impact that it will have on everything from manufacturing to transportation. and it's going to, like i say, affect -- have an impact on each one of my constituents. do you all look at the comprehensive, financial and economic impact to these regulations at all, that they're going to have on the states and our sfu yents? >> i'm not familiar with the study you're talking about, congressman, but -- >> i'll get it to you. integrated plan, city of springfield for the next 20 years. i'll be glad to provide that to you and your staff. but let's say that you were familiar with it. at what point -- my question is do you all look at the economic impact? >> so, each rule looks at its impacts in light of the rules that have come before it. and so there is a -- an understanding of the rules and the impacts. both benefits and costs that are associated --

>> but there is a weight given to cost? >> i'm sorry? >> there is a weight, there is a consideration gifsh to costs? >> whenever we do regulations there's an evaluation of costs and of benefits. >> okay. i guess that that's -- i'm about out of time anyway. morgan stole some of my notes and asked some of my questions. so anyway, with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> at this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. mccabe, thank you for joining us today. how does the market price risk? if you know something and you know what the cost is of something, it has a price. you know that price. but if you don't know something, then the price is higher because you have risk, right? >> um -- >> yes, okay. in 2010 the epa, when they proposed going to 60 parts per

billion, said that that would cost $90 billion. cost the economy $90 billion. in 2014, you reduced it to $40 billion. what happened over that four-year period to make the cost go down? >> so, i think what you're comparing is the proposal that was put out under the ozone reconsideration compared with -- >> yeah just tell me what made it go down. >> yep. so, if that first one, we were looking at a change of the standard from the previous standard of 85 parts per billion to that level of in the range of 60 -- >> so this is not a 75 to 60. >> that's right. because that was a reconsideration of the prior standard. >> okay. thank you. and then in your proposal to go to either 70 or 65, a significant amount of the control technology doesn't exist today. that's where the risk question comes in. do you know what it costs to offset a ton of ozone in the

galveston/houston area today? it's about $170,000 a ton. so, where did the epa price its unknown risk technology on a per ton of what the ozone -- >> we looked across -- >> just give me a number. >> oh, the number? >> yeah. just give me a number. >> i believe it was -- >> about $15,000. >> that's what i was going to say. >> yeah, $15,000. so if we know in texas what the cost to offset a ton of ozone is and it's $170,000, where did we come up with $15,000 for imaginary technology that doesn't exist? where in the world did that come from? >> by looking at the history of the costs of pollution control technology over the years. and this is actually a conservative estimate based on the actual cost to control pollution that we've -- >> is that a publicly available document? >> all of our assumptions are publicly available. >> well, let me say that it doesn't pass the smell test when we know today what the cost is for an offset.

and then you -- and you have imaginary technology that does not exist. and we just price it at a fire sale to give it a walmart price. that's crazy. let's talk about background ozone for a minute. here's a map, a background ozone map. texas has about 70 parts per billion on average. 72 parts per billion of background ozone. if you take the level to 65, what is texas supposed to do? get a big vacuum and send it down the ozone hole in antarctica or what? >> i'm not familiar with that map, but that number doesn't sound right to me. >> it's right. let's use something more discreet. how about rocky mountain national park has a background of 77. there's no industry in rocky mountain national park. >> as i mentioned, particularly in that part of the country, there are a few areas where we're seeing high background -- >> so, what do you do? you said you had to have a national standard a minute ago.

how are you going to clean up rocky mountain national park? and take it to 65? >> it is not responsible for cleaning up air pollution that it doesn't create and the clean air act provides mechanisms -- >> what's a mechanism? how do you clean up rocky mountain national park? >> to the extent that pollution is coming from places we can control -- >> well, in this case, it's not. >> well -- >> and 77 parts per billion background means, by definition, it's not being produced there. it's coming from somewhere else. naturally occurring causes or china. >> if it's coming from motor vehicle, around the country, that -- where that air pollution is coming into that area our rules will help reduce that. if it's -- >> let's talk about rfs for a minute. under your 2010 regulatory impact analysis of the renewable fuel standard, the epa concluded that the program would contribute to ozone as a consequence of increased ethanol use. disregarding that altogether, epa recently proposed its latest

target through 2016 will lead to higher levels of ethanol, and according to the studies of the journal of geophysical research that measured ozone -- emissions of ozone forming vocs from ethanol refineries, it's five times higher than the epa's original estimate. so the epa on one hand is saying, you've got to reduce to 65 to 70 parts per billion. on the other hand, you're trying to cram more ethanol into the system which has a five times worse ozone impact on the economy than does the production of regular gasoline. i'll submit the rest of my questions in writing. thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator, for being here today. i represent rural north carolina. i grew up with a love for the outdoors and i essential understand our -- the importance of protecting the environment. but like many of my colleagues i do have concerns about this

propose add rule. i thought it was fascinating my colleague from florida said that the air in tampa, florida, is clean. it used to be polluted, but now it's clean. but i looked up hillsborough county, florida, and the ozone levels are 71. by her definition it's clean. i believe her. but even tampa, florida, would be out of attainment. what i really want to talk about is one of my counties, montgomery county, north carolina. it's a very rural county. part of it is national forest. this county has been decimated with job loss. we've lost manufacturing jobs. there is no major significant industry in the county. yet, this county has 66 parts per billion in ozone. so it would be out of attainment if the standard were 65. again, this is a beautiful county. it's got two rivers, it's got a lake. the air quality is wonderful. it's a rural beautiful community. but what -- what would the epa do with a county in a situation like that?

>> well, i think we need to be careful about making assumptions about which counties will be and won't be nonattainment because we don't know that. we don't know what a final standard will be, if a decision is made to revise it. but also, those decisions will be made based on future air quality data. they'll be -- the numbers i believe you are citing are based on air quality data from 2011 through 2013. we will use current -- most recent air quality data when we make those decisions. and air quality is trending in a good direction. so, i think we need to not assume an area will be -- will or won't be nonattainment based on information that's from prior years. >> do you think the level would stay above 70? >> which level? >> that epa sets for air quality? >> no i'm not speaking to what decision might be finally made, i'm speaking to the information that people are citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in attainment if there is a revision to the standard.

we just don't know that. that being said, we've talked, and i understand the comments that many of the members have made about being concerned about rural areas. and we do have the ability to work with those areas. the clean air act does recognize that there are areas that don't control their air quality and they don't -- the clean air act doesn't hold those areas responsible for reducing pollution if it's not being produced there. >> i appreciate that. obviously a county like montgomery county desperately needs jobs. if we get to a nonattainment situation where we can't hire new people, we can't attract new industry, it's devastating. so what specifically would montgomery county, north carolina, do if hypothetically it were in nonattainment? do we file a lawsuit against a local city? i mean how do you -- >> well, programs like the motor vehicle standards will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor vehicles are used. this is an example of how the federal/state partnership works. where federal programs bring

cleaner air all across the country and will take care of the air pollution in many areas, where there's not a lot of local industry that is contributing. >> we'd have to give up our pickup trucks and suburbans? >> no, no. as the fleet turns over, as people buy newer cars, the fuels are getting cleaner, and so air quality will improve. >> what percentage do you think motor vehicles contribute to that? >> well motor vehicles generally contribute about a third of the air pollution in the country. and, see, it's not just cars driven in montgomery county. it's cars driven in the region that are contributing to regional air pollution. >> well, i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i have three resolutions i'd like to insert in the record. one from the chamber of commerce, the board of county commissioners and a third is from urban area metropolitan planning organization. all these organizations oppose this new standard and seek

unanimous consent to have them inserted in the record at this time. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. again, thank you for your testimony. but i just have concerns that we are setting standards so low that they're not attainable and when rural areas that aren't near industrial areas not near big cities can't reach the attainment, a significant portion, 10 of the 12 rural counties in my district i think we may be using the wrong metric, so that's my concern. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time recognize the gentle lady from north carolina ms. ellmers, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ms. mccabe for being with us. i want to start out, as my colleague from north carolina was pointing out. basically, the concerns we have in north carolina. just in our home state alone, this rule will kill over 13,000 jobs a year and decrease the state's gdp drastically at a time when we can afford it the least. this proposal raises serious concerns.

i look forward to this discussion. i definitely have some questions for you, starting off with in september of 2011, president obama requested that your agency withdraw its proposed ozone standard based on his, quote, concerns about the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover, end quote. your agency agreed to withdraw the proposed standard, and now you're issuing the revised standard. can you tell us what changes you made to decrease the regulatory burden which now allows you to move forward? >> first, let me explain that at that time, the agency was engaged in a reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard, which was not a mandatory duty. we're under a mandatory duty to relook at standard every five years. it was last reviewed in 2008. so this is our required review. >> so there are less regulations now?

