who worked so hard on bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  My amendment is really about improving this bill. It is going to make 
it a better bill, and it is about making our Nation's roads safer and 
the delivery of goods more efficient.
  There are 15.5 million trucks on the road each year driving more than 
93 billion miles annually, carrying over a billion dollars' worth of 
goods. There is no question that our Nation's trucking industry is a 
huge economic driver, earning $650 billion annually, 5 percent of the 
United States GDP.
  With all that sunshine comes a little bit of rain. The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that in 2013 almost 4,000 
people were killed and 95,000 people were injured by large trucks, 
costing the public a whopping $100 billion annually. So my amendment 
does three things to increase safety and to reduce those costs.
  First, the amendment brings the requirement for commercial truck 
insurance into the 21st century. It is shocking, Mr. Chair, that the 
minimum insurance required for commercial trucks has remained the same 
since the 1980s at $750,000 per incident regardless of the number of 
victims or their injuries. The FMCSA, which is the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, is currently engaged in rulemaking to 
examine the appropriateness of this standard. The base bill requires 
studies that I respectfully submit will slow down this process.
  Imagine a large truck hitting a bus full of schoolchildren and the 
insurance only being $750,000 to cover all the losses. Do you want to 
be the person that tells the parents that Congress needs to do more 
studies before their medical bills can be paid? My amendment strikes 
these unnecessary studies so that the FMCSA can finish their important 
work without delay.
  Second, the base bill creates a national hiring standard that brokers 
and shippers must use to hire carriers. One of these standards is based 
on outdated information. It is not updated annually. So my amendment at 
the desk would strengthen the hiring standard by prohibiting the hiring 
of motor carriers defined as ``high-risk carriers'' by the FMCSA.
  Finally, just this year, the FMCSA did a study that found that 
compliance, safety, and accountability scores accurately predict safety 
performance by drivers. These scores are currently used by brokers and 
shippers to identify unsafe carriers. Studies show that, since this 
system has been used, there has been a 14 percent reduction in serious 
violations of the law. I want to repeat that. There has been a 14 
percent reduction in serious violations of the law.
  This base bill requires another study that is going to take 18 
months. Not only that, the base bill now hides important safety 
statistics during this time. What my amendment does is very simple. The 
provision makes these safety scores transparent for the public to see.
  Together, these measures are going to improve the movement of goods 
across the country by increasing safety and efficiency. It is a real 
good amendment. I think it is going to make this bill much better, and 
I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment literally just 
guts some very crucial reforms to this bill. What this amendment does 
is strikes a section in the bill that requires the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration to remove from its Web site those 
compliance and safety accountability program scores.
  What we found is that the CSA is a flawed system. It treats safe 
carriers unfairly, and it has done very little to improve motor carrier 
safety records.
  The Government Accountability Office and the motor carrier 
stakeholders, they have been very critical of the CSA program. They 
have called for the reform. So what this does is make sure that those 
reforms are going to happen quickly. It doesn't hide anything. Once the 
reforms are in place, the scores are going to go back up on the Web 
site.
  In the meantime, that raw data concerning accidents, violations, out-
of-service rates, it will remain publicly available; and it is also 
going to be available to law enforcement if they need to investigate or 
prosecute an unsafe carrier. So nothing is being hidden, but what this 
does is require that these reforms are going to take place and they are 
going to take place very, very quickly.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just be repeating 
myself.
  I do want to repeat one thing which I think is important. Since the 
system has been used by FMCSA, there has been a 14 percent reduction in 
serious violations of the law, and I think that speaks for itself.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, again, this guts some very 
important parts of this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 428, line 23, before the period, insert ``or be 
     unrated''.
       Page 428, after line 23, insert the following:
       (4) has not been issued an out-of-service order to prohibit 
     a motor carrier from conducting operations at the motor 
     carrier level--
       (A) for failing to pay fines under part 385.14 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       (B) for a proposed ``unsatisfactory'' safety rating under 
     part 385.13(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (C) for failing to respond to a new entrant audit under 
     part 385.325 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (D) and currently is being considered as an imminent hazard 
     at the carrier level (not the individual driver or equipment 
     level).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


  Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 20, printed in part A of House Report 114-326, be 
modified by the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee:


[[Page H7672]]


  

     on line 12 of amendment No. 20, add the word ``not'' after 
     is.

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend 
Chairman Graves. Nobody could have done a better job on this bill than 
he has done. I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member 
DeFazio because they have placed just about everything that I have 
requested into this bill, including accepting an amendment yesterday.
  I will repeat something that I said during general debate yesterday: 
I am so pleased that after we have spent hundreds of billions of 
dollars over the last 15 years in a vain attempt to rebuild the Middle 
East, now we are finally going to pass a major bill to rebuild this 
country and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs all across this 
Nation.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota to offer an 
amendment that is basically very technical in nature, but it is one 
that is very, very important to many thousands of the smallest 
companies in the trucking industry.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for 
including in the base bill some of the language from a bill that I 
introduced that deals with this situation. This amendment expands that 
by clarifying the requirements that a freight broker must meet before 
hiring a motor carrier for the delivery of goods.

                              {time}  1715

  Currently, the bill requires a broker to check to ensure that the 
motor carrier is first registered with and authorized by the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a licensed motor 
carrier; secondly, has the minimum insurance required by Federal law; 
and, third, has the satisfactory safety fitness determination by the 
FMCSA. All of these things make for a safer trucking industry in this 
country.
  Our amendment inserts ``or be unrated'' in the third requirement. 
Currently, there are thousands of small trucking operations which have 
yet to be audited or rated by the FMCSA. By adding the words ``or be 
unrated,'' we ensure that these small companies are not precluded from 
being in the pool of eligible motor carriers that can be used for 
shipping goods.
  According to the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, 
OOIDA, without this amendment, we will be creating an incentive not to 
use small carriers, putting hundreds of thousands of truck drivers out 
of business due to no fault of their own.
  Without this change, we will hurt small mom-and-pop trucking 
businesses and drive up the cost of shipping goods for everyone.
  The second part of our amendment adds a fourth requirement that must 
be checked by the brokers. This fourth condition requires a broker to 
check to make sure that a motor carrier has not been issued an out-of-
service order to prohibit a carrier from conducting operations. Once 
again, this makes for a safer trucking industry in this country.
  If we do not make this amendment part of the bill, thousands of small 
companies and mom-and-pop operators who have never had a wreck or had a 
violation would lose business just because FMCSA does not have the 
sufficient time or staff to officially rate them.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I will just say this amendment ensures 
that we have only safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small 
businesses are not hurt in the process. However, I have received 
assurances from both Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio that 
they want to do something about this.
  I think everybody on both sides of the aisle in this Congress really 
wants to try to help the smallest businesses in almost any industry, 
and they have told me that they will really try to do something about 
this in conference.
  With that assurance and at their request, I am withdrawing this 
amendment and hope that we can improve the bill as it goes on through 
conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment at this point.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Lewis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 441, beginning line 3, strike section 5404 and insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 5404. STUDY ON COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate 
     the safety effects of the laws and regulations of States that 
     allow licensed drivers between the ages of 18 years and 21 
     years to obtain a commercial driver's license to operate a 
     commercial motor vehicle within the State.
       (b) Matters Included.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A review of the requirements for licensed drivers 
     between the ages of 18 years and 21 years to obtain 
     commercial driver's licenses described in such subsection.
       (2) A review of collision rates and fatal collision rates 
     for such drivers while operating a commercial motor vehicle.
       (3) A review of any other safety factors and metrics 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Input.--In conducting the study under subsection (a), 
     including with respect to the safety factors and metrics 
     reviewed under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall solicit 
     input from representatives of State motor vehicle 
     administrators, motor carriers, labor organizations, 
     independent truck drivers, safety advocates, medical 
     associations and medical professionals, and other persons 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a report 
     containing the results of the study under subsection (a), 
     including any recommendations for statutory changes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would strike a 
pilot program that allows teenagers to drive trucks across State lines. 
Right now this bill mandates that we allow teenagers to become truck 
drivers. But, Mr. Chairman, it does not ask whether we should give them 
the keys.
  The American public has a strong opinion on this issue. After 92 
percent of the comments strongly opposed to this idea, the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration denied a request for a similar 
program in 2003. The vast majority thought it was a bad and dangerous 
proposal.
  My amendment simply asks the Department of Transportation to take 
another look, a second look, before starting a national program. We 
need to examine the safety of places where young drivers are already 
allowed to drive trucks within their own States.
  Interstate highways are already dangerous enough. Given the higher 
and higher accident and fatality rates of younger drivers, it makes no 
sense to make this change without looking at all of the data.
  Mr. Chairman, young drivers may not have the experience needed to 
handle heavy, dangerous vehicles. Some follow too closely. Others go 
too fast and don't check their mirrors. Young drivers can use their 
brakes too much, and that is a real danger when handling an 80,000-
pound truck.
  Ask any parent. They know. Young drivers do not always listen, even 
when an experienced driver is in the front seat. My amendment does not 
say no. It says just let us do the research first. We should study the 
safety of teen truck drivers before any experiment that might have 
dangerous results.
  I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a 
limited pilot program that is authorizing drivers over the age of 19\1/
2\ to enter into a graduated program to obtain a commercial driver's 
license. The program is very limited to a number of States and a number 
of carriers that

