included in a separate bill, which we will see if we have adequate support in the house and senate to move forward as part of a larger measure. the balance of the multimodal bill will be rolled out a few weeks afterwards. we are doing it in a little bit different fashion. we started hearing testimony from around the united states we started hearing testimony from around the united states and started at the suggestion. we went as far as the pacific ocean. two or three dozen hearings around the country in washington. we tried to craft and assemble the best ideas for any reforms necessary for what people could

provide the committee with. we ended up in this room. we had a libation of pizza with members and discussed some of the basic parameters for the legislation and during the past few weeks, our staff had been working on incorporating provisions -- for the passenger rail. in a legislative vehicle, -- we hope to have that rolled out soon. as they complete the work, we wanted to make surecertain we have the best. i want to thank all of you for cooperating and putting this together. mr. defasio had done hearings

on passenger bus safety. i think it is vitally important that we have the latest, most up-to-date input. as we include and finalize the draft for our larger [inaudible] kotter this has been highlighted this has been highlighted by a dramatic and tragic accidents that have taken place. there was a horrible accident march of 2011 in which there was a turnpike and other horrendous accident -- another horrendous accident in new york.

we have had in north carolina a horrible accident. the purpose of the hearing is to look get our -- look at our current laws and the administration for those provisions we have had in statute to make sure that we have had the best measures in the bill that we are drafting. we have taken ideas from both sides of the aisle in our preliminary work. we hope to have additional input. one fatality is one too many. say that the industry overall has a very excellent

safety record. operations transport between 700 -- 700 trip to million and 800 million passengers -- 750 million and 8 million passengers. we have very few fatalities hot per mile traveled. we have one of the greatest safety records especially among the bus passenger companies. that is not the case with many of the other operators and we do not have that data. it federal motor carrier

association, we will hear from representatives of that agency responsible for the federal enforcement and states are vital planners. we have to make sure that they also have in place the safety provisions so that any and all accidents it can be printed. it may be impossible but it should be our goal. we were brought here by a series of tragedies that capture the attention of finale congress but the nation. we were on the eve of finalizing legislation that would have the best possible provisions.

. we have closed down on going operators. i'm glad to hear that. i understand that we are transporting people under the bus. i do not know of that was in the luggage area but that is not an acceptable means of operation. if necessary we will provide for working with our state partners, whether our measures are necessary. we will make sure people are transported on buses safely. that is our goal and our reason for this hearing. we appreciate again our witnesses and hopefully we will come out of this hearing: the a little bit more knowledgeable. i will say it as we go forward

with this process in closing that there is a passenger rail in the bill. not only do i want the democratic minority members to have participation but also other members of congress and the public and the industry and others who are affected by the law and any organizations in support of safety and good transportation. we will have a full opportunity to participate on wednesday. we will webcast and 11:00 a.m. and you can go to our website and participate wrote. several weeks, the same procedure will be followed. we also have a number you can call.

you have the ability as the public for interested parties to ask questions and we will look at the provisions in the law. i am pleased that members will be with us. i would like to yield to the breaking member of the subcommittee. this is a full committee hearing and i thought it was important we brought it to the full committee. i am pleased that he would come back and again continue his hard work to make sure that passenger safety is being followed. >> thank you for bringing this issue forward. it is time before if we move forward with authorization because suit -- some new authority is needed and perhaps some mandates.

one way to regulate -- when we deregulated, there was a certain amount of regulation where they had to declare every road and highway. they had to file all their rates for different seats and would never. the tension of deregulation -- the intention of the regulation power -- that is where i and the deregulatory in vernon fails us. we do have the federal motor carrier safety in forganization. i am pleased to see they have stepped up to a number of inspections and enforcement. given what we are told when we get into this hearing is it seems an impossible task.