>> this is about science. this particular decision is about science and public health and what the science says about what is healthy in the air to breathe. >> but, ma'am, just to -- not to interrupt you, but to point out that the president said that he was asking for you to decrease the amount of regulations. what regulations have you decreased which can move us forward? i understand you're looking at the science. i'm a nurse. i understand science. but what is it that you have done to make this process move forward so that we can all come together and work on it? >> well, we've put out regulations like the tier 3 regulation i mentioned a minute ago which will bring improved air quality all across the country. that's things states won't have to do -- >> is that less cumbersome than what existed in 2008? >> it is a provision that will help states and municipalities meet the ozone standard. >> okay. moving on. you know the first question

that any economic developer asks when locating new plants or considering expansion of an existing plant is the attainment status. my colleague from north carolina, we were having this conversation just a moment ago. areas designated as nonattainment are immediately considered for exclusion. the clean air act requires they advise the administrator of any adverse social, welfare or energy effects. which may result from various strategies of attainment and national ambient air quality standards. given the economic impact of a revised standard, why are you not requiring ksac to take all of these things into consideration in regard to economic development? >> in setting the health standard, we've been specifically directed by the supreme court that looking at the implementation implications is not part of setting the health standard. >> so the supreme court told you

that economic development is not significant and should not be considered? >> is not relevant to the setting of the public health standard. >> okay. moving on. nonattainment designation indiscriminately reduces development, including that with associated with military bases. this is particularly important for north carolina as we have many strong military presence there. the standard of the level at the near natural background as is currently being considered will potentially limit military expansion and place at risk our military readiness. how is your agency planning on ensuring that your revised ozone standard will not jeopardize national security? >> congresswoman, i'm not aware of any instance in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military readiness. >> i would love to work with your office because my understanding is there are some situations especially affecting some of our north carolina bases now, that this will dramatically

effect, so i would like to continue that conversation. >> we'll be glad to follow up. >> great. lastly, and i've got 31 seconds. part of this continued problem is how are manufacturers going to be able to deal with this technology? if a manufacturer simply cannot meet these standards, what are their options? are they to buy expensive offsets? are they to close their doors? what do we do? how do we help our manufacturers? >> we work with the states and with the business industry. we look at the -- where the pollution is coming from and we develop programs that are targeted towards addressing the most cost effective reductions. that's what we've done through the whole history of the clean air act, where manufacturing has moved forward, implemented new technologies, has been able to grow. >> do existing controls exist right now to achieve the 60 parts per billion standard or 65 parts per billion standard?

>> keep in mind, the administrator did not propose a 60 part per billion standard. when we looked at the range of 65 to 70, which is what she proposed we identified a number of already existing controls that will -- >> what are those existing controls? >> cleaner engines, scrubbers, nox controls, lower voc paint and coatings. a variety of technologies that have been developed over the years that many areas are not yet employing that could be employed. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. at this time recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks, ms. mccabe, for joining us again today. you know increased access to low-cost sustainable domestic natural gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the manufacturing renaissance in this country.

this expansion has resulted not only in cleaner gas and electricity for manufacturers, but also provides a new source of natural gas liquids which are essential feedstocks and manufacturing such as chemicals and plastics. and a study conducted by the consulting firm frequently contracted by the department of energy, among others shows dramatic cost increases in the price of natural gas under a 60 parts per billion standard. the study projects a 52% increase in the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a 60 part per billion standard. so, a quick question, can we expect our manufacturing renaissance to continue under this type of scenario? >> i can't speak to that study specifically, but i know there certainly has been a significant increase in the development of natural gas, and it's a very important -- >> we know that.

what i am asking you, when we are essentially taxing it with these standards, and i might point out to you that in a recent trip we made to europe, rate payers, businesses and residential rate payers in europe, are taking a strong second look at their energy profiles because of this exact problem. making their businesses noncompetitive and their unwillingness to pay the exorbitant high prices for energy that will result from a rule like this. so, how can we expect the manufacturing renaissance to continue when we're taxing essentially -- >> i don't think we are taxing -- >> sure you are. if you get a 52% increase in the cost of natural gas under a 62 parts per billion standard, that's essentially a tax. you can call it whatever you want to, but it's a tax on the industry. >> well, i'm not sure that i

agree with -- >> well, we'll agree to disagree. let me move on. let me focus on how the epa calculated the benefits of its proposed ozone standard. here's the issue in a nutshell. instead of calculated the benefits from reduced organic compounds, the constituents of ozone, which are emitted from cars, trucks and stationary sources, epa also incorporated the co-benefits from reducing partic atlanta matter or pm, from those same sources. of course, this rule-making has nothing to do with particular matter. standard for par particular matter, and the ozone rule would have little to show for it. in fact, dr. anne smith has

pointed out that these pm co- co-benefits are larger than the direct ozone-related benefits from the rule. if you don't except the assessment, then how about the former head of omb's office, he reviewed the ozone reconsideration in 2011 and helped prevent that proposal from being finalized because it was too costly. here's what i said about this and i quote but on some of the agency's estimates of the 2011 ozone proposal, the net benefits would have been zero. moreover, a strong majority of the benefits would have resulted not from ozone reductions but from co-benefit reductions in particular yat matter which come as a benefit of technology. so, this prompts a number of questions. first, can you explain to me and our committee the epa's legal justification for engaging in

this kind of double counting? how is it that you can justify a lower ozone standard using benefits from an entirely different pollutant? >> well that's not double -- >> that's not science. that's a shell game. that's what that is. that's not science. >> that's not double counting, those benefits are real. >> but that's not what this rule -- this rule is supposed to be going after ozone not particulate matter. >> but it's having additional benefits -- >> very little in terms of the ozone in comparison with the benefits coming from particulate matter. further, talk to me about how transparent you have been with this to the american public? there are charts buried in the proposal rule where somebody maybe with a ph.d. can go further into this information but have you or your administration explained this in

the public statements about the ozone? have you told the american people that the benefits are coming from somewhere else from a pollutant that is already regulated by the epa? >> we are very clear, and i, myself, personally, have talked about co-benefits that are achieved by programs that we implement. >> i think it's a shell game, ms. mccabe, and i think it's economically destructive to my region of the country and other industries providing jobs in the economic vitality of america today. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i have a couple of other questions i want to ask. i wanted to ask you a couple of other questions, ms. mccabe. the science advisory committee is appointed by who? >> the science advisory committee is -- there's an office within epa that administers the science advisory board and has a very open process for -- >> but the people who serve on the science advisory committee,

how are they selected? >> they are nominated and -- >> by who? >> either by themselves or by others. and that's through a public process. >> and then who makes the decision of who serves? >> that's a decision made within the agency by our office of the science -- >> so, epa decides who serves on the science committee? >> it's through a robust public process. >> how long do they serve? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> how many people serve on the committee? >> i don't know the answer to that. the -- >> could you get us a list of the names of people on the committee -- >> sure. >> -- and how long their term of office is? >> yes yes. i believe it's -- you know it's on the order of four to six years, something like that. >> thank you. >> ms. mccabe, how long has that committee been in existence? >> how long has -- >> how long has it been in existence? >> the agency? >> no, the committee, the science committee. >> gosh, i don't know,

congressman rush, but we can certainly find out. many, many years. many years. >> to both republican and democratic administrations? >> yes, absolutely. and the committees and the panels are very well balanced to make sure that there's a range of views represented. >> would you say it's bipartisan? >> yes, i would. >> mr. chairman, i have one more question. ms. mccabe we keep hearing about the president's decision in 2010 on the ozone standard. and let me read from that. with that in mind, this is what i want to read, statement by the president, work is already under

way to obtain a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. ultimately, and this comes directly from this -- the president on the ozone national ambient air quality standards issued on september 2, 2011, ultimately i did not support asking state and local governments to begin implement new standards that will soon be reconsidered. do you remember those -- that statement by the president? >> yeah. so, the president was recognizing that the regular five-year review of the ozone standard was already under way. and that's what he was directing the agency to focus its attention on.