[[Page H7673]]

can participate. It also includes a number of safety requirements and a 
GAO report to Congress examining its safety impacts.
  Mr. Chairman, what is interesting about the way present law is is 
that a driver of the age that is being addressed here could drive all 
the way across the State of Missouri, for instance, but they can't 
drive 10 miles in the city of Kansas City, across town, because it is 
over a State line.
  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it actually hampers a whole 
lot of businesses out there that operate in communities like Kansas 
City, St. Louis, and St. Joseph that are actually split by a State 
line.
  The trucking industry is facing a severe shortage in the number of 
drivers. With freight expected to increase 30 percent over the next 10 
years, the driver shortage is only going to worsen. We need to get more 
young people interested in careers in the transportation industry. It 
is as simple as that.
  This is a limited pilot program. It represents a delicate compromise 
that would accomplish a very important goal.
  I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there is a driver 
shortage, but it is important, very important, to follow the data. We 
should not put inexperienced drivers on the road before we have all of 
the facts.
  In my congressional district, in Metro Atlanta, we have three major 
interstate highways running through our city: I-75, I-85, and I-20. 
Even with experienced drivers, there is always some major accident. We 
need to follow the data. I urge all of my colleagues to support my 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, again, what we are trying to do 
with this program is just allow those drivers to be able to cross the 
State line. Again, they are already allowed to go an entire State's 
length within the State.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 449, beginning line 5, strike section 5501 relating 
     minimum financial responsibility rulemaking.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in 
support of my amendment to H.R. 22.
  Minimum insurance requirements for trucks have remained the same 
since the 1980s. Currently, it is $750,000. Healthcare costs have 
skyrocketed. For example, hospital care for traumatically brain-injured 
people can average $8,000 per day. Minimum insurance does not 
realistically account for multivehicle accidents where $750,000 must be 
divided among all of the injured parties.
  FMCSA is currently undergoing rulemaking to evaluate current 
insurance requirements. Congress should not delay or derail this 
effort. Section 5501 conditions the agency's rulemaking upon its 
completion of detailed studies that must be completed in consultation 
with industry stakeholders.
  This amendment strikes language that is designed to delay and 
ultimately derail this long-overdue rulemaking. When a person suffers 
life-threatening injuries due to the negligence of a motor carrier, the 
cost of long-term care and the loss of his or her livelihood often is 
pushed to the background. For families that undergo this ordeal, it 
often comes as a surprise that, despite a congressional mandate in the 
1980s, minimum insurance requirements for interstate truckers and bus 
carriers have remained unchanged.
  The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 specifically set out to ensure public 
safety by requiring insurance premiums to be updated regularly. A 
similar bill, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, was passed for the 
segment of the industry transporting passengers interstate.
  While the minimum insurance levels in 1985 for general freight 
carriers and small-bus operators was $750,000 and $1.5 million 
respectively, with higher liability limits for carriers of hazardous 
materials and large bus carriers, the intent of Congress was to 
increase the minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation.
  In April of this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration released a report to Congress that examined the adequacy 
of the current financial responsibility requirements for motor 
carriers. The conclusion was clear: Today the cost of injuries and 
fatalities arising from crashes far exceed the minimum insurance levels 
interstate operators are required to carry. As a result, victims are 
often not appropriately compensated for their injuries.
  Language in section 5501 is an attempt to stop or at the very least 
delay this long-overdue FMCSA rulemaking in its tracks by taking away 
the resources necessary for the agency to evaluate appropriate levels 
of financial responsibility for the motor carrier industry. FMCSA 
rulemaking is necessary because current insurance limits do not 
adequately cover crashes primarily because of increased medical costs.
  To be on par with medical consumer price index inflation, the 
liability limit for general freight carriers today would be $4.4 
million, calculated from the 1980 passage date of the Motor Carrier 
Act, and around $6.5 million for small-bus operators.
  Moreover, the April FMCSA report found that, in real terms, insurance 
premiums have actually decreased for the same level of coverage since 
the 1980s. The result is that thousands of crash victims are left 
without the financial resources to pay medical bills or restore the 
quality of life that he or she enjoyed before the trucking or bus 
accident, that despite the fact that insurance premiums have gone down.
  In many cases, the burden of healthcare costs are passed on to 
taxpayers, as Medicare and Medicaid shoulder millions of dollars of 
medical care each year due to inadequately insured carriers. We must 
keep the trucking industry accountable for safety by supporting this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it 
strikes some very commonsense regulatory reforms in the bill.
  The underlying bill requires the Department of Transportation to 
study whether an increase in minimum insurance levels for intercity 
buses is needed before pursuing a rulemaking to change the levels. I 
don't understand why we would strike language that simply tells the 
Department to determine whether a problem exists before it regulates.
  The amendment also strikes language in the bill that requires the 
Secretary to consider the impact of an ongoing rulemaking on small 
trucking companies and safety.
  These considerations, Mr. Chairman, are not going to delay the 
rulemaking, but it is going to add transparency and accountability to 
the process.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7674]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Ribble

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. TRANSPORTATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       Section 229(e)(4) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 
     Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``50 air mile radius'' and inserting ``75 
     air mile radius''; and
       (2) by striking ``the driver.'' and inserting ``the driver, 
     except that a State, upon notice to the Secretary, may 
     establish a different air mile radius limitation for purposes 
     of this paragraph if such limitation is between 50 and 75 air 
     miles and applies only to movements that take place entirely 
     within the State.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the air-mile 
radius from 50 air-miles to 75 air-miles for the transportation of 
construction materials and equipment to satisfy the 24-hour reset 
period under the hours of service rule. It would also give States the 
ability to opt out of this increase if the movement would take place 
entirely within one State's borders.
  This is a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Mr. Lipinski, Mr. 
Hanna, and Mr. Cramer.
  Commercial motor vehicle drivers in the construction industry face 
some unique circumstances. They often haul perishable materials like 
asphalt and concrete from a construction company's central shop or 
dispatch center to a specific project site within that company's area 
of operation.
  These drivers spend long periods of time waiting to pick up materials 
and loading or unloading equipment, instead of driving, but they are 
considered on duty for the entire duration of the trip. Current law 
allows construction industry drivers to reset their weekly on-duty time 
after a 24-hour consecutive off-duty period; however, this exemption is 
only allowed if those drivers work within a 50 air-mile radius.
  Because construction companies operate today in larger areas than 
they did when the exemption was first put in place two decades ago, I 
am offering this amendment to increase this air-mile radius to 75 air-
miles. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
though I am not in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment extends an existing 
exemption established in 1995 by Congress, and I think it is a 
reasonable and very small adjustment to that. I think it will improve 
efficiency and lower costs. I have no objection.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I want to thank Mr. Ribble for his work on this amendment and other 
important transportation issues. I think Mr. Ribble and Ranking Member 
DeFazio have explained this very well.
  In recognition of the unique nature of the construction industry, 
Congress did provide this exemption to certain hours of service rules 
for commercial motor vehicle drivers in the industry.
  Increasing this from 50 to 75 miles is a small change, but I think it 
will be very helpful because the current exemption we have seen has 
come up short. It needs to be modernized for most efficient goods 
movement and keep perishable materials from spoiling, as well as 
account for the fact that many materials suppliers operate in areas 
outside of the current air-mile radius. This amendment helps improve 
the exemption by increasing it by 25 miles.
  It is also important to note that this amendment provides an opt-out 
provision for those States that do not wish to participate in this 
increase.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI of division A, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 6027. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REDUCTION OF DEPARTMENT-OWNED 
                   VEHICLES AND INCREASE IN USE OF RIDE-SHARING 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Pilot Program Requirement.--The Secretary of each 
     covered department shall establish a pilot program within the 
     department for the following purposes:
       (1) To reduce the inventory of light vehicles owned by the 
     department by 10 percent for each of the fiscal years 
     described in subsection (b), through the sale or other 
     appropriate disposal of such vehicles.
       (2) At the discretion of the Secretary of the department, 
     to increase the use by the department of commercial ride-
     sharing companies.
       (b) Fiscal Years Described.--The fiscal years described in 
     this subsection are the following:
       (1) The first fiscal year beginning after the expiration of 
     the 1-year period starting on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Each of the four fiscal years following the fiscal year 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     end of the fiscal year described in subsection (b)(1), and 
     annually thereafter for the duration of the pilot program, 
     the Secretary of each covered department shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the pilot program in the 
     department. The report shall include information about the 
     transportation budget of the department and such findings and 
     recommendations as the Secretary of the department considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Covered Department.--In this Act, the term ``covered 
     department'' means each of the following:
       (1) The Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The Department of the Interior.
       (3) The Department of Energy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, these amendment marathons can often be 
a bit exhausting around here with all sorts of ideas coming from 
different directions, but now for something completely different.
  Our government is heading to having about a half a million light-duty 
vehicles, so think of this: As of today, I think we have about 460,000 
light-duty vehicles in the fleet of government.
  Our amendment is something very, very simple. We all walk around with 
these supercomputers in our pocket--our smartphones--and we see the 
technology revolution, the information revolution, that is happening 
around us, whether it be ride sharing, on-call services, or just the 
management of data. We have people living next to each other going to 
the same workplace.
  Let's use this information in this new world around us and ask three 
agencies to reduce their vehicle fleets by engaging in the new world of 
information, whether it be ride sharing, an Uber model, a Zipcar model, 
or taxicab model. Maybe it is a hybrid that we have never thought of 
that gets brought forward.
  So the amendment is very, very simple. All we are asking is that 
three agencies reduce their vehicle fleets by using modern technology, 
modern means of transportation, modern social transportation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H7675]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, first, I would ask the gentleman very quickly the 
question: Why these particular agencies?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my friend on the other side, there 
was a GAO report--I think it might now have been a couple of years 
ago--and these three agencies actually were tagged as having the 
highest number of vehicles as a percentage of, I believe, employment 
population that sat idle. Agriculture was close to 30,000 vehicles; 
Interior, 18,000. There was an actual reason.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Although the gentleman does reside in Arizona, I know he certainly is 
aware that both the BLM and the Forest Service must cover huge amounts 
of territory with their employees, including many forested and remote 
areas.
  In my district, just doing my rounds on paved roads, I can be out of 
cell service 20 to 25 percent of the time. There is no Uber, Lyft, or 
any alternative available to me, let alone my Forest Service and BLM 
employees who are up in the forest. I don't think Uber is lurking 
around the forest waiting to pick them up. Plus, they don't have cell 
service. I guess they could use a sat phone, but I don't think they 
will come.
  The agency choices are peculiar. They may have a large fleet, and 
they have a large fleet for a particular reason. Obviously, you can 
have one Forest Service employee and one vehicle going to a very remote 
work location for one work duty. They don't have an opportunity to ride 
share or do anything else. I find that to be particularly problematic.
  I think the intent of having the government reduce the number of 
light vehicles, particularly for agencies that are based in urban areas 
or more urban environments, is very intriguing and interesting. I would 
be happy to support his next amendment, which would have us study this 
issue. The GAO, working with GSA, I think could point to appropriate 
ways to reduce the fleet and to more efficiently reduce costs and yet 
still have employees be able to use their time very efficiently.
  I would oppose this amendment, but in order to save time, I will say 
now that I will support the next amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Oregon, one more 
time, the reference points in the GAO study actually said vehicles that 
lay idle, and that is why we chose these. There was actually a reason 
for choosing these three agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of data points: Agriculture, 29,818 light-duty 
vehicles; Interior, 18,752 light-duty vehicles; the Department of 
Energy, 7,315 light-duty vehicles.
  We are asking them to do the 10 percent reduction of those vehicle 
fleets over the 4 years. If technology efficiencies, the new gig 
economy, however you see it, can't accomplish that through the simplest 
reforms brought to us by the modern era, we are in trouble.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the gentleman misstated. It is 10 percent per year for 5 
years. It is a 50 percent reduction in fleet. So that seems, without 
much more granular data, pretty radical. And I wouldn't want to see 
that the next time I have got a major fire, the Forest Service doesn't 
have adequate vehicles in the Willamette Forest or in any other forest 
in my State to dispatch all the people they need to command and control 
and to deal with that fire.
  So I think the idea of the study has merit. I think it is an 
arbitrary cut of 50 percent, particularly with two land management 
agencies that manage millions of acres of land. I know of Forest 
Service and BLM employees that, on a given day, their duty may require 
them to drive 4 hours to a remote spot to do a particular function, 
spend an hour there, and drive back; and there is no way around it 
because they had to do something at that particular point. So saying, 
``Gee, you are going to have to ride share or thumb or call Uber and 
see if they will take you out there for a couple hundred miles in the 
mountains,'' it just doesn't work for me.
  I think a study is a good idea, and we may find, indeed, there are 
efficiencies. But to arbitrarily reduce the fleets of the two largest 
land management agencies in the Federal Government, the Forest Service 
and the BLM, by 50 percent, I think could cause very unanticipated and 
potentially disastrous problems.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI of division A, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 6027. STUDY AND REPORT ON REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF 
                   VEHICLES OWNED BY CERTAIN FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS 
                   AND INCREASING THE USE OF COMMERCIAL RIDE-
                   SHARING BY THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the feasibility of--
       (1) reducing the amount of vehicles owned by a covered 
     department; and
       (2) increasing the use of commercial ride-sharing companies 
     by a covered department.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report that contains the 
     results and conclusions of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Covered Department Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered department'' means each of the following:
       (1) The Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The Department of the Interior.
       (3) The Department of Energy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, not to belabor this one, because 
actually, in many ways, our friend from Oregon has spoken to this one. 
I actually believe we may have some misreading of what the previous one 
says, but we will adjudicate that again maybe over coffee.
  This is basically a similar concept as we were just discussing but is 
actually trying to produce some data sets for future policy.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman from Oregon is going 
to accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 580, in the matter following line 20, add to the 
     analysis for chapter 702 of title 49, United States Code, 
     after the item relating to section 70203, the following:

``70204. GAO study on economic impact of labor contract negotiations at 
              ports on west coast.

       Page 584, line 20, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the period at the end.
       Page 584, after line 20, insert the following:

     ``Sec. 70204. GAO study on economic impact of labor contract 
       negotiations at ports on west coast

       ``(a) Study.--With respect to the slowdown that occurred 
     during labor contract negotiations at ports on the west coast 
     of the United States during the period from May 2014 to

[[Page H7676]]

     February 2015, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to--
       ``(1) determine the economic impact of such slowdown on the 
     United States and on each port in the United States, 
     including changes in the amount of cargo arriving at and 
     leaving from ports on the west coast and other changes in 
     cargo patterns, including congestion;
       ``(2) calculate the cost, including the cost to importers, 
     exporters, farmers, manufacturers, and retailers, of 
     contingency plans put in place to avoid disruptions from such 
     slowdown;
       ``(3) review steps taken by the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to resolve the dispute that caused such 
     slowdown;
       ``(4) identify tools such Service or the President could 
     have used to facilitate a resolution to such dispute;
       ``(5) evaluate what other mechanisms are available to the 
     President to avoid disruptions during future labor 
     negotiations at ports in the United States;
       ``(6) suggest how such mechanisms could be changed to 
     improve the ability to avoid such disruptions in order to 
     prevent serious economic harm to importers, exporters, 
     farmers, manufacturers, and retailers; and
       ``(7) suggest any legislation that might ensure better 
     regulation of the operations of ports in the United States 
     with respect to such labor negotiations.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report to Congress containing 
     the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that 
will allow us to collect the facts and evaluate the impact of the 2014-
2015 West Coast ports slowdown and dispute.
  The efficient movement of goods is critical to the economic success 
of this country. Our farmers and manufacturers must be able to export 
their high-quality products to the customers around the world that they 
rely upon.
  Beginning in the summer of 2014, these customer relationships and our 
economy were threatened. This was the result of a prolonged contract 
negotiation between the Pacific Maritime Association and the 
International Longshore and Warehouse Union that ended February 2015.
  Just how serious was the impact of these prolonged negotiations? One 
example from my home State provides a clear illustration.
  Our apple growers in Washington State were faced with an estimated 
$100 million worth of apples that they could not sell. Other stories 
can be told about multiple types of produce and products, including the 
hay and the potato industry, in Washington State.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was in Malaysia and Singapore during part of 
the slowdown, and the complaint in those two countries was they 
couldn't get their potatoes. And especially they were upset they 
weren't getting their Washington State french fries.
  So this did have an impact across the globe. This wasn't just a 
United States economy impact. This was a global impact.
  In fact, the ships coming from those countries to the West Coast were 
slowed down to 8 knots, hoping that this would be resolved by the time 
the ships reached the West Coast.
  This amendment simply requires the Government Accountability Office 
to study the economic impact of this dispute, review the steps taken to 
reach an agreement, and suggest what other tools might be used to 
prevent future slowdowns.
  Like many of you, I have committed to my constituents that I will 
work to ensure that this is not repeated for the sake of our workers, 
farmers, and manufacturers. This amendment moves us in that direction.
  I thank my colleagues, Representatives Schrader, Newhouse, Radewagen, 
and Coffman for working with me on this important issue. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we would all like to prevent future disruptive 
shutdowns like this. I think a full survey of all the causes would be 
interesting. It would be an interesting thing to have the GAO conduct.
  Unfortunately, this is directed only at one factor, which is the 
union itself. In fact, in here, finding 7 says: Suggest any legislation 
that might ensure better regulation of the operations of the ports in 
the United States with respect to such labor negotiations.
  I think that that is very focused just on the labor side and not a 
balanced look at what might have gone on on the management side of this 
issue.
  Secondly, there are many other ongoing, enduring, and very costly 
port congestion factors out there that should be comprehensively looked 
at in order to more efficiently move freight in and out of our ports, 
absent any sort of labor dispute or shutdown or lockout or any of those 
certain things that relate to labor that also merit a comprehensive 
look and, I think, merit a potential action by Congress. But this 
report would not enlighten us in those areas either.
  I would like to see the GAO conduct an analysis of the myriad of 
factors that point to port congestion, provide Congress with a wide 
range of policy recommendations, including options for financing 
intermodal efficiency to enhance the trade of goods in and out of the 
United States. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of clarification, this 
legislation addresses both the Pacific Maritime Association and union 
issues.
  How can you be against something that would be an investigation that 
would clearly reveal what the problems are on both sides?
  So this legislation is not designed to point the finger at any one 
entity. Two entities are involved in this issue. We need to find out 
what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future because it 
costs the United States economy money, it costs jobs, and it affects 
the entire global economy.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from American Samoa 
(Mrs. Radewagen).
  Mrs. RADEWAGEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Representatives Reichert, 
Schrader, Newhouse, and Coffman for their work in offering the 
amendment that will simply direct GAO to conduct a study on the impact 
of the recent West Coast ports slowdown so that we can avoid these 
costly slowdowns in the future.
  As we all know, the Nation's economic stability and prosperity are 
directly linked to our ability to import and export goods. In fact, 30 
percent of the Nation's GDP stems from imports and exports, 30 percent. 
That is a large portion of the country's production.
  During the slowdown, many of our businesses struggled to maintain the 
flow of capital due to their inability to ship goods. Additionally, 
many of our retailers found it difficult to keep their shelves stocked 
due to the lack of incoming goods, causing revenue loss and even the 
shutting of some businesses.
  Now, just imagine if, instead of 30 percent, that number was 90 
percent. Could you possibly imagine the devastation to the economy of 
even a brief slowdown?
  It would have been the biggest story of the year. Our constituents 
would have been camped out on our front steps demanding action from 
Congress.
  Well, let me tell you that, in American Samoa, that number is 90 
percent. We rely almost solely on imported goods for our food and 
energy needs.
  The main revenue generator on our beautiful islands is the tuna 
canning industry, which comprises more than 85 percent of the island's 
GDP. This industry relies heavily upon their ability to ship their 
products quickly to the mainland and other nations.
  We must ensure that this does not happen again. This amendment being 
offered by my colleagues and me will take the first step in finding 
solutions to future slowdowns in the operations at our Nation's ports.
  I ask that my colleagues in the House support this bipartisan measure 
to ensure the continued flow of goods to and from our ports and the 
growth of our economy.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I am actually pleased here to join my 
colleague, Representative Reichert from

[[Page H7677]]

Washington, in offering this important amendment today.
  I want to assure Members here on the floor that this in no way is 
picking sides. You want to talk about labor disputes? These are labor 
management disputes.
  The problem we have on the West Coast is that this particular dispute 
last year actually crippled severely the United States economy not just 
on the West Coast, but into the Midwest and beyond.
  We can't have this happen again. We cannot have this happen again. We 
have to remain competitive in this global economy. We have to figure 
out a different way to resolve these disputes so that what is a 
legitimate labor management negotiation does not affect businesses, 
farmers, workers, and thousands of jobs across this country.
  In my State, Terminal 6, the port of Portland's container terminal, 
is no longer operational. Why? Because the carriers don't want to call 
on this port because it is too unreliable. They don't know if they are 
going to have ships to anchor up for weeks on end waiting to upload.
  Instead, they will just call on other ports north or south of us. 
This is directly an impact for the businesses and farmers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHRADER. The Reichert amendment simply allows us to have a GAO 
study to talk about what possible outcomes could be different than what 
we endured last year. The goal here is just simply to get some facts, 
get some information, protect American jobs, protect American workers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has 
expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would suggest that, in reading the language, I think it could be 
more balanced and I think it also should include those other factors 
which are day-to-day congestion, which do cost our economy hundreds of 
millions or billions of dollars a year.
  So I am opposed to this, as worded. I urge people to oppose it, and I 
would hope that we can work through the conference committee on 
something that will give us a more comprehensive analysis of what we 
need to do to increase the viability of all American ports.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII of Division A of the bill, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. FINDINGS ON PORT PERFORMANCE.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) America's ports play a critical role in the Nation's 
     transportation supply chain network.
       (2) Reliable and efficient movement of goods through the 
     Nation's ports ensures that American goods are available to 
     customers throughout the world.
       (3) Breakdowns in the transportation supply chain network, 
     particularly at the Nation's ports, can result in tremendous 
     economic losses for agriculture, businesses, and retailers 
     that rely on timely shipments.
       (4) A clear understanding of terminal and port productivity 
     and throughput should help--
       (A) to identify freight bottlenecks;
       (B) to indicate performance and trends over time; and
       (C) to inform investment decisions.