an ever-changing group of characters. only a very small percentage are those who would put people in a baggage compartment pocket and have incompetent or exhausted drivers drive buses with bald tires, feeling breaks, causing fires and other problems. it is a small minority. those were legitimate should draw together and work with us to figure out a way to get these people out and keep them out. when they kill people, people associated with the industry to know the industry is -- as there is a few bad actors and that is the key here. we figure out a way to keep these people out. if they're in. take the route. and to prosecute them. when they have committed violations of the law. i think a number of state apartments have failed -- state

departments have failed. there are these finite folks to present a circulate -- and said they have inspected and say that they are ok. other states are more rigorous. we may need to set a higher bar for the state's and we can have a carrot and stick approach there is well. many states -- we have limited funds for truck inspection safety and that is a problem. maybe we need to look at levels of funding. that would be a dramatic reduction in funding for the federal government and federal pastors to the state to enforce that. that would be more people would

escape the scrutiny that they should have so we can find them and put them out of business. the agencyhis thing o is dealing with. perhaps more authority is needed. there is this bad actor who killed people in virginia. we have to figure out a way to get at that so they cannot mor rph. that is the bottom line and i think it is something we would all have in common and i would welcome the industry representatives as well as the state and regulators to give us a vision on how we would get there.

no one is proposing that. i will come the testimony of the panel. -- i welcome the testimony of the panel. >> it i know of no issue that is more significantly important than promoting safety. that is the purpose of this hearing. thank you and the ranking member. i yield back. >> thank you. good to see you back here. it has been fantastic this week. >> i have not reached the

threshold but i am working on it. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. thank you for holding this important hearing today. in this committee and for me, safety is a top priority. across the mode of transportation, we have to strive to make them safer. what to say to those folks -- i want to say to those folks, you have our deepest sympathy tree is important to note that the motor coach industry including scheduled service and charging for operations is a safe mode of operation. there is a safety record --

according to the national safety council. it is the safest way for passengers to move around the country. i have had a record that has been safe. we have some fatalities here recently and we have to get those bad actors off the road. there is room for us to improve. as i said, the recent accidents have highlighted the issues regarding enforcement. we have to make sure that the best trained drivers are out there transporting citizens around the country. we're interested in hearing from our witnesses regarding how we can keep bus operators of the nation's -- row before us operators off the highways. the bus operators of

the highways. they [inaudible] had laid down for them. i have that accident -- they're operating under different name. we have to keep those rogue operators, people who consistently violate safety standards to make sure they are off the highways. i appreciate the steps that secretary low hood and department of transportation started in 2009. we must evaluate the effectiveness of these steps as we go forward. we want to make sure that d.o.t. has the necessary authority to

ensure safety. i want to point out that our -- this is a small business, family owned industry. 95% of motor coach companies are offering fewer than 25 motor coaches. we must ensure we take a balanced approach to this. plouffe want to make sure there is the highest level of safety and we want to protect those people who are using the services of a moving out baghdad -- bad actors. , this is a family owned industry that we cannot take a broad brush and paid them. 95 -- we have to make sure that they are transporting passengers in a safe manner and we have to focus on that and make sure we do it in a way that is not going to hurt them. there is a weak economy. and want to mention the legislation i proposed. h.r. 1390.

on-insurings that the best trained people transport passengers. i am looking forward to hearing testimony today for your ideas and appreciate the chairman holding this extremely poor hearing today. i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. i took advantage of the motor coach system when i was in college. i know how important it is to the people in indiana since i am

in a fairly rural state and people take advantage of the motor coach system. it is important to continue to look at the, realizing we do have some bad actors out there that to compromise the system which for the most part is an extremely safe way to travel. in light of the -- even in light of the recent crashes. thank you for holding this hearing. i am looking forward to hearing your testimony so that we can continue to make this the mode of travel very safe for our citizens out. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. mr. harris? >> thank you. i want to thank you. est functionsear li

is to keep the mode of transportation safe. i would ask that we do not do what is trendy in the past. when something like this happens, there is a series of regulations that punish the good actors out almost as much as the bed. my colleague points out that a lot of the bus companies are small businesses that can thrive. two of my daughters took this and the air-conditioning ran out. needs a safe strtrip and we to continue helping the good actors and regulating against the bad actors. avoiding temptation of creating a set of regulations that came

with a broad brush and industry that has a safe record overall. thank you for holding the hearing. i yield back the balance of my time. >> we will proceed with our panel of witnesses. that is somewhat short notice. it is an important hearing and i have tried to craft and finalize this. on behalf of the commercial president ande -- ceo of the american bus

association. and the president and ceo. and the vice-president of the highway and safety commission. there is additional information and documentation. we would like to do make this part of the record and we will do that. we will go through and provide the panel that the this. with those ground rules, let's start off with our administrator.

welcome and your recognized -- you are recognized. >> thank you. this year