if i could clear something i said earlier, congressman rush. i agreed it's bipartis accurate to call it nonpartisan. >> nonpartisan. well, thank you very much. mr. chairman i don't have any other questions but i have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter from the public health organization opposing legislation or amendments that will block epa's work to update ozone ozone standards. also a letter from the national association of clean air agencies supporting the epa's proposal to revise the current ozone air standards. and i ask for unanimous consent they be entered into the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> then i yield back the balance of my time. >> then i would also like to ask

unanimous consent the following documents be entered into the record. number one a survey released by the association of air pollution control agencies entitled, state environmental perspectives on background ozone and regulatory relief. number two, a june 2015 article from the journal of science entitled "challenges of a lower u.s. ozone standard." and, number three, comments of a texas -- one of the texas commission on environmental quality on epa's proposal ozone rule texas commissioner's comments. without objection, that will be entered into the record as well. and that concludes today's hearing. once again, ms. mccabe, thank you for being with us. we look forward to continuing an engagement with you as we move forward. and we'll keep the record open for ten days for any additional questions or comments or materials. and with that, the hearing is now adjourned.

while congress returns in session today from its fourth of july break this week the house will gavel in in about half an hour, 2:00 p.m. eastern today, and members plan to continue and finish work on a bill that would fund the interior department, the epa and other related injuries. also the house will consider a bill making changes to no child left behind. among those changes allowing states to set their own accountability standards. the senate also gaveling in today to work on a separate proposal dealing with no child left behind. it would give states more authority to determine how much weight to give to standardized test scores. senators will also consider -- actually, have a confirmation vote later today on a federal circuit court judge. senators gavel in at 2:30 eastern. you can see the senate live on c-span2. the house on c-span. this week on "first ladies: influence and image."

garfield, create to her friends with an educated woman and a believer in women's rights when her husband, president james garfield was assassinated, she returned to ohio and ensured his legacy by turning their home into a presidential library. chester becomes a widower and his sister becomes the role of first lady and establishes white house social etiquette used by future first ladies for decades. this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies: influence and image," the women who filled first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama on c-span3. like many of us first families take vacation time. and like presidents and first ladies a good read can be the

perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. "first ladies: presidential history ons on the lives of 45 american women," inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read. available from public affairs as a hard cover or an ebook through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. well during today's session of the south carolina senate lawmakers there voted to remove the confederate flag from the front of the state house. the vote was 36-3. the measure now moves on to the south carolina house for consideration. we are planning live coverage of that when it starts in just a couple moments here on c-span3. in the meantime, a roundtable discussion on the administration's efforts to

initiate more overtime pay for government workers from this morning's "washington journal". >> we're on a tuesday roundtable about president obama's change overtime eligibility rooimplts in this country. we're joined for this discussion by beth of the national federation of independent business and christine owens of the national employment law project. to begin the discussion, remind viewers what exactly the president has proposed and what he wants to do here and the reasoning behind it. >> great. thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion. so, the president about a year ago directed the labor department to take a look at the current rules that exempt certain workers from the overtime pay requirement. for the requirement worked over 40 hours a week. specifically what he asked the labor department to do is look at what we call the white collar exemptions. those are the exemptions for certain executive administrative

and professional employees who make above a certain amount of money each year, who are paid on a salary basis not an hourly basis, and who meet certain duties. the last time these rules were revised were in 2004. they were revised seven or eight times since they were first passed in 1938. in 2004 the bush administration set the salary threshold at $23,400 a year. and prescribed certain dudies test for each of these exemption exemptions exemptions. that's where it's sat since 2004. what the president asked the labor democrat to do was take a look at the salary test, the duties test, anything else that might be relevant to updating these exemptions to determine whether or not white collar employees should be exempt from overtime pay requirements or if they work more than 40 hours a week, they should get overtime pay. that's exactly what the labor department's proposal does. it looks at -- it takes a very

simple approach in establishing a bright line test that says in 2016 that an employee makes less than around $50,000 a year, that employees regardless of his or her duties would be eligible for overtime pay. above that bright line of $50,000 a year then the employer would have to apply these duty tests to see if they would be eligible for overtime pay or exempt exempt. >> this proposal, the nfib says may sound well meaning but could hurt workers. explain. >> yes. thank you for inviting me to be here today. like a lot of proposeals to come out of the capitol, so what sounds good on paper, coming out of the mouths of government politicians and bureaucrats does

not always play out well in the business environment. particularly for the small businesses in this country who are going to bear a disproportion disproportionate burden when you talk about doubling the salaries for managers retail and restaurants, those things too. too often bureaucrats look at businesses as a monolithic group. it will be problematic. >> we're asking our viewers to weigh in as well on this round table decision. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-848-8002. christine, why is this rule necessary? what was happening that the obama administration saw a need to change after 11 years? >> let's put it in some perspective. one thing is the legislation --

regulations to take into account changes in the economy, wage growth generally, cost of living, et cetera. and in general, that just hasn't happened. the salary threshold has not been indexed to rise with inflation every year. when a salary threshold is set, as it was in 1975, and then nothing happened until 2004, more and more people fall into the exemption, meaning they don't get overtime pay just because inflation causes wages to rise, so, it's perfectly -- it's not only reasonable and authorized, it's responsible for the government to take a look at these salary thresholds. let's put in context what it means if someone earns around $24,000 a year. it means they earn less than the poverty level of a family of four. you have a lot of assistant

managers in fast food restaurants, restaurants, people working in banks the finance industry, retail et cetera, who may earn let's say, $24,000 to $30,000 a year. they may work as many as 60 hours a week because they're classified as exempt. they not only don't get overtime pay for those extra hours they don't get any pay at all for those extra hours. i think that gets lost in this discussion. but if someone is exempt from overtime pay if they work overtime hours, they do not get paid at all, not even the minimum wage for those hours. as a practical matter, a lot of folks, relatively low paid folks, classified as white collar, earn less than some of their hourly employees. and sometimes could earn even less than the minimum wage. the exemption is supposed to contemplate these are folks with a lot of discretion in their job. they have sort of high-level duties they perform most of the time. they may occasionally do routine

duties but most are high-level duties. they speak for the company. they're on call for the company all of the time. and yet many of them earn essentially poverty level wage, not really a middle class wage. >> beth, do you agree there are folks being taken advantage of? if so, how would you address that if not this solution? >> yeah, i mean by and large the mbz who i represent, the small businesses who employ about 48% of the private sector workforce in this country, simpi large want to do right by their employees and are offering a fair wage for a fair day's work. you know, assistant manager, a manager who is in the exempt category may not be getting overtime, they are getting other things, like increased flexibility, benefits, and proceed possessional potential, which is very important, particularly when you're talking about a assistant manager in a fast food restaurant or retail store. the thought of paying a 19 or

20-year-old an assistant manager in a restaurant over $50,000 is a hard thing for a small business owner to you know -- cost for a small business owner to absorb. they just can't do it. >> the obama administration estimating this will cost between $240 and $250 million if these rules go into place. who pays that? do you think that cost estimate is accurate? i think the cost estimate is actually low. that's something nfib will be commenting on. this is not a final rule. the dol has opened -- the department of labor has opened it up for the next 60 days. i think the estimate is very low. as i said earlier, it's going to have a disproportionate impact on the small companies especially rural areas. our guests in this roundtable beth of the national federation of independent business, and christine owens executive

director of national employment law project. happy to get your thoughts and questions. we'll begin with joe calling in from ohio. line for independents. joe, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my problem with the whole issue is that the whole nation receives -- receives a 50% increase in wages. what is that going to do to union workers or somebody that established a decent wage in a skilled trade? they're not going to get a 50% increase. that's going to be like taking a huge wage cut. >> christine owens. >> thanks for your call, joe. i don't think there's much cause for concern there. the unions are generally supportive of this proposal, as they have been historically of overtime pay proposals. generally what happens is union contracts contemplate what the overtime pay rates are and then they make some adaptations for

union members. i don't think there will be a negative impact on union members at all. >> beth thoughts? >> i would disagree. i think, you know, there's not a money tree in the backyard of businesses where they can just go out and pick off more money. and i think joe has a valid concern there. that i think employers are not all of a sudden going to be able to increase their salaries or payrolls 50%. they're going to look for ways to cut. they're going to ensure overtime is not taken by employees. overtime is limit. they'll cut the assistant management and supervisorsry positions. >> let's head up to vermont. timothy is waiting. good morning. you're on "the washington journal." >> caller: good morning. let me take it off speaker. yes. my question quite simply is, how is this going to affect the seasonal employee? >> do you want to start on this one? >> well, for some of the -- for some categories of workers, this