     SEC. ___. PORT PERFORMANCE FREIGHT STATISTICS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 6314. Port performance freight statistics program

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish, on behalf 
     of the Secretary, a port performance statistics program to 
     provide nationally consistent measures of performance of, at 
     a minimum--
       ``(1) the Nation's top 25 ports by tonnage;
       ``(2) the Nation's top 25 ports by 20-foot equivalent unit; 
     and
       ``(3) the Nation's top 25 ports by dry bulk.
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) Port capacity and throughput.--Not later than January 
     15 of each year, the Director shall submit an annual report 
     to Congress that includes statistics on capacity and 
     throughput at the ports described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Port performance measures.--The Director shall 
     collect monthly port performance measures for each of the 
     United States ports referred to in subsection (a) that 
     receives Federal assistance or is subject to Federal 
     regulation to submit a quarterly report to the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics that includes monthly statistics on 
     capacity and throughput as applicable to the specific 
     configuration of the port.
       ``(A) Monthly measures.--The Director shall collect monthly 
     measures, including--
       ``(i) the average number of lifts per hour of containers by 
     crane;
       ``(ii) the average vessel turn time by vessel type;
       ``(iii) the average cargo or container dwell time;
       ``(iv) the average truck time at ports;
       ``(v) the average rail time at ports; and
       ``(vi) any additional metrics, as determined by the 
     Director after receiving recommendations from the working 
     group established under subsection (c).
       ``(B) Modifications.--The Director may consider a 
     modification to a metric under subparagraph (A) if the 
     modification meets the intent of the section.
       ``(c) Recommendations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall obtain 
     recommendations for--
       ``(A) specifications and data measurements for the port 
     performance measures listed in subsection (b)(2);
       ``(B) additionally needed data elements for measuring port 
     performance; and
       ``(C) a process for the Department of Transportation to 
     collect timely and consistent data, including identifying 
     safeguards to protect proprietary information described in 
     subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Working group.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Director shall 
     commission a working group composed of--
       ``(A) operating administrations of the Department of 
     Transportation;
       ``(B) the Coast Guard;
       ``(C) the Federal Maritime Commission;
       ``(D) U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
       ``(E) the Marine Transportation System National Advisory 
     Council;
       ``(F) the Army Corps of Engineers;
       ``(G) the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;
       ``(H) the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain 
     Competitiveness;
       ``(I) 1 representative from the rail industry;
       ``(J) 1 representative from the trucking industry;
       ``(K) 1 representative from the maritime shipping industry;
       ``(L) 1 representative from a labor organization for each 
     industry described in subparagraphs (I) through (K);
       ``(M) 1 representative from a port authority;
       ``(N) 1 representative from a terminal operator;
       ``(O) representatives of the National Freight Advisory 
     Committee of the Department; and
       ``(P) representatives of the Transportation Research Board 
     of the National Academies.
       ``(3) Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, the working group 
     commissioned under this subsection shall submit its 
     recommendations to the Director.
       ``(d) Access to Data.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     statistics compiled under this section are readily accessible 
     to the public, consistent with applicable security 
     constraints and confidentiality interests.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Certain Disclosures.--Section 6307(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 
     section 6314(b)'' after ``section 6302(b)(3)(B)'' each place 
     it appears.
       (c) Copies of Reports.--Section 6307(b)(2)(A) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``or section 6314(b)'' after 
     ``section 6302(b)(3)(B)''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents for chapter 63 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``6314. Port performance freight statistics program.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Shuster, as well as Ranking Member DeFazio and all the

[[Page H7678]]

members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their 
hard work on this large bill, this legislation.
  The amendment I offer today for myself and Mr. Schrader of Oregon is 
vitally important to the American economy. Nearly a year ago, a dispute 
began at 29 of our Nation's West Coast ports that drastically slowed 
imports and exports to a near standstill.
  Agricultural products rotted on the docks. Retailers couldn't get 
products to stores. American manufacturers could not get their products 
to foreign customers. By one estimate, there was nearly $7 billion in 
damages to our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in pointing fingers over who is 
responsible for the dispute. However, I do believe that Congress has a 
great interest in preventing future disruptions from harming our 
businesses and consumers as well as our economy.
  One thing that became abundantly clear during the disruption was that 
there was very little data available to gauge how our ports are 
functioning on a day-to-day basis. If something is impeding port 
performance, be it a dispute, major congestion, or even a natural 
disaster, we need to know if and how our ports are suffering before it 
harms our economy and standing with foreign trading partners.
  This amendment is simple. It requires the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics to collect and make available data on how our Nation's ports 
are operating. Currently, the Bureau collects this information for our 
railroads, for our highways, and our airports. We also need this 
information for our ports as well.
  The amendment that we are introducing is already in the Senate 
highway bill. It has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by 
voice vote. This is not and should not be controversial.

                              {time}  1800

  I also want to note that there are over 150 organizations supporting 
this measure, organizations like the National Retail Federation, the 
American Farm Bureau, the Association of American Railroads, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Trucking 
Association. The list goes on and on. It has very broad multi-industry 
and bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about transparency and certainty for 
our Nation's economy. If something is harming our ports, our 
decisionmakers need information to address and mitigate that harm.
  Now, I would have urged my colleagues to adopt this amendment, just 
as a broad, bipartisan group did so in the Senate, but I have been in 
close conversation with staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, as well as the chairman and the ranking member. I would ask 
for continued commitment on the part of the chairman to keep working on 
this issue. It is very important and vital to the economy of the United 
States.
  With that commitment, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 28 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1431. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INSOLVENCY OF THE HIGHWAY 
                   TRUST FUND AND RETURNING POWER TO STATES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Highway Trust Fund is nearing insolvency.
       (2) It is critical for Congress to phase down the Federal 
     gas and diesel taxes and empower the States to tax and 
     regulate their highway and infrastructure projects.
       (3) The Federal role and funding of surface transportation 
     should be refocused solely on Federal activities and empower 
     States with control and responsibility over their 
     transportation funding and spending decisions.
       (4) The objective of the Federal highway program has been 
     to facilitate the construction of a modern freeway system 
     that promotes efficient interstate commerce by connecting all 
     States.
       (5) The Interstate System connecting all States is near 
     completion.
       (6) Each State has the responsibility of providing an 
     efficient transportation network for the residents of the 
     State.
       (7) Each State has means to build and operate a network of 
     transportation systems, including highways, that best serves 
     the needs of the State.
       (8) Each State is best capable of determining the needs of 
     the State and acting on those needs.
       (9) The Federal role in highway transportation has, over 
     time, usurped the role of the States by taxing motor fuels 
     used in the States and then distributing the proceeds to the 
     States based on the perceptions of the Federal Government on 
     what is best for the States.
       (10) The Federal Government has used the Federal motor fuel 
     tax revenues to force all States to take actions that are not 
     necessarily appropriate for individual States.
       (11) The Federal distribution, review, and enforcement 
     process wastes billions of dollars on unproductive 
     activities.
       (12) The Federal mandates that apply uniformly to all 50 
     States, regardless of the different circumstances of the 
     States, cause the States to waste billions of hard-earned tax 
     dollars of projects, programs, and activities that the States 
     would not otherwise undertake.
       (13) Congress has expressed a strong interest in reducing 
     the role of the Federal Government by allowing each State to 
     manage its own affairs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary should provide a new policy blueprint to 
     govern the Federal role in transportation once existing and 
     prior financial obligations are met;
       (2) this policy should return to the individual States 
     maximum discretionary authority and fiscal responsibility for 
     all elements of the national surface transportation systems 
     that are not within the direct purview of the Federal 
     Government;
       (3) this policy will preserve the Federal responsibility 
     for the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate 
     and Defense Highways and will preserve responsibility of the 
     Department of Transportation for design construction and 
     preservation of transportation facilities on Federal public 
     land, preserving responsibility of the Department of 
     Transportation for national programs of transportation 
     research and development and transportation safety; and
       (4) this policy will preserve responsibility of the 
     Department of Transportation to eliminate, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, Federal obstacles to the ability of each 
     State to apply innovative solutions to the financing, design, 
     construction, operation, and preservation of Federal and 
     State transportation facilities with respect to 
     transportation activities carried out by States, local 
     governments, and the private sector.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we are here today discussing how to meet 
the country's important infrastructure needs, and I think what my 
amendment does is offer a vision for a different approach in the 
future. I think it is an approach that is more accountable to 
taxpayers, and I think it rests on governments closer to the people 
making more of our transportation decisions.
  I don't think anyone is going to sit here and claim that the transit 
and highway system as it is done up here in Washington is being done 
well. It is chronically underfunded. We are using all kinds of budget 
gimmicks in this bill. We are doing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
again to, quote, unquote, pay for this. Somehow you are taking oil at 
$50 a barrel and you are projecting it to be sold for $85 a barrel. So 
we know we have been through this a lot here.
  I think part of the problem is, if you look at our infrastructure 
needs, most of them are intrastate, not necessarily interstate. And 
while the interstate system is very important and it needs to be 
maintained, expanded where appropriate, most of the needs that we have 
in a State like Florida can be done at the county level or at the State 
level.
  I would note, Mr. Chairman, that since we have had the highway trust 
fund since 1956, Florida has paid a lot in taxes, and we received about 
88 cents on the dollar back. So I am trying to figure out why we would 
want to perpetuate a system that is not fiscally sustainable and that 
puts more power in Washington.
  Think about it. Most of your needs are done countywide, citywide, and 
statewide, and yet people in a State like Florida will pay their gas 
taxes. That will be shipped up to Washington;

[[Page H7679]]

people will fight over it, politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups; 
and then the money that comes back is 88 cents on the dollar.
  I would like to send the gas tax to Washington that is going to fund 
the actual interstate system, but then leave a portion of the gas tax 
for State legislatures to spend or for people in local governments to 
spend. I think you would be able to do it cheaper. I think it would be 
more accountable to the taxpayers, and I think it would be better for 
motorists and people who are using our transportation system.
  So all this does, Mr. Chairman, it is not binding. I wish we could 
have done something binding, but there are different budget rules. What 
it does is lay out a vision that we can do this in a way that rests on 
decisions being made closer to the American people rather than putting 
everything in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to go back to the good old days; that is, 
before Dwight David Eisenhower was President. Here we have what we had 
before when we didn't have a national highway program. This is the 
brand-new Kansas turnpike. Oklahoma said: We will build ours. Uh-oh. We 
have got financial problems.
  They didn't.
  So for a few years, this brand-new ribbon of concrete ended right 
here. Kind of odd. This is Amos Schweitzer's farm field. They put up a 
big wooden barrier. People crashed through it, and Amos towed them out 
of the field. He was a nice guy.
  Until we had a national program where the Federal Government would 
partner with the States for something that was of national import, it 
didn't happen. Let's go back to those good old days.
  This is a new idea, came from Grover Norquist: We are going to 
devolve the duty to the 50 States assembled and the territories, and 
somehow they will magically coordinate this. Oh, by the way, if you 
happen to be a coastal State with major ports--I think Florida has a 
few of those--gee, you are going to have to pay for all of the costs of 
transshipping the goods that flow into your State out to the other 
States. That is your responsibility. You are Florida, raise the money 
to do it.
  Oh, how are you going to do that?
  I don't know. You can't raise taxes on the imports because that would 
be a Federal responsibility, a different category.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an idea whose time has not yet come, an idea 
whose time passed a very long time ago. We need more investment in the 
national system. Mr. Chairman, 140,000 bridges need repair or 
replacement; 40 percent of the highway surface, the roadbeds need 
replacement; $84 billion backlog in bringing our transit systems up to 
a state of good repair, and that is not even dealing with a growing 
population, growing mobility, and the need for a national freight 
program. And we are just going to send it back to the States, and they 
will magically somehow take care of it--poppycock.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we would love for these interstate issues 
to be done at the Federal level. That is what the Federal Government is 
here for, and that is the way it should be. But when you are talking 
about purely local issues, there is not a reason to send the money up 
to Washington and then beg back for pennies on the dollar. That is not 
an efficient way to do it.
  Yes, I think that we do have a responsibility to have an efficient 
interstate system, but we also need to understand that Washington 
shouldn't be dictating what local communities do.
  And, yes, in a State like Florida where we have a lot of this is 
intrastate, let's empower the States and let's empower the local 
communities. Just imagine if they were able to have a portion of that 
gas tax go directly to them. I think you would see great decisions 
made.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I share many of the same conservative beliefs that my 
colleague from Florida has. This town is littered with agencies that 
don't belong here according to the Founding Fathers. Over time they 
have grown up, and the Federal Government has taken that power.
  But I do disagree with the gentleman from Florida on this issue. When 
it comes to transportation, the Constitution we have today, the 
breaking point of the Articles of Confederation, one of the breaking 
points, the biggest breaking point, was the transportation system. 
Maryland and Virginia couldn't come together on a treaty to navigate 
the Potomac River, so they realized that if they couldn't connect this 
Nation, then we would never be a nation. We would be 13 separate 
entities, 50 entities today. But the Founding Fathers came and wrote 
the Constitution we know today.
  Article I, section 8 talks about the role of the Federal Government, 
providing for the common defense, regulating interstate commerce, and 
establishing post roads. Those post roads today are the highways and 
the byways of this Nation.