is pointed out in the rule from department of labor, too, there are already exemptions in place, so they would not be entitled to any additional overtime because they're exempt from -- categorically exempt from overtime. seasonal recreational, amusement workers. there's a whole host of categories. teachers, for example, are exempt from the overtime categories. >> i would just add -- i agree with beth completely but if a seasonal employee is not exempt for some reason, depending on the nature of the work, and if that employee is a white color exempt employee, which is not always the case or not often the case for seasonal employees, but assuming someone is, then they would be covered under the rule if it takes effect or the revised rule. but i think the impact will likely be fairly limited both because of the exemption of seasonal employees and the fact that many if not most seasonal employees are not going to be workers who are covered by that exemption anyway. >> we've noted this is a

proposal rule. how long does the process take? and does congress get a final say at the end of this process? >> so, the department has set 60 days for commenting on the rule. i think the federal register has now published the rule, and so that time period has begun. after that happens the comment period, the labor department will take into account what the comments have been. and then at some point issue a final rule. at that point congress has an official right to weigh in under the congressional review act. i think it's possible congress might consider certain appropriations or riders that could slow down the rule or affect it's impact or implementation. yes, there are far more ways in which congress has a right to weigh in at some point. >> beth, your reading of congressional reaction so far since last week when the president spoke about this proposed change?

>> certainly concern from you know, from leaders on the hill that, you know are going to take a close look at the rule and are eager to hear from constituents and, you know, other you know interests, folks that will be impacted from this. so, they want to hear from people out there. >> just like we want to hear from people out there this morning on the "washington journal" and our roundtable, phone lines are open. republicans, democrats independents. we'll go to our line for democrats. john is waiting, butler, missouri. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question has to do with truck drivers. we're paid by the mile yet we're on duty 70 hours a week. we could be sitting out there waiting for a load and we don't get paid for it. are they going to adjust that and look at that as being on duty, the duty hourz? >> john thanks for your question. again, this rule, when it takes

effect, will only apply to people who fall within -- potentially fall within the white collar exemption, which is executives administrators and professionals. it's not likely to apply to any truck driver. there are some other laws that regulate wages in trucking. i don't know of any immediate plans to address those laws but i don't think that this rule will have any impact on you, john. >> we're looking for your tweets as well. you can follow along the conversation @c-spanwj. mary writes, i'm so happy for department heads, production assistants in the theater world who routinely get taken advantage of by organizations with salary and no overtime. we to want hear your thoughts. line four, independents. mike, good morning. >> caller: good morning. and thank you for c-span. >> go ahead mike. >> caller: i wanted to find out

from your panel the history of the overtime law. seems to me back in the 80s i was working, getting overtime, and under reagan in 1986 became an executive. it cost me about -- back at that time cost me about half of my salary. i was in a service job and i became a manager or executive. and lost my overtime. can somebody comment on the history of that action? thank you. >> beth, you want to start? >> absolutely, i'll start off by saying, the idea behind -- you know, the white collar exemption is you're being paid for your job. not for the hours worked. so, you're engaging in, you know, management discretionary duties, those sort of things that, you know, you oversee other employees. i think you mentioned the word

you became a manager, so, again, you were being paid for a job. not for the hours worked. and that is part and parcel with the white-collar exemption, the overtime. it's also based on the duties and the salary threshold there. so, it goes hand in hand, the two components there. and that is the thought behind the white-collar exemption. you're being paid for the job not the hours worked. >> if you could weigh in on the history of that act and how it came into play and its impact here. >> sure. so, the fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. it was a piece of new deal legislation. really proceed mossed by the first secretary of labor the first woman in the cab knelt frances perkins, signed by franklin roosevelt. the purpose behind the overtime provision. there were really two reasons for it. one was to ensure that people who worked long hours would actually get overtime pay, to sort of represent the greater

commitment of time they were making to their job. but the other reason, which is important even today was that it was intended to help create jobs. that instead of employers working employees super long hours, they would actually hire additional employees. so, those are the two purposes that have always underguarded the federal overtime requirements under the federal fair labor act. as i mentioned earlier the salary threshold has been updated seven times since the last -- since 1938. i can't do the math. but i think that's almost 75 years. maybe exactly 75. it was last updated in 2004. and then before that it was updated in 1975. and so i think, mike, what could have happened in your case, in addition to becoming a manager, which might have made you exempt, because the fair labor -- the salary threshold had not been changed since 1975

and it's not indexed to rise each year with the cost of living or with average wage growth it becomes worth less every single year. so, more and more employees are potentially captured under the exemption simply because the threshold is frozen. if you think about if you were paid the same amount of money every year, that money would be worth less each year because the cost of living goes up each year. and that's what happens with the salary threshold. i don't think i mentioned that one of the other important parts of the labor department proposal is that it would be indexed to rise each year. and the department has invited comment on what the proper measure of indexing should be. whether it should be an inflation measure of some sort or whether the salary threshold should rise with average salary increases. but that is a very important new part of this proposal.

and one that, frankly if we had had since 1975, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. >> perhaps concerned this effort might go too far, file clerk on twitter asks, is what we need a mandatory cap on all salaries to make sure everyone is equal? >> that everyone is equal? all workers are equal? we don't all have equal jobs out there. and one of the things, i think with this you're going from 23,000 up to 50,000. you're more than doubling it. for a small business again i keep coming back to that, but that's who i represent and work with. that's an enormous jump and something they can't absorb. particularly in rural areas where, you know, the salary levels, the salary thresholds are different. we're sitting here in washington, d.c. think of the pay for a restaurant manager here in washington as compared to west virginia, drive two hours. it's very different. that's a consideration, too. cost of living differs throughout the country. so, you know, all things are not equal when it comes to jobs and salaries in this country. >> the national federation of

independent business is nfib.com. christine owens is with the national employment law project. nelp.org if you want to check out their work. we're taking your calls this morning. steve's up next. line for democrats. steve, good morning. >> good morning, how are you? thank you for taking my call. >> good. go ahead. >> go ahead. >> caller: i live in a rural area. you know i've been listening to -- >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we'll take you to live coverage of the debate in the south carolina house on a bill that would remove the confederate flag from the state capitol grounds. earlier today the state senate agreed 36-3 to have the flag removed. the house could hold a final passage vote on the measure before the end of this week. live coverage here on c-span 3.

we're in the unanimous consent request period. hearing and seeing none, we move to the motion period. >> mr. speaker i make a motion that we withdraw from house judiciary committee senate bill 897 and have it placed on the calendar. >> representative bingham moves the house recall the bill to remove the confederate flag from the confederate soldier's monument from the house judiciary committee. mr. hill moves to table mr. bingham's motion.

requests a roll call. we will vote on the board. any question, the motion to table the motion recall.

>> runs out in about 30 seconds.

mr. clemens, does it relate to the roll call? okay. well, i can't take it now, sir. >> that's okay. polls are closed. clerk will tabulate. a vote of 91-21 the house refuses to table the motion to recall. pending question is the motion to recall senate bill 897 from the judiciary committee. mr. hill, i had him requesting a

roll call. second of his request nine do, we will vote on the board. pending question the motion to recall senate bill 897.

we'll let it run. you have about 30 more seconds to go. our time's about to expire. if all members wish to vote, voted.

time's expired. tabulate, by a vote of 93-18 senate bill 897 is recalled from the judiciary committee. it'll be placed on the calendar, and will be given consideration for second reading tomorrow. for the purpose you rise, sir? quinn moves to dispense with the balance of the motion period. all in favor say aye, nos have it. >> members of the south carolina house have voted to recall the bill that would remove the confederate flag from the state capitol building. earlier today, the state senate agreed by 36-3 to have the flag removed from the capitol building. there'll be no vote on this bill in the house today. it could come up later.

live picture of the u.s. capitol right now. we're going to move now to a live senate hearing on transportation technologies and whether the government is keeping up with these new developments. representatives from volvo, bnsf railway and amazon are testifying before the senate commerce subcommittee. this hearing got underway a short time ago. live coverage here on c-span 3. >> they will also demand a great deal more electricity. how will we deal with this increased demand for reliable electric power. the answer is our energy island initiative. a technology driven strategy for transitioning energy at the port to resilient and sustainable self-generation systems and renewable power sources. so i've talked about the infrastructure or let's call it the hardware strategy, but what about the software? well, it will not be possible to meet the challenges we face

without changing the way the port operates. we have joined our neighbor, the port of los angeles in a federal maritime commission sanctioned joint port initiative that will be aimed at enhancing the velocity and the reliability of shipments that come through the san pedro gateway. and we're making progress on this act, with the active involvement of the stake holders, which include the full range of beneficial cargo owners, ocean carriers marine terminal operators, licensed motor carriers. chassis pull operators labor and management. now, a few things have already come out of this joint port initiative. the supply chain optimization will largely be data-driven. the current highly proprietary and siloed supply chain suffers from an inadequate data sharing.

the san pedro bay port authorities are examining the new roles to gather filter and distribute reliable data to the benefit of the entire supply chain. promising entrepreneurial software is also appearing and holding great potential. a software called cargomatic operates on a smartphone. it's an uber-like application. being used as a pilot study in the san pedro bay. truck drivers move imported containers from the ports to inland destinations much as a taxi driver would move passengers from an airport and the u.s. department's transportation freight advance traveler information system, or freightus as we call it is showing great promise in transferring information in realtime between marine terminals and trucking

operations. so stay tuned for much more that will be coming from this joint port initiative. in conclusion our supply chain optimization efforts are all heavily reliant on technology in order to meet our objectives of not only good, but world class velocity and reliability. as local public agencies, the san pedro bay ports are shifting from our traditional landlord role to one of active supply chain participant. we hope to see the federal government support us in this new role by engaging with us and in setting effective goods movement policy that recognizes the value of seaports and creating energy funding that support the land and the water side investments that accommodate much-needed growth in international trade. we look forward to working with our federal partners in this exciting venture. thank you for attention. i'll look forward to answering

any questions. >> thank you all very much. we will begin our round of questioning at this time. miss ault. some research on the truck market estimates that by 2020 to 2022 we're going to see level three autonomous truck technology introduced in several states. and level three, the driver's required to be in a vehicle, but it can be switched to autopilot mode when circumstances permit. when do you think that we're going to see trucks equipped with that level three driving technology on american highways? and can you go into it a little bit more on how that all works? >> you said that you read something that it was going to be available in 2020? so we're in -- it says five years from now. and you said in certain states. >> right. >> that's possible.

there are states that have more flexible laws to allow for testing. the challenges, of course, the products we build go across the states. we really need to have some sort of federal standard. the technology's actually leading the society. the technology for two vehicles to talk to each other. the lead truck or the pilot truck is leading the trucks behind. that's your level three. that technology is not that far away in terms of the actual technology. the challenge is then how can it be accepted? which roads can it be driven on? and are you going to be comfortable in your vehicle with 160,000 pounds of freight moving beside you. with a driver that's not -- they're in control, but they're not fully in control. so i think that the technology is possible. but the societal changes are going to have to be much more

alerted to us. and then also, we're going to need, again, a standard across all the nations because our vehicles don't operate in one state at a time. >> i understand in the united kingdom, they have the least restrictive regulations with regard to the autonomous vehicles. within the united kingdom, they're not restricted then by the boundaries, right? >> i don't think so. so i don't know the answer to that fully, sorry. >> do they? it's my understanding they don't need special permits or even special insurance in the united kingdom to be able to do that. i know that many companies are planning on doing some testing in the united kingdom on british roads for that reason specifically. what do you think we need to do here in the united states?

is it -- is it possible for the federal government to move forward with regulations? if society's not ready for it yet? >> yeah, so it's a balance, isn't it? you don't want to be forcing or identifying which technology to use and then putting that into some sort of federal regulation. you want the market to establish that. but it's a new world that we're in. in the regulations, even putting terms like what is a driver? is the driver the system that's moving the vehicle? is the driver the guy or gal sitting behind the truck? or the driving wheel? what is a system? there's so many semantics that we have to think about differently as we put this legislation into play. so what do we have to do differently is looking at what can we do across all the states so that when we design these vehicles they can operate in all of the states. so we need standardization of simple things like the terminology, i think is one step.

>> how close are we? >> we're a long way away from that. >> mr. fox, in january, this committee heard testimony from the u.p. regarding the importance of encouraging performance-based standards in regulation. and performance standards, they move government away from design-base standards towards a goal of oriented approach to achieving that outcome. for example, the fra mandates that intervals between certain types of locomotive inspections. do you believe that performance-based standards could help foster innovation and technology driven safety advances better than the design base standards? >> yeah we absolutely believe performance-based standards are the way we need to -- we need to progress. because performance-based standards are really focused more on the outcome versus the method.

and by focusing on the outcomes, we're free to innovate with technology or process changes. we've had some great examples of working with our safety regulator on performance-based standards through waivers. the predecessor of the ptc system was an example of that on the -- on the bnsf. so it can work. and it can drive innovation, absolutely. >> and how effective have they been? >> we've made some progress on waivers. and at the same time, going through the waiver process does take time. and at times is pretty frustrating. >> thank you. senator booker. >> thank you, chairwoman. miss ault, i'm concerned that you -- first of all, i'm confident you and i share the goals, the same goals of creating safety on the highways, i appreciate your work and the things your company does. but i'm really just kind of concerned when i read your

written testimony. you refer to the legislation i introduced with senator rubio in it. and i was actually pretty shocked at what i read. the wi-fi innovation act, which is a bipartisan in both house and senate piece of legislation. our bill for those who have read it places time lines and guidelines in place for the fcc to test the 5 gigahertz spectrum ban in concert. but our bill provides certain structure for testing alone. i can understand why a lot of people in the industry want to attack this as you did in your written testimony and maybe even mislead people. because the industry's been sitting on this spectrum since about 1990. but i want to be very clear about what this bill actually does for you and for others. for over a decade, the industry's been working on new technology, while at the same time other technologies using

radar sensors, radars and sensors have evolved. over $1 billion, $1 billion of taxpayer, money spent on this r & d, and our bill simply asks for testing to see whether the limited resource, this precious resource that you indicated can be shared. it is a fact-finding bill. and that is all. if it's not safe to share, i agree and the bill clearly says there will be no sharing. but if it can be safely shared, now is -- as other technologies are evolving, i'm sure people would agree it should be. i'm disappointed in the betrayal of my and senator rubio's legislation in your testimony. i'm shocked i've been in the senate for a short time. i've never seen something clearly so misleading the short time i've been in the

something -- when i was mayor i used to say, in god we trust but everybody else give me data, bring me the facts. everybody wants to obscure them, but the truth should come through. so a fact-finding bill that simply looks to understand what is the best way that we can achieve the safety goals that your company puts first this senator and i'm sure the whole panel puts first. and so i'm just curious, my last question to you is i believe

consumers should have all options on the table that should advocate safety. and i'm wondering if you agree that our transportation policy should be actually technology neutral, that should be about what is best to ensure that policy and safety don't lag behind the best cutting edge technology. do you agree with that? >> of course i agree with that. >> okay. so again -- >> may i respond to some of your comments, then? >> you certainly may. >> i think we're on the same page with that. the unlicensed wi-fi doesn't have a governance structure like a licensed frequency does. and the ieee, that is the group that has put two proposals forward. they have not come to conclusion. so our position is that the legislation is simply premature. >> i'm sorry i can believe your testimony, you submitted to the united states senate, which

doesn't say what you just said. it says and indicates you are against this bill because it would, and i quote, it would open up 5.9 gigahertz frequency spectrum. what the bill does when you read it, which i hope you will. what the bill is saying is, hey, let's begin to have a fact-finding endeavor that better understands the usage of the spectrum and the question this is a precious asset. this is why i know your company wants to protect it. can it possibly be shared without infringing on safety? that's all we're looking to do. so attacking the bill on clearly false standings is insulting. my time's run out. >> thank you, senator booker. i welcome our ranking member today from the committee, senator nelson. >> thank you, madame chairman. what about that is all? what about what senator booker said? >> well, i -- we've come to an agreement that we do not want to

see that spectrum is shared with other technologies until and unless the governing bodies are sure that there is no interference from other technology. >> do you think that technology is practical to basically, the spectrum. do you think the spectrum is practical to be used by the automobile industry anytime in the near future? >> i don't know the answer to that. if it can be shared. the position can it be shared in the technologies? the governing bodies have not come to a conclusion after putting forward two proposals. >> there are 4,000 crashes -- no no. there are 4,000 people that are killed each year from serious

truck crashes. how would you suggest technology is used to lessen that? >> the more that vehicles can speak to each other, vehicle to vehicle, this is trucks talking to trucks and/or trucks talking to cars. the more they can talk to each other to let the other one know, hey, i'm here, you need to stop, that is a technology that would help reduce crashes. >> over last week, i met with a grieving mom whose daughter on her honeymoon when the traffic had stopped on interstate 95 and it literally come to a stop and her new son-in-law and

daughter were in the traffic stopped, but a truck with the driver not having had a lot of sleep because of his company requiring a round trip within the state of florida in the same day of 16 hours, the truck driver was basically sound asleep. and so she is a grieving mom because of that truck plowing into the back of all of those stopped vehicles. how would -- how old wow you think technology could address the issue of truck driver safety? >> yeah, it's a great question. i'm a mom. i would grieve with her, obviously. that's horrible.