  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Washington shouldn't be 
dictating. This bill does more to send back power to the States, to let 
the States drive the issues. But there is a Federal role, not to do it 
all, but to partner--to partner--with the States in building the 
infrastructure system that we have today. What physically connects us 
is our highway system; it is our transportation system.
  I would argue also, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed out that 
Florida--I agree, I know what the return on Florida is, but Florida has 
benefited tremendously by two roads in particular: I-95 and I-75. If 
you go to the east coast or the west coast of Florida, millions of 
people are traveling from the Northeast and the Midwest down to Florida 
to spend their dollars, and many are relocating. If you go to the east 
coast, there are many Pennsylvanians. So Florida has benefited 
tremendously by this system that we have today.
  Again, I believe with this bill we are turning back to the States a 
lot of responsibility. I think this is a conservative bill based on 
that, to let States--and also, to remind the gentleman and my 
colleagues, I like to turn back things to the States that they actually 
ask for. My phone is not ringing off the hook having Governors say, 
``Give us this back.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Adam Smith said in ``The Wealth 
of Nations'' that government should do three things for their people: 
provide them with security, preserve justice, and erect and maintain 
infrastructure to promote commerce.
  If you don't believe Bill Shuster, get out a copy of ``The Wealth of 
Nations'' and read what Adam Smith said, the father of our economic 
system.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that under the current 
formulas, actually, and current spending levels, Florida is getting 
back $1.15 on the dollar. So, actually, under the gentleman's proposal, 
devolving back to the States, doing away with the Federal revenues, 
both gas tax and general fund revenues, would actually be a net loss to 
Florida; but then I guess they would just have to raise their gas taxes 
by the 18.3 cents that is going to the Federal Government and a bit 
more in order to make that up.
  Again, we would lose the coordination among the States. The 
priorities of States bordering Florida may not match the priorities of 
Florida in terms of access and egress to the State of Florida. So I 
think we are well-served as a nation by having a coordinated Federal 
program and streamlined and efficient reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

[[Page H7680]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 512, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 
52, 53, 54, 55, and 56 printed in part A of House Report No. 114-326, 
offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 17, after line 14, insert the following:
       (8) Sense of congress on prompt payment of dbe 
     subcontractors.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) the Secretary should take additional steps to ensure 
     that recipients comply with section 26.29 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (the disadvantaged business 
     enterprises prompt payment rule), or any corresponding 
     regulation, in awarding federally funded transportation 
     contracts under laws and regulations administered by the 
     Secretary; and
       (B) such additional steps should include increasing the 
     Department's ability to track and keep records of complaints 
     and to make that information publicly available.


          Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

       Page 65, strike lines 16 and 17, and insert the following:
       ``(5) enhance the resiliency of critical highway 
     infrastructure, including highway infrastructure that 
     supports national energy security.


           Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Page 198, line 3, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period and insert the following:
       ``(86) Interstate Route 70 from Denver, Colorado, to Salt 
     Lake City, Utah.''.


           Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon

       Page 198, line 3, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     final period.
       Page 198, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(86) The Oregon 99W Newberg-Dundee Bypass Route between 
     Newberg, Oregon, and Dayton, Oregon.''.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Schrader of Oregon

       Page 198, line 3, striking the closing quotation mark and 
     the second period.
       Page 198, insert after line 3 the following:
       ``(86) Interstate Route 205 in Oregon from its intersection 
     with Interstate Route 5 to the Columbia River.''.


           Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin

       Page 229, line 23, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     final period.
       Page 229, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(n) Certain Logging Vehicles in Wisconsin.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall waive, with respect 
     to a covered logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle 
     weight limit established under this section.
       ``(2) Covered logging vehicle defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `covered logging vehicle' means a vehicle that--
       ``(A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, 
     including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
       ``(B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 98,000 
     pounds;
       ``(C) has not less than 6 axles; and
       ``(D) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 39 in 
     Wisconsin from mile marker 175.8 to mile marker 189.''.


          Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

       Add at the end of the title I of the bill the following:

     SEC. __. OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED VEHICLES ON CERTAIN 
                   HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

       If any segment of United States Route 63 between the exits 
     for highways 14 and 75 in the State of Arkansas is designated 
     as part of the Interstate System, the single axle weight, 
     tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and bridge formula 
     limits under section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     and the width limitation under section 31113(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to that segment with 
     respect to the operation of any vehicle that may have legally 
     operated on that segment before the date of the designation.


      Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of Division A, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY RELATING TO IDLING 
                   TRAINS.

       Section 130(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``and the relocation of highways to eliminate 
     grade crossings'' and inserting ``the relocation of highways 
     to eliminate grade crossings, and projects to eliminate 
     hazards posed by blocked grade crossings due to idling 
     trains''.


          Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN WELDING 
                   TRUCKS USED IN PIPELINE INDUSTRY.

       (a) Covered Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``covered motor vehicle'' means a motor vehicle that--
       (1) is traveling in the State in which the vehicle is 
     registered or another State;
       (2) is owned by a welder;
       (3) is a pick-up style truck;
       (4) is equipped with a welding rig that is used in the 
     construction or maintenance of pipelines; and
       (5) has a gross vehicle weight and combination weight 
     rating and weight of 15,000 pounds or less.
       (b) Federal Requirements.--A covered motor vehicle, 
     including the individual operating such vehicle and the 
     employer of such individual, shall be exempt from the 
     following:
       (1) Any requirement relating to registration as a motor 
     carrier, including the requirement to obtain and display a 
     Department of Transportation number, established under 
     chapters 139 and 311 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Any requirement relating to driver qualifications 
     established under chapter 311 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (3) Any requirement relating to driving of commercial motor 
     vehicles established under chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (4) Any requirement relating to parts and accessories and 
     inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor 
     vehicles established under chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (5) Any requirement relating to hours of service of 
     drivers, including maximum driving and on duty time, 
     established under chapter 315 of title 49, United States 
     Code.


           Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. NOLAN of Minnesota

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. WAIVER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive, for a covered 
     logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle weight limit 
     established under section 127 of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Covered Logging Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``covered logging vehicle'' means a vehicle that--
       (1) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, 
     including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
       (2) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 99,000 
     pounds;
       (3) has not less than 6 axles; and
       (4) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 35 in 
     Minnesota from mile marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552.


           Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee

       Page 241, line 10, strike ``and''.
       Page 241, after line 10, insert the following:
       (2) by amending paragraph (3)(I) to read as follows:
       ``(I) the provision of nonfixed route paratransit 
     transportation services in accordance with section 223 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12143), 
     but only for grant recipients that are in compliance with 
     applicable requirements of that Act, including both fixed 
     route and demand responsive service, and only for amounts--
       ``(i) not to exceed 10 percent of such recipient's annual 
     formula apportionment under sections 5307 and 5311; or
       ``(ii) not to exceed 20 percent of such recipient's annual 
     formula apportionment under sections 5307 and 5311, if 
     consistent with guidance issued by the Secretary, the 
     recipient demonstrates that the recipient meets at least one 
     of the following requirements:

       ``(I) Provides an active fixed route travel training 
     program that is available for riders with disabilities.
       ``(II) Provides that all fixed route and paratransit 
     operators participate in a passenger safety, disability 
     awareness, and sensitivity training class on at least a 
     biennial basis.
       ``(III) Has memoranda of understanding in place with 
     employers and American Job Centers to increase access to 
     employment opportunities for people with disabilities.''.


            Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Veasey of Texas

       Page 248, beginning on line 6, strike ``or general public 
     demand response service'' and insert ``or demand response 
     service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service,''.


          Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

       Page 252, strike lines 14 through 19 and insert the 
     following: ``exceed 80 percent of the net capital project 
     cost. A full funding grant agreement for a new fixed guideway 
     project shall not include a share of more than 50 percent 
     from the funds made available under this section. Funds made 
     available under

[[Page H7681]]

     section 133 of title 23, United States Code, may not be used 
     for a grant agreement under subsection (d). A grant for a 
     core capacity project shall not exceed 80 percent of the net 
     capital project cost of the incremental cost to increase the 
     capacity in the corridor. A grant for a small start project 
     shall not exceed 80 percent of the net capital project 
     costs.''; and


        Amendment No. 43 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

       Page 263, line 18, strike ``minority, and female'' and 
     insert the following: ``female, individual with a disability, 
     minority (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, 
     Black or African American, native Hawaiian or other Pacific 
     Islander, and Hispanic)''.


         Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       Page 268, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 268, line 17, strike the period and insert a semicolon 
     and after such line insert the following:
       ``(iv) the percentage of program participants who are in 
     unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit 
     from any such program;
       ``(v) the percentage of program participants who are in 
     unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after exit 
     from any such program;
       ``(vi) the median earnings of program participants who are 
     in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after 
     exit from any such program;
       ``(vii) the percentage of program participants who obtain a 
     recognized postsecondary credential, or a secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent, during participation in 
     or within 1 year after exit from any such program; and
       ``(viii) the percentage of program participants who, during 
     a program year, are in an education or training program that 
     leads to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment 
     and who are achieving measurable skill gains toward such a 
     credential or employment.''.
       Page 267, line 25, strike ``and''.
       Page 268, line 4, strike the period and insert a semicolon 
     and after such line insert the following:
       ``(x) address in-demand industry sector or occupation, as 
     such term is defined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation 
     and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).''.


         Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence of Michigan

       Page 314, after line 15, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Report.--The Council shall, concurrently with 
     submission to the President of a report containing final 
     recommendations of the Council, transmit such report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate.


           Amendment No. 46 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. ___. EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CHANGES AND 
                   FUNDING.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall examine and evaluate 
     the impact of the changes that Map-21 had on public 
     transportation, including--
       (1) the ability and effectiveness of public transportation 
     agencies to provide public transportation to low-income 
     workers in accessing jobs and being able to use reverse 
     commute services;
       (2) whether services to low-income riders declined after 
     Map-21 was implemented; and
       (3) if guidance provided by the Federal Transit 
     Administration encouraged public transportation agencies to 
     maintain and support services to low-income riders to allow 
     them to access jobs, medical services, and other life 
     necessities.


        Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

       Page 466, after line 21, insert the following:
       (a) Automobile Transporter Defined.--Section 31111(a)(1) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``specifically''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``An automobile 
     transporter shall not be prohibited from the transport of 
     cargo or general freight on a backhaul, so long as it 
     complies with weight limitations for a truck tractor and 
     semitrailer combination.''.
       (b) Truck Tractor Defined.--Section 31111(a)(3)(B) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``only''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or any other commodity, including cargo or 
     general freight on a backhaul''.
       (c) Backhaul Defined.--Section 31111(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Backhaul.--The term `backhaul' means the return trip 
     of a vehicle transporting cargo or general freight, 
     especially when carrying goods back over all or part of the 
     same route.''.
       Page 466, line 22, insert ``(d) Stinger-Steered Automobile 
     Transporters.--'' before ``Section''.


           Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 322, strike line 8 and insert the following:
       ``(vii) support for school-based driver's education classes 
     to improve teen knowledge about--

       ``(I) safe driving practices; and
       ``(II) State's graduated driving license requirements, 
     including behind-the-wheel training required to meet those 
     requirements; and''.


          Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

       At the end of subtitle E of title V of Division A of the 
     bill, add the following:

     SEC. ___. COMMERCIAL DELIVERY OF LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY 
                   TRAILERS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 31111(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Trailer transporter towing unit.--The term `trailer 
     transporter towing unit' means a power unit that is not used 
     to carry property when operating in a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination.
       ``(6) Towaway trailer transporter combination.--The term 
     `towaway trailer transporter combination' means a combination 
     of vehicles consisting of a trailer transporter towing unit 
     and two trailers or semitrailers--
       ``(A) with a total weight that does not exceed 26,000 
     pounds; and
       ``(B) in which the trailers or semitrailers carry no 
     property and constitute inventory property of a manufacturer, 
     distributor or dealer of such trailers or semitrailers.''.
       (b) General Limitations.--Section 31111(b)(1) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) has the effect of imposing an overall length 
     limitation of less than 82 feet on a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Property-carrying unit limitation.--Section 31112(a)(1) 
     of such title is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, but not including a trailer or a 
     semitrailer transported as part of a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination, as defined in section 31111(a)''.
       (2) Access to interstate system.--Section 31114(a)(2) of 
     such title is amended by inserting ``any towaway trailer 
     transporter combination, as defined in section 31111(a),'' 
     after ``passengers,''.


            Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

       At the end of subtitle E of title V, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 5515. GAO REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a review of the following:
       (1) Existing Federal and State rules and guidance, as of 
     the date of the review, concerning school bus transportation 
     of elementary school and secondary school students engaging 
     in home-to-school transport or other transport determined by 
     the Comptroller General to be a routine part of kindergarten 
     through grade 12 education, including regulations and 
     guidance regarding driver training programs, capacity 
     requirements, programs for special needs students, inspection 
     standards, vehicle age requirements, best practices, and 
     public access to inspection results and crash records.
       (2) Any correlation between public or private school bus 
     fleet operators whose vehicles are involved in an accident as 
     defined by section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and each of the following:
       (A) A failure by those same operators of State or local 
     safety inspections.
       (B) The average age or odometer readings of the school 
     buses in the fleets of such operators.
       (C) Violations of Federal laws administered by the 
     Department of Transportation, or of State law equivalents of 
     such laws.
       (D) Violations of State or local law relating to illegal 
     passing of a school bus.
       (3) A regulatory framework comparison of public and private 
     school bus operations.
       (4) Expert recommendations on best practices for safe and 
     reliable school bus transportation, including driver training 
     programs, inspection standards, school bus age and odometer 
     reading maximums for retirement, the percentage of buses in a 
     local bus fleet needed as spare buses, and capacity levels 
     per school bus for different age groups.


            Amendment No. 51 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

       Page 524, line 12, after ``challenges'' insert ``, 
     including consumer privacy protections''.


       Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano of California

       Page 541, line 15, add at the end the following: ``In 
     developing such regulations, the Secretary shall consult with 
     States to determine whether there are safety hazards or 
     concerns specific to a State that should be taken into 
     account in developing the requirements for a comprehensive 
     oil spill response plan.''


        Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts

       Page 571, line 3, redesignate section 7015 as section 7016.
       Page 571, after line 2, insert after section 7014 the 
     following new section:

[[Page H7682]]

  


     SEC. 7015. STUDY ON THE EFFICACY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
                   EUROPEAN TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall, in consultation with other heads of Federal 
     agencies as appropriate, conduct a study on the European 
     Train Control System.
       (b) Issues.--In conducting the study described in 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall examine, at a 
     minimum, the following issues:
       (1) The process by which the European Train Control System 
     came to replace the more than 20 separate national train 
     control systems throughout the European continent.
       (2) The costs associated with implementing the European 
     Train Control System across all affected railroads in Europe.
       (3) The impact of the European Train Control System on 
     operating capacity and rail passenger safety.
       (4) The efficacy of the European Train Control System and 
     the feasibility of implementing such a system throughout the 
     national rail network of the United States.
       (5) A comparison of the costs associated with adopting 
     European Train Control System technology with the costs 
     associated with developing and implementing Positive Train 
     Control in the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report 
     on the results of the study described in subsection (a).


          Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. ___. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENDORSEMENT EXEMPTION.

       The Secretary shall allow a State, at the discretion of the 
     State, to waive the requirement for a holder of a Class A 
     commercial driver's license to obtain a hazardous materials 
     endorsement under part 383 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, if the license holder--
       (1) is acting within the scope of the license holder's 
     employment as an employee of a custom harvester operation, 
     agrichemical business, farm retail outlet and supplier, or 
     livestock feeder; and
       (2) is operating a service vehicle that is--
       (A) transporting diesel in a quantity of 3,785 liters 
     (1,000 gallons) or less; and
       (B) clearly marked with a ``flammable'' or ``combustible'' 
     placard, as appropriate.


          Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Cummings of Maryland

       Page 573, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. __. TRACK SAFETY: VERTICAL TRACK DEFLECTION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2016, the Secretary 
     shall transmit a report to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate detailing research conducted or procured by the 
     Federal Railroad Administration on developing a system that 
     measures Vertical Track Deflection (in this section referred 
     to as ``VTD'') from a moving railroad car, including the 
     ability of such a system to identify poor track support from 
     fouled ballast, deteriorated cross ties, or other conditions.
       (b) Inclusions.--This report shall include--
       (1) the findings and results of testing of VTD 
     instrumentation during field trials on revenue service track;
       (2) the findings and results of subsequent testing of VTD 
     instrumentation on a Federal Railroad Administration 
     Automated Track Inspection Program geometry car;
       (3) if considered appropriate by the Secretary based on the 
     report and related research, a plan for developing 
     quantitative inspection criteria for poor track support using 
     existing VTD instrumentation on Federal Railroad 
     Administration Automated Track Inspection Program geometry 
     cars; and
       (4) if considered appropriate by the Secretary based on the 
     report and related research, a plan for installing VTD 
     instrumentation on all remaining Federal Railroad 
     Administration Automated Track Inspection Program geometry 
     cars within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.


           Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. ____. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BY RAIL LIABILITY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a study 
     on the levels and structure of insurance for a railroad 
     carrier transporting hazardous materials.
       (b) Contents.--ln conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall evaluate--
       (1) the level and structure of insurance, including self-
     insurance, available in the private market against the full 
     liability potential for damages arising from an accident or 
     incident involving a train transporting hazardous materials; 
     and
       (2) the level and structure of insurance that would be 
     necessary and appropriate--
       (A) to efficiently allocate risk and financial 
     responsibility for claims; and
       (B) to ensure that a railroad carrier transporting 
     hazardous materials can continue to operate despite the risk 
     of an accident or incident.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date the study 
     under subsection (a) is initiated, the Secretary shall submit 
     a report containing the results of the study and 
     recommendations for addressing liability issues with rail 
     transportation of hazardous materials to--
       (1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (d) Definitions.--ln this section:
       (1) Hazardous material.--The term ``hazardous material'' 
     means a substance or material the Secretary designates under 
     section 5103(a) of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Railroad carrier.--The term ``railroad carrier'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 20102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by first saying we lost a 
valuable former member of this committee just recently. Howard Coble 
passed away. I just want to say that Howard was on this committee his 
entire time in Congress.
  He was a very valued member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. He was a champion of the Coast Guard, which he served, his 
beloved Coast Guard, and he was always there fighting for them. He was 
an excellent Representative of the people of his district in North 
Carolina, and he was a great friend of mine and, I know, many, many 
Members of this Congress.
  Howard Coble will be missed greatly. I am just proud to say that on 
the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill we were able to name it after 
Howard Coble, someone who deserved that honor.
  So, again, it is with a heavy heart I say that I salute Howard Coble 
and say farewell, as I said, to a great friend and great Member of this 
institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer these amendments en bloc. They 
reflect priorities from both sides of the aisle. I thank all Members 
for their cooperation in putting together this en bloc, and I urge all 
Members to support it.
  I would like, also, to take a moment at this time to thank all the 
Members on both sides of the aisle that participated in this debate. I 
want to thank the Speaker for putting us first on the floor for this 
new open and transparent--I know some of my colleagues on the other 
side don't think it was open enough, but I think many of us on the 
committee, I don't want to speak for Mr. DeFazio, but it was an open 
process to me, and I think that is important.