there are electronic on board recording systems that would record the hours of service the driver can drive. perhaps if there were a technology that would actually shut down the truck if you went beyond his hours could be something. but, requiring that trucks have these on board recorders, this technology is available, and i believe it's close to being legislated. those are things that can help. >> and this particular truck was intrastate, not interstate. what rules that we have up here for example, we don't allow the tandem trucks in our rules, more than 28 feet. but they are allowing two tandem trucks on intrastate inside the state. of 33 feet. which is an issue that will be in front of this committee with regard to truck safety.

let me ask you mr. christianson. you all have accommodated the big ships from asia. and soon in a year or two when the panama canal has completed the expansion, they'll come to the east coast. you want to give any quick pointers what we could do that you've learned, lessons learned on handling those huge, huge containerships? >> senator nelson, thank you for the question. it is -- they are a game-changer. but the term of big ship is a changing term. when i started working in the port about ten years ago, a big ship was 8,000 teus. in 2012 the port of long beach started handling 14,000 teu ships. about the same time the new

locks in the panama canal were going into construction, which can atom date a 13,000 teu ship. the ships we're handling now in the san pedro bay ports will not fit in the new locks on the new panama canal. we are customers at the port of long beach are ordering 20,000 teu ships. so it is very much a moving target. to our colleagues on the east coast they're already dealing with this with ships that are transiting the suez canal. it has to do with depth of channel to get them there, but once they're there dealing with how the ships are stowed and unloaded. and that is exactly the focus of our joint working groups is to figure out a whole new way to operate our ports so that we can deal with a very large amount of relatively unsorted containers coming across the wharf and hitting us in ways we've never had to deal with before.

the question was what are the lessons learned that you could share with the other ports? >> the lessons we're still learning, senator, and they really have to do with having adequate supplies of chassises, which has to do with an inner operable chassis pool. a working closer and putting more discipline in the stowage of the vessel, which has been thrown aside because of the way the vessels are calling on the asian ports and the way the shipping alliances are working. and it has to do with working much, much more closely with the communication of data. which we're finding extraordinarily siloed with the supply chain. being able to provide a marine terminal operator with information more than two days before that vessel hits their terminal so they can plan their moves adequately.

these are all lessons we're learning, i'm not sure that we could tell much more to our friends on the east coast as to how to deal with that issue beyond that. >> thanks. >> thank you senator nelson. senator cantwell. >> thank you madame chair. and thanks for holding this hearing. and thank you to the witnesses. congratulations on 20 years. it seems like yesterday and definitely would say that the transformation of delivery of goods and services has been quite impressive. we didn't -- i didn't hear in your testimony discussion about the drone issue from a technology perspective, but clearly this complete larger, full committee has had testimony on that. and it certainly is one area of continuing to move forward on technology and delivering the product. and, mr. christianson loved everything that you said except would have been great if you said it was about seattle/tacoma instead of l.a. long beach. but still very happy to hear

your description of the economic opportunity before the united states. that we actually can increase the cargo shipments because there is that demand and product to be shipped. but we have to continually make improvements. and this is something we see in seattle, as well. that somebody estimated instead of 3 million cargo containers we could do something like six. it's not out of the question. you describe that. you describe that would actually be good for long shore -- you're talking about efficiencies. my question to you and anybody else is even though we're talking about technology that helps us move and be more knowledgeable about the product, we still need to make investments in freight mobility from a federal perspective to make sure those products are being moved around.

that our technology just isn't measuring stuck in congestion and then making us less competitive. >> well, senator cantwell if that's partly to me i appreciate that very much. and i thank you for the congratulations. i've only been here for 15 of those 20 years. but i think we are looking for innovative policies. you've introduced a bill with senator booker that proposes such policies. and we congratulate you for that bill. if anything, it could be broader. it could be applied to more than multimodal freight. but that kind of thinking and communication. we also are fans of communication of data as mr. christianson mentioned. that's something we're doing with the usps. big component of our interaction with them is making sure that

they get forecasts of what we're seeing, what we're going to be shipping, and that is particularly important for sunday delivery. >> if we're going to move our product cost effectively, or whether that business is going to go to canada or the panama canal. so do you support for the freight efforts at the federal level. as we see international trade continue to increase, we are now at levels that are peaking over the prerecession moving through our ports. we will surely be seeing bottlenecks.

the strategies are both infrastructure efficiency with technology infused along with operational efficiencies. i believe that the legislation you're proposing is timely it's critical to the future of our supply chain optimization to be honest. and we would hope to be able to continue to collaborate with you and your team on that. it is so critical to be looking ahead. recognizing that infrastructure bottlenecks don't go away a year after you recognize them. it takes years and years of focus and funding and policy to make them -- to solve these bottlenecks as they come up. >> and how do you -- your testimony as i said, i appreciated you described what the future opportunity was and that it was a growth opportunity and jobs, as well, not just in automation. how do you think we tell the story on a national basis? is this data that the supply chains from other ports have?

>> it's data but it's fractured data. right now, and as i mentioned in the testimony, it's critically important that we bring this data in to a -- through a reliable gateway and make it transparent in public. we have -- we have challenges ahead of us we're working on those very, very hard in our working groups and our joint port effort. as seattle and tacoma has worked hard on their efforts, as well. we watched and benchmarked what's going on there closely. there are opportunities, but there's a lot of opportunities ahead of us, but there's a lot of work to be done. >> thank you. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you senator cantwell. >> thank you very much madame chair. thank you for holding this hearing, thank you to the witnesses. mr. fox, december 2013 government accountability office report found that the fra faces a lot of challenges, real safety challenges including the fact that the inspectors only have the capacity to inspect less

than 1% of railroad activities. i come from a state where we're a bit of entry point from oil from canada, as you know. and oil from north dakota, and agriculture products from everywhere. and we have an enormous increase in rail and a number of accompanying derailments. and, as you know the fra partners with states to oversee the inspection of signals, tracks and mechanical operations. and in april, i sent a letter to the appropriations committee urging increased funding for more rail inspectors. i'd like to hear more about what technology bnsf uses to prevent derailments. do you think there's better technology that could get us through this? >> i think we've shown as an industry and bnsf we've leveraged and continue to leverage technology, and the results have clearly been best ever safety results last year from an employee safety and derailment perspective. beyond that, though, there's opportunity. there's tremendous opportunity. again, i think as we talk about

regulation, part of our challenge today is regulation based on a design standard and as we look at focus on outcomes, again, i think that will allow the industry to innovate. innovate with technology, with process changes. >> and what kind of technology would help with this? >> as we look forward as i mentioned in my testimony, i think, i think this drone technology very early in practice has a real potential. this path finder program with faa will move beyond line of sight to where we could utilize drones to travel along our private 32000-mile network for hundreds of miles a day taking high-speed images, high definition images of our network

down to a 1/4 inch accuracy. >> i see. >> post processing that data will help us understand exceptions. >> okay. i was just in the last week up in international falls minnesota. this is not a burlington northern issue. >> where a -- >> i thought i was in trouble. >> i know. but it's where a bridge collapsed, small bridge railroad bridge, but it happens to be rainier, minnesota. it's the biggest entry point on the canadian border into the u.s. and it's right by international falls, which is a larger town. and so, one of the things we talked about in addition to some issues. this was a canadian national rail issue. and in addition to the bridge collapsing and some issues they've been having with that railroad and the workers not allowing us to cross the railroad, the issue that they've been having a lot of crossing issues there. i think 8 to 10 hours a day, the trains are in the middle of the town. so you can imagine that's a lot of time. and people have to drive 2 1/2

miles around the town. so, what i wondered about even though this is not a burlington northern issue is that the railroad safety institute at the university of minnesota is studying train delays to more accurate lyly estimate train arrival times. and one of the things said they could have a signal for the people as they're deciding whether to take the 2 1/2 mile route or go into the town if trains were on the tracks before they made that decision. with some kind of technology so that it would empower drivers to know what to do. that would be helpful. but i wondered if you had any ideas about that crossing issue. i just did an amendment on the bill we just passed through on this issue. and it was certainly brought home to me this week while i did it. so -- >> i think when we talk about federal funds supporting freight projects, great separations is clearly needs to be clearly needs to be part of that. and obviously, we've been active in that area with contributions against those grade separations.

i also think when we're talking about train headlights at the crossing, we also have to be talking about taillights. and looking at the complete equation. but more federal funding for grade separations seems to be part of the answer. >> and this side tracks, is that -- that was another thing they brought up, if the trains could wait somewhere else, then i think they're building one, they wouldn't be waiting in the middle of the town. >> we all have requirements on how long we can block crossings. and obviously we spend a lot of energy on -- >> i've called about a number of issues, which i've appreciated. and just if i could, one more question on distracted drive ing driving for the distracted driving grant.

change some of the criteria so we can get the money out to the states on education efforts on distracted driving. it's called the improving driver safety act. i thought i'd ask you, miss ault on what kinds of technology we know that drivers are doing things they shouldn't do in the cars, a lot of them have admitted to this and surveys and it's killing people to the point where they've had you know, 424,000 people injured in 2013 and more than,000 people killed that we know of from distracted driving. and again, these are individuals making decisions on their own. but, are there any technologies, you think, from the car companies that could be helpful with this? >> i can speak not from the car companies. the group i'm with we don't make cars, we make everything but cars. i can speak from the heavy duty truck side. and that is where we do have alerts that are built in for a driver to wake them up if their

eyes begin to dim and it's through either some sort of vibration in the seat or some loud sound. so, you know it's -- it's from a heavy duty perspective. what they're allowed to do regulartorially behind the wheel. >> okay, well, i think as we know, and i appreciate your words on trucks but this is -- an issue for all of the vehicles as we try to figure out if there's anything to create shut down of technology when people are in a car so they stop doing it or certain when someone's driving that they stop doing it because it's just a growing problem. so, all right, thank you very much. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. we're going to have a second round of questions in case any other senators are still trying to get here to the committee hearing. and i would like to begin with mr. meisner. first of all, on your video if you could have had the teddy bear delivered to nebraska or

new jersey that would have been a great ending for the little guy. >> we're happy to do cameos if you would like, to be hugging a teddy bear at the end. >> we can do this. we're multitalented up here. as we look at more efficient logistic networks out there, how do you think that will benefit consumers? >> so, thank you, madame chair, very much. that logistics the improvement of logistics infrastructure along with the more broad transportation infrastructure is very important to consumers because it affects how they receive the goods that they purchase online. and on behalf of our customers, we've been trying to improve this for at least 20 years. and automation should always be a part of the solution to this challenge. and, increasing automation certainly is going to be helpful to making sure that consumers get the goods when they need them.

but they have a choice, and that's what we've always tried to provide them. there's a choice to delivery speeds. we've talked a little bit about drones. drones really the only way we figured out how to get the goods to consumers in less than 30 minutes. but for longer periods of time, they're many alternatives. and we're offering our customers now a slow delivery alternative that gives them additional benefits if they're willing to accept. if it comes in two days or two weeks, then it's -- they can get an additional benefit from us. so it's all about providing our customers the choice, and it's obviously applies more broadly to american consumers. >> thank you very much. senator booker. >> mr. meisner how i would love to talk to you more about drones. we share a passion for that and a desire for the united states of america to catch up to the world and other countries. it has transformative possibilities, but sadly i'm coming back down to earth to talk about trucks.

the use of 10 feet longer trucks, known as twin 33s. a study showing it takes these trucks about 22 feet longer to stop thastzt's a car length and a half. are the greater destruction. where the greater destruction occurs when accidents happen. i have a couple of questions on that. one is, has your company done an analysis of the impact of safety. the 33 trucks are going to be safer because there'll be fewer of them on the road driving fewer miles. any policy choice, like this is a balancing of factors, i get that. and i'm not sure there's any particular magic to 33 over say 32 or 34. and i'm not sure there's any particular magic to the current number, which is 28. what we're trying to do is find a solution that will improve

efficiencies. if we could drive down the number of miles that are driven and the trucks on the road that is a safety improvement. we are persuaded the right balance was the increase in length without increasing the weight capacity or the total weight of the trucks. because the weight, of course, is what goes into the inertia and the kinetic energy. weight times velocity is the inertia, not the length of the truck. >> i appreciate there's a lot of things of balance. safety should be the first. but also the impact on the infrastructure, as well. and so with those heavier trucks, would they tear up more of the local roads? we don't support heavier trucks to be clear. our support is for a longer truck. not increasing the weight limits at all. and so increasing the length of the truck should not affect it inversely. it should help it. going over a bridge for example, the weight is less concentrated and therefore easier on the bridge.

>> i appreciate that. and then, just lastly, really quickly. another balancing act is you want greater safety, but you also want to see what the necessary -- the least necessary burden on businesses and how they operate. and so the big issue of minimum insurance is one that i have some concerns about. and i'd love for you to just give me your thoughts. with the truck size and weight, we realize that the trucks are getting bigger causing bigger accidents, as well, over the last 20, 30 years. and the minimum insurance has not been raised since the 1980s. and so, i'm wondering that do you think that there is a needed minimum insurance level increase or at least pegging it somehow that has elevated regularly on an ongoing basis? >> well, senator, it seems very reasonable to me. we, the carriers that we use are the ones who are going to be directly affected by that. and so the carriers we work with are reputable ones. we certainly would not want our products traveling, you know, over problematic or difficult

carriers. and so, i'm not sure i have a direct answer for you, simply because that wouldn't be directly affecting us at this point. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> meet me out by the capitol with a drone if you like. >> i'll be out there. >> thank you senator booker. i would like to announce that the hearing record will remain open for two eke woos and during that time, senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the committee as soon as possible. i would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and i thank my colleagues who attended the hearing. thank you all. we're adjourned.

and you can watch this hearing any time on our website. go to c-span.org. earlier today in a hearing we covered, senate armed services committee chair john mccain, according to the hill criticized president obama's comments at the pentagon monday. citing recent progress against isis as delusional. and over the pentagon's slowness in training syrian rebels. he said isis overall is gaining territory in iraq and syria and there's no compelling reason to believe it's going to succeed in limiting the group. here's some of that. >> my question would be overall are we trying to defend the british lines drawn 100 years ago in putting people in a territory that they don't believe that's their country. i mean why are we forcing something upon people that don't want to accept? >> i'll just follow up with you. i also share that concern. that the mideast will never be the mideast again. everything i recommend to the

secretary and the president is recommended with the intention of being flexible enough that we can -- we can build upon it if we do find that inclusive national unity government in iraq or not. >> thank you. >> i can't help but mention the situation was stabilized after the surge. and we had won and predicted if everybody was pulled out that the situation would descend into chaos. it is a fact that thanks to general petraeus and the surge and great sacrifice, iraq war was won. and to ignore that in that conversation general dempsey is to me, intellectually dishonest. >> just for the record, president george w. bush signed an agreement with the maliki government to withdraw all

forces. >> we'll have this debate later on. but it was clear we could've and everybody knows they could have and the people there know they could have. senator ayotte. >> and watch it any time on our website. go to c-span.org. you'll also find other hearings with defense secretary carter and chairman dempsey on isis and the defense department budget. >> when congress is in session c-span 3 brings you more of the best access to congress. key public affairs events. it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites, discussions with authors and historians. and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span 3, coverage of congress and american history tv.

accident prevention technologies designed to automatically stop or slowdown trains and the progress that's being made on freight and passenger trains to comply with the current congressional deadline at the end of the year. the house transportation committee held this hearing late last month. it's about two hours. good morning and welcome to the subcommittee. focusing on the implementation of positive train control in the united states. one of the most complex and costly safety mandates ever taken by the railroad industry. positive train control is a radio or gps-based system designed to control trains to follow speed limits and avoid train to train collisions. following the deadly commuter train crash in southern california congressman dated

the installation on ptc onlines where hazardous materials are carried. the recent tragic amtrak crash in philadelphia has reminded us while these accidents are rare they can happen and ptc will make our rail network safer. this mandate was included in the rail safety and improvement act in 2008 and congress set an implementation deadline of december 31st of this year. from the beginning, the ptc mandate was going to be a daunting undertaking to consider what completely implemented ptc will require is 38,000 wayside interfaces, 18,000 locomotives to be upgraded and 12000 signals will need to be replaced. while some exist on portions of the corridor, ptc has never been

implemented on such a scale and has never required such a high level of inner operatability. according to the association of american railroads, freight rail has spent 5.7 billion to date on ptc and expected to spend a total of 9 billion to fully implement. the american public transportation association has estimated the commuter and passenger railroads will have to spend nearly $3.5 billion on ptc. in addition, the sheer cost and complexities of the system there have been unexpected delays. the process of approving ptc pulls along railroad right away was delayed significantly when the federal communications commission mandated that each pole go through an extensive process. created a more streamline process for the approvals and we'll hear from them today about how it's working.

commuter and passenger railroads have struggled to buy the necessary radio spectrum for ptc, especially in our dense metropolitan areas. today, we'll discuss how long it'll take to get ptc implemented across the country and what it will take to meet this current deadline. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding these issues. i'd now like to recognize rankle member from massachusetts for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to welcome the panel. i'm looking forward to your testimony and the discussion we have. i think the chairman has said pretty much everything there is to say about ptc from our end of it. honestly, this is long overdue in my estimation. and honestly, i'd like to find out. we all know where we are today. tell me how we get to where we want to be as quickly as we can. because that's what america wants, that's what i want. and if you think you need federal assistance, please say so. be clear. and i say that because we have our own differences of opinion in the house and the senate as to whether we should be putting funds up, or not.

and if you think we should, you should say. so i would like to hear you say that. and i look forward to testimony. >> the full committee chairman. >> thank you, chairman for holding this hearing today. and i think it's important to start off by saying, the number one top priority of this committee and the department of transportation is safety. in general, rail safety trends have gone in the right direction over the past years. however, the terrible amtrak incident in philadelphia last month showed us that we should always remain focused on our efforts to improve rail safety. adds chairman dennam said, positive train control is one of the most ambitious, complex costly safety enhancements the railroad industry has ever undertaken. i was the ranking member of the subcommittee in 2008 when congress enacted the ptc mandate. we knew the mandate would be challenging, but we hope that railroads would be able to meet

that deadline seven years into the future. unfortunately, we know today that that will not be the case. with a few exceptions most railroads including the largest class one freight railroads will not meet december's deadline. meet the december dead line. this has happened for a few reasons. technology has become more complexic ated. hard to acquire for commuter railroads and the federal railroad communications and new telecommunications poles was not set up to handle the tens of thousands of poles needed to deploy ptc so i'm looking forward to hearing from you today, the witnesses ptc, where that implementation stands and to consider how we move forward to deal with the mandate in an appropriate standard. with that i yield back. >> and i call on mr. defauzio for an opening statement.

>> >> thank you. are you sure your fike moan is working. i can't hear you. he doesn't need a microphone. thank you for holding the hearing. we're going to focus on the extension of the dead line today. it is clear the class 1 won't immediate the deadline. some passenger rail won't be able to immediate the dead line. but this was not a knee york reaction to chatsworth and this has been long in the making. it was 45 years ago since chatsworth identified positive train control and it had on the most wanted list for many years and temporarily removed after the passage of the legislation in 2008. but it was put back on it when it was clear that the deadlines weren't going to be met. just to revisit why we did this

it wasn't -- chatsworth took place after the house had acted. and it was a compilation of accidents over the years including in particular one in 2005 that was a release of chlorine gas, people died, 554 were injured and the ntsb at the time said they had never seen anything like it this was caused by human error improper alignment of a switch ptc been installed, it wouldn't have happened and then 290 accidents fatalities and injures over the past 45 years since the first recommendation would have been prevented with ptc so we passed it.

chatsworth took place actually after house passage which led the senate to change its position and they started out i believe with 2018 as a deadline and they were putting at the behest of the two california senators 2014 and we compromised on 2015 as something that could be achievable. un un unfortunately we rrnt going to meet that deadline in many cases. congress was helping some of the passenger rail folks with grashts. the president asked for a billion dollars. we got $150 million grant but since 2010, nothing has been allocated by congress. now for freight it is a heavy expense. but it is something at least -- it is a business expense. for passenger rail, nonprofit passenger rail it is an expense which is hard to pass on to the customers. but that is pretty much what they have to do or the local

operated jurisdiction so grants could be helpful and we'll hopefully hear more about that today. and yet, our colleagues on the appropriations committee it doesn't quite take the same view of these issues as we do. we're a little more enlightened on this committee. cut amtrak's capital grants by $290 million the day after the accident and the other things that the grants fund, for positive train control and other train infrastructure that is due to cause train and tunnel collapse and other investment and very very short sighted. so we would -- i would observe that we got a man to the moon after president kennedy issued the challenge it only took eight years, and that was one year after the ntsb first asked for positive train control. i know we can do it.

we just need to hear today what impediments remain and what can we do to expedite the install aks across all of the system in the critical categories we defined, toxic by inhalation routes included in addition to the passenger and very heavily used routes to i look forward to the testimony and if necessary i would urge the committee to take further action if we hear testimony today that says we need to take steps to get this done. >> thank you mr. defauzio. i would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. first mrs. sarah fine brick, acting administrator, federal rail administration, fra and i want to pay a special thanks. you have continued to come before this committee there have been a number of big issues that this committee is addressing and you have not wavered as far as coming before and answering difficult questions so thank you for being

here with us again this morning. also mr. charles matthias, fcc, mr. french lonna grow vp csx cooperation, mr. donaldorseno chief executive officer of metro commuter rail and russell kerwin metro link. i ask unanimous consent that the full statements be included in the record. full objection so ordered. and the sub-committee would request your keep your statements limited to five minutes. with that ms. feinberg, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman dunham, ranking member capuano chairman schuster and members of the sub-committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the implementation of positive train control in the united states. ptc technology is the single most important railroad safety

development in more than a century. the technology is not new. elements have existed since the early 20th century. in fact regulators and safety advocates have been calling on the rail industry to implement some form of ptc for many decades. the ntsb since 1969. rail improvement act of 1968 required ptc to be fully implemented by december 31, 2015. ptc is required on class 1 railroad rain lines where poisonous or toxic by inhalation are transports and on any main line where regular scheduled inner city or commuter railroad passage is conducted. following the passage in 2008, railroads committed the ptc implementation plans in 2010 and laid out a path ford that would

allow each railroad to meet the deadline. as i've stated before, safety is the federal railroad administration's top priority. the railroad is not as safe as it could be without the full implementation of ptc. it requires the full implementation of positive train control and that is why they will enforce the full deadline for implementation just as congress has mandated. for several years fra has been sounding at alarm that most railroads have not made progress in implement ptc. since the passage of the mandate. fra has dedicated resources and worked kploesly to assist and guide implementation. we've hired staff for implementation worked with the fcc with regard to the implement and a test band at a test center

in pueblo, colorado and provided approximately $650 million in grant funds to support ptc implementation this included american recovery and investment grant tracks and other grants and annual appropriations, we've requested $825 million to assist commuter railroads and issued a $967 million loan through the riv program to new york metropolitan transportation authority, the nation's largest commuter railroad and established a ptc task force team within the fra and they are monitoring each individual progress and tracking data ensuring we have the most accurate and up to date information and reporting into me multiple times per week. this team is working in close collaboration with the many individuals at fra based here in washington and in offices around the country already working on this challenge. but unfortunately, despite fra

financial support and technical assistance and washing -- warnings, many have stated this will not meet the des 31st deadline. there have been warnings about implementation from 32 of the 38 railroads we are tracking for enforcement purposes. class 1 railroads have completed or partially completed installations approximately half of the locomotives that require ptc equipment and deployed approvally hax of the wayside and half of the way side equipments and half of the tracking for the ptc tracks. by of the end of the year. 39% of the locomotives will be quipped. 76% of the way side will be installed. 67% of the base radio stations will