                              {time}  1815

  As Mr. Polis talked about earlier today, he had ideas. We were able 
to incorporate some of those, some of the Members on the other side, 
and some we certainly opposed. But it was the hard work and willingness 
to come together on this important piece of legislation. I think this 
makes it stronger when we go to the Senate.
  The STRR Act continues the Federal role in providing a strong 
national transportation system, enables our country to remain 
economically competitive, and helps ensure our quality of life. As we 
just talked about in the last amendment, this is a Federal 
responsibility. The Founders would have wanted it this way. They 
certainly probably had differences of opinion. But this role is 
something the Federal Government needs to be part of.
  The STRR Act is a multiyear bill that provides that certainty for 
States and local governments. This bill helps to improve our Nation's 
infrastructure and maintains a strong commitment to safety, but it also 
provides important reforms that will help us to continue to do the job 
more effectively. Some of those reforms I mentioned earlier were 
pushing back to the States, giving them the ability to have the 
flexibility, to make sure that they can drive this in their States to 
get these projects done more effectively and more efficiently, which 
will save us all money.
  I urge all Members to support this bill and the amendments en bloc.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

[[Page H7683]]

  

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the ranking 
member for yielding and for his support, and the chairman for his 
support, for two amendments that I have in this bloc.
  One is a commonsense amendment exempting a narrow class of welders 
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations that I offered with 
Mr. Davis of Illinois and a number of other Members. The other 
amendment is a bipartisan compromise that I offered with Mr. Dold and 
Mr. Nadler. It is an effort to clarify that transit agencies can 
utilize CMAQ and TIFIA funds to match the 50 percent funding in a New 
Start grant.
  I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on this issue 
and restore the Core Capacity and Small Starts projects Federal match 
limit back to 80 percent and allow local agencies to flex other Federal 
funds to these projects.
  Without these funds, without these changes, local flexibility would 
be greatly diminished and many projects would be delayed or canceled, 
including Chicago's red and purple line modernization.
  This bill still restricts the use of the STP funds for the remainder 
of the match and codifies the New Starts grant amount at 50 percent. I 
strongly disagree with these new restrictions and hope we can also work 
on this in conference.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment and the body of the amendments 
in this bloc are really all about public safety. Mine, in particular, 
is a bipartisan, commonsense solution to a very limited but seriously 
dangerous problem. In short, it will help make winter travel safer for 
truckers, travelers, and pedestrians who live, work, and do business in 
and around the great seaport of Duluth, Minnesota.
  I would like to thank Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter 
DeFazio for working with me on this, and the endless hours that you 
have put forth in committee and here on the floor yesterday, today, 
late into the night, and tomorrow for opening up and democratizing this 
process, making amendments like mine and others possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) to describe her amendments which are included.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting my 
amendments on the DBE prompt payment issue, and to allow teen driving 
safety grants to be used to help fund school-based driver's education 
to help our young people meet the Graduated Driver Licensing 
requirements.
  I want to talk about the last of my amendments, requiring a GAO 
report on the impact of MAP-21 changes on the ability of those who 
previously benefited from transportation services under the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute program to get to work.
  The report would examine whether services to low-income riders 
declined after MAP-21 was implemented, as well as efforts by the FTA, 
after passage of MAP-21, to encourage public transportation agencies to 
maintain and support these services so that low-income riders would 
allow them access to jobs, medical services, and other life 
necessities.
  MAP-21 ended the stand-alone JARC grant program. Instead, those 
activities were added as eligible uses of funds under larger formula 
grant programs. There was no requirement that transit agencies use any 
of their annual transit funding to provide services to meet the needs 
of low-income individuals trying to get to work--none.
  My amendment would allow us to know what the real-world impact of 
these changes are. Congress did not intend these changes to make it 
harder for low-income and TANF populations to use transportation to get 
to work. That just doesn't make sense. These hardships should not 
occur.
  I hope that adoption of this amendment sends a message to transit 
agencies that they must continue to provide innovative services to 
ensure that low-income people and the marginally employed are able to 
reach places of employment, educational opportunities, job training, 
child care, medical appointments, and other life necessities.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Adams) to discuss her amendment.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of this package of amendments that includes 
my amendment, which clarifies minority groups to be targeted in human 
resources outreach efforts by the Department of Transportation. My 
amendment would expand the bill's use of the term ``minority'' and 
specify the inclusion of underrepresented minority groups.
  Oftentimes, when policies are put in place to create diversity, they 
are not implemented with special attention to communities that are 
historically underrepresented. This is a special burden for 
underrepresented minorities who have higher than average unemployment 
rates.
  Furthermore, we all know investments in infrastructure means jobs for 
our constituents and opportunities for our businesses back home. As we 
work to pass this legislation, I believe we must make a concerted 
effort to diversify the people who are able to take advantage of these 
opportunities.

  I should note that particular areas of the transportation industry, 
such as public transportation service providers see better levels of 
diversity, but it is time to expand these opportunities to include 
engineering, contracting, project development, and other components of 
the process. Our transportation industry should reflect the diversity 
of our country at every level.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note of an 
important provision that is included in the en bloc amendment package.
  As you know, the transportation bill includes a new program that 
addresses significant roadways. It addresses some of the more expensive 
projects, and it establishes a competitive grant program in excess of 
about $740 million a year.
  One of the important things we have to do is we have to provide 
guidance to the Department of the Transportation in regard to the 
criteria they use, the metrics they use, in this competitive process.
  An amendment in this bill includes the importance of strategic energy 
assets to ensure that roadways like LA 1 in south Louisiana are 
included.
  After Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices nationwide spiked about 75 
cents a gallon. Following Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, gasoline 
prices spiked about $1.40 a gallon, which was the largest price spike 
since the Arab oil embargo. So it is important that, as they go through 
and allocate these grants, that they are looking at factors that are 
very important and have national consequences.
  I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman and all the big 
four for helping us on this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are not quite at the end of this epic, 
but I would like to take a moment.
  First, I want to reflect on the chairman's brief eulogy for Howard 
Coble, who was a wonderful member of the committee; and Howard's 
embarked on his last great voyage. We all remember him warmly.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the chair of the subcommittee 
for the way in which we moved forward. This bill was a product of many, 
many months of negotiation between Members and staff. I think we have a 
good policy-based product here, so I want to thank the chairman and the 
chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank my ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  I want to thank my committee staff on my side: Helena Zyblikewycz, 
Auke Mahar-Piersma--we are blessed with interesting names on our side--
Andrew

[[Page H7684]]

Okuyiga, Ben Lockshin, Jennifer Homendy, Ryan Seiger, Alexa Old Crow. 
Of course, my chief of staff Kathy Dedrick. We have had much mention of 
the last time we did one of these bills. Kathy staffed me when we did 
the last time long-term bill, which was quite a few years ago. Jen 
Gilbreath, Jaime Harrell, and Luke Strimer.
  On the Republican side, I particularly want to thank Chris Bertram 
and Murphie Barrett and all the other Republican staff for their 
fabulous work.
  I won't say all the meetings were warm and fuzzy, but we worked stuff 
out in the end. I think we got a good product. I think going through 
this legislative process was a demonstration that House Members can 
individually be relevant, offer their ideas. They might be rejected, 
they might be accepted, but I think this was a very good process.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this has been 3 years in the making. When 
I first became chairman just about 3 years ago to almost the date 
today, one of my top priorities was to pass a multiyear surface 
transportation bill. I have had some people who lament and say: Oh, you 
have been on the floor long; oh, you have had to go through these 
different fights. But I can tell you, it has all been pleasurable. It 
is exciting that we finally are getting this thing to send here on the 
floor and get it into conference.
  I couldn't do it without the help and advice of a great staff on the 
Republican side. I also want to thank the Democratic staff. I know both 
staffs have spent some long nights and some long weekends trying to get 
this thing all worked out, and they have done a great job of it. I 
thank each and every one of them on both sides of the aisle for their 
hard work.
  I want to thank all the members on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on both sides for their valuable input and, 
again, their hard work in putting this thing together to bring it to 
the floor. I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member 
Norton, and the chair of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Mr. 
Graves, for their work.
  Peter DeFazio has been a good friend and able opponent at times. He 
has been here a long time. He is bright; he is tough; he is passionate; 
but at the end of the day, we are able to come together on a lot of 
these issues and work it out, so I appreciate Mr. DeFazio's efforts.
  And finally, let me say, for the first time in my 15 years of 
Congress that I have participated in a Transportation and 
Infrastructure debate on the floor, that my father's name has not been 
mentioned one time. So let me be the first to mention my father, Bud 
Shuster. I am not sure if he is watching at home. If he is, he is 
taking notes and will tell me things I said right and things I could 
have probably said better. But I just want to thank him for the 
guidance he has given me throughout my life, for the valuable advice he 
has offered to me at times when I have asked and many times when I have 
not asked. And, again, if he is watching tonight, I am sure he is 
writing down some things that he is going to give me some pointers on. 
But I want to thank my father, Bud Shuster, again, for his great 
support over the years.
  I am looking forward to getting to conference and getting this thing 
done because I think it is important to the American people that we 
have a long-term highway bill. This has been an issue that people say 
it is great, there is a lot of bipartisan support--and there is--but 
these are issues that Republicans, Democrats, and Americans care about, 
our infrastructure, and want to get to work without delays and want to 
get products to market and want to get the raw materials to the 
factories that keep us competitive in the world. We are in a world 
market that we have to remain competitive, and transportation is one of 
those vital links that will keep us there.
  With that, again, I thank everybody for their hard work. Staff, 
again, thank you.
  With that, I urge all Members to support the final bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
add the Newberg Dundee Bypass Route as a High Priority Corridor and I 
would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working with me 
to bring it forward. Let me be clear--there is no cost to this 
amendment--it merely raises the prominence and importance of the 
bypass. The construction of the bypass is underway and has great 
potential to ease congestion, promote freight mobility, and provide 
important multi-modal connections for residents and visitors in the 
broader Yamhill County region. The success of Oregon's wine and 
agricultural industries has increased freight traffic in the region. 
The bypass seeks to address the difficulties associated with 
transportation of goods and services and enhance the recovery of 
Yamhill County's economically distressed communities. The development 
of this corridor has wide support in the region, including from the 
state, local and tribal governments, and surrounding communities. I 
include a letter from Oregon's Department of Transportation in support 
of this amendment for the Record.
  Further, this project is of significant importance because of its 
location in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. We know that the question is 
not if, but when, an earthquake and tsunami will hit. Preparing our 
region is a priority for Oregonians and will save countless lives and 
federal funds. This road serves as an evacuation route for the central 
coast and is being built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake. I thank 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their support of my 
amendment.

                                     Department of Transportation,


                                       Office of the Director,

                                      Salem, OR, October 30, 2015.
     Re: Support for amendment to designate the OR 99W Newberg-
         Dundee bypass route between Newberg, OR, and Dayton, OR 
         as a new High Priority Corridor on the National Highway 
         System.

     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: I write 
     today in support of an amendment to H.R. 22 offered by 
     Representative Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon.
       Representative Bonamici has filed an amendment with the 
     Rules Committee seeking to amend Section 1405 of the bill by 
     adding the OR 99W Newberg-Dundee Bypass route between 
     Newberg, OR, and Dayton, OR as a new High Priority Corridor 
     on the National Highway System.
       The Newberg-Dundee Bypass project is one of many key 
     regional transportation corridors in Oregon. The Bypass 
     project is important to both regional freight movement and 
     congestion relief. In addition, the Oregon Department of 
     Transportation's (ODOT) Safety Priority Index System for 2014 
     identified six sites on OR 99W that are in the top 10 percent 
     of crash sites statewide based on frequency and severity of 
     incidents. In the event of a major natural disaster such as a 
     Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and tsunami, this 
     corridor would serve as an emergency evacuation and relief 
     route for the central Oregon Coast. The first phase of the 
     project, which is currently under construction, is being 
     built to withstand a 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake 
     to ensure this critical lifeline will remain operational in 
     such an event. For these reasons, ODOT supports the inclusion 
     of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass on the list of High Priority 
     Corridors on the National Highway System.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Matthew L. Garrett,
                                                         Director.

                              {time}  1830

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). The question is on the 
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


            Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 289, strike lines 11 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) $352,950,000 for fiscal year 2016;
       ``(ii) $462,950,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(iii) $468,288,000 for fiscal year 2018;
       ``(iv) $473,653,500 for fiscal year 2019;
       ``(v) $479,231,500 for fiscal year 2020; and
       ``(vi) $484,816,000 for fiscal year 2021;''.
       Beginning on page 289, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 290, line 8, and insert the following:
       ``(i) $262,950,000 for fiscal year 2016;
       ``(ii) $262,950,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(iii) $268,288,000 for fiscal year 2018;

[[Page H7685]]

       ``(iv) $273,653,500 for fiscal year 2019;
       ``(v) $279,231,500 for fiscal year 2020; and
       ``(vi) $284,816,000 for fiscal year 2021.''.
       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. INCREASE SUPPORT FOR GROWING STATES.

       Section 5340 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Apportionment.--Of the amounts made available for 
     each fiscal year under section 5338(b)(2)(M), the Secretary 
     shall apportion 100 percent to States and urbanized areas in 
     accordance with subsection (c).''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, over 50 percent of all transit 
riders in the U.S. travel on buses, but only 10 percent of our transit 
funding actually goes to buses. I will say that again. Over half of the 
people in this country who use public transportation take buses to get 
to work, to the grocery store, to visit family; yet the Federal 
Government dedicates less than 10 percent of its transit funds 
specifically to buses and to bus facilities.
  We are selling communities short, communities like my home in 
southwest Washington, but we have an opportunity to rectify the 
situation, Mr. Chairman.
  While overall transit funding has been steadily increasing, this bill 
funds buses in 2016 at, roughly, half of the 2012 levels--that is, Mr. 
Chairman, unless you happen to represent one of seven States for which 
this bill sets aside, roughly, an additional $272 million a year.
  While all 50 States can compete for funds through the nationwide 
Competitive Bus Grant program, which is funded at $90 million in 2016 
and $200 million each year after, a select few of the northeastern 
States get an additional $272 million pot to draw from. That is right, 
Mr. Chairman.
  These high-density States--Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New 
Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware--have a special pot of 
money set aside for them that averages $90 million more a year than the 
nationwide pot that all 50 States compete for. Oh, and those seven 
States still get to compete for the nationwide pot.
  It is an issue of fairness, Mr. Chairman. The idea that seven States 
have available to them more money than all 50 States combined isn't 
fair to the communities in my State or in yours or in the other 43 
States.
  My amendment would simply move the funding from the seven-State set-
aside program into the Competitive Bus Grant program and allow all 
States to compete for these much-needed resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, a former member 
of the committee.
  Let me be clear. I agree we should be further increasing the funds 
available for bus procurement. MAP-21 cut bus funding in half--a 
devastating cut to many smaller and mid-sized transit agencies, 
including in my district.
  We tried to reverse these cuts as much as we could in this bill, but 
with the severely limited funding that was mentioned earlier today, 
there was only so much we could do. In total, we increased the bus 
formula and competitive grant program by 40 percent.
  I would also like to mention the bus procurement reforms in the bill 
that are designed to lower the cost of bus purchases. We provided 
several different mechanisms that provide bulk buying power for transit 
agencies. Buses are expensive, and larger purchases will help them to 
get lower costs.
  This amendment will further increase the bus procurement programs and 
shift money from the high-density-States formula that benefits seven 
northeastern States. The high-density-States formula is actually an old 
Senate provision, carefully drafted by the esteemed members of the 
Senate's Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee sometime ago and 
is of great benefit to those seven States.
  I am very sympathetic to the amendment, but I am obligated, 
reluctantly and tepidly, to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this earmark, as I 
am a cosponsor and am in support of this amendment, No. 57, offered by 
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
  This has been interesting in the debate because it has been 
absolutely clarified on both sides that we see this as an earmark. 
Basically, seven States take from this bill a disproportionate amount 
based on a formula that declares them high-density States: New York, 
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, and 
Delaware.
  If you do not live in one of these States and if you are a Member of 
Congress, you should vote for this amendment because declaring them 
high-density States is a meaningless designation. For example, Chicago, 
Los Angeles, and many, many urban areas throughout our country are high 
density and deserve to be able to participate in this fund, but they 
cannot because they are not located in one of these States that has 
largely been, as the ranking member has indicated, a Senate formula 
set-aside.
  Our Founding Fathers, when they came together to create the system of 
the House and the Senate, did so so that we would have equality, a 
balance between each of the States and their populations. This is not a 
balance when you have a set-aside for seven States.
  Once again, I would call on all of my fellow colleagues who do not 
live in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, 
Rhode Island, and Delaware to vote for this amendment by Ms. Herrera 
Beutler. She has identified that this is an earmark for these States 
and that it robs money from other States that need assistance with 
public transportation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. TURNER. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because 
it does correct an injustice.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, as was well said, 371 Members of 
the House represent people in States that will benefit from this 
amendment. By voting ``yes'' for this amendment, 371 Members will have 
an opportunity to increase access to important transit funds in their 
districts without raising spending levels in the bill.
  Even those Members in these high-density States are not losing access 
to the funds. The amendment allows all 50 States to compete fairly for 
grant funding based on the needs of the area and the merits of the 
project.
  How can anybody be against this? What is wrong with this?
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say that a great 
former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said that ``all politics is 
local.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SECTION 1431. INCREASING CERTAIN PENALTIES RELATING TO 
                   COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.

       (a) Civil Penalty.--Section 521(b)(2)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 521(b)(6)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is

[[Page H7686]]

     amended by striking ``$2,500'' and inserting ``$5,000''.
       (c) Disqualifications.--
       (1) First violation or committing felony.--Section 
     31310(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) determined by the Secretary to have operated a 
     commercial motor vehicle that the individual knew or 
     reasonably should have known had a defect that resulted in a 
     fatality.''.
       (2) Second and multiple violations.--Section 31310(c)(1) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
       (C) in subparagraph (G) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``(E)'' and inserting ``(F)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, operations,'' after ``violations''; 
     and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) determined by the Secretary to have more than once 
     operated a commercial motor vehicle that the individual knew 
     or reasonably should have known had a defect that resulted in 
     a fatality; or''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
  All of us here have the honor to serve in the people's House, and we 
are here to serve our constituents--the people who send us here from 
all over the country--and also to serve in the best interests of our 
great Nation.
  I had a constituent who approached me. I happened to be touring the 
business at which he works, and he told me something that affected me 
greatly.
  His son was just days before his 23rd birthday. He was a student at 
the University of Cincinnati. He was coming down Interstate 75 in a 
minivan and was minding his own business. I don't know what he was 
thinking about, but he had his whole future ahead of him.
  But a completely avoidable accident occurred. A wheel that was so 
rusted broke free from a big rig, and it crossed the median. It struck 
the vehicle he was in, and it killed him immediately, a couple of days 
before his 23rd birthday.
  It had been a couple of years, but his father was still very 
emotional about this, understandably so.
  We looked into this situation. We talked with a number of our 
colleagues and did a lot of research on it and worked with the American 
Trucking Association and with America's Independent Truckers' 
Association as well. We came up with an amendment to this particular 
bill that we are discussing here this evening, the transportation bill.
  What the amendment would do, essentially, is stiffen the penalties 
for a driver who knowingly operates a commercial vehicle that has a 
serious defect that results in a fatal crash.
  Clearly, what we are trying to do is to make the public more safe and 
to deal with a family that has been tragically changed forever. They 
lost one of the most important members of that particular family. We 
are trying to do this in a responsible way.
  The trucking industry in this country, for the most part, is very 
safety conscious, and their rate of fatalities has come down. I commend 
them greatly for what they are trying to do, but there is a hole in the 
system right now.
  In this particular situation, there was a rusted thing that shouldn't 
have been on the road. This type of thing doesn't happen all that 
often, but it happened this time, and it killed my constituent's son.
  We have discussed this with the chairman and with staff. It is my 
understanding that the chairman is willing to work with us on 
addressing this issue of trying to make the American public safer and 
is willing to work with our distinguished folks on the minority side as 
well.
  With that understanding, I am willing to withdraw my amendment here 
this evening and continue to work with them through the process to 
hopefully address this issue in a way that will receive support on both 
sides of the aisle so that we can pass this into law and make the 
public safer. It will allow this particular family, who was affected so 
tragically in this instance, to know that they have done something to 
honor their son.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to work with the gentleman on 
the issue. I oppose the amendment, but I want to continue talking with 
the gentleman and working with him.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to work with the 
gentleman. I mean, this is a story that tugs at you. The gentleman 
brings before us an important issue. I think there is a way to get at 
this; so, I would love to work with the gentleman as we go to 
conference and see what we can do.
  With the indulgence of the House, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio as well for working 
with me and for working with the entire committee. The Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee does work together in a bipartisan 
fashion, and the House does work.
  On the other hand and in the same vein, I had the pleasure of knowing 
Howard Coble for my entire time I have been in Congress. I was his 
ranking member on Judiciary, and he was my ranking member on Judiciary.
  We had a great relationship. He was one of the finest gentlemen I 
have ever known. He was a scholar. He was a gentleman. He loved North 
Carolina. He loved this House. He will be missed. He was an example of 
the way people can work together to make progress in the United States 
Congress. I was honored to know him.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to share in the 
gentleman's comments about our colleague, Howard Coble of North 
Carolina.
  He was truly a wonderful part of this distinguished institution. I 
served on the Judiciary Committee for the better part of 20 years with 
Howard Coble, and we all looked up to him. He was kind of one of a 
kind, and I say that in the most honorable way.
  He was one we looked to. He had a sense of humor that went to your 
heart. He was just a great guy. He will be truly missed not only by his 
constituents, but by this House that he loved for so many years.
  On my amendment, I have heard both the chairman and our friends on 
the minority side indicate they are willing to work with us on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. With that understanding, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 printed in part A of House 
Report 114-326 will not be offered.

                          ____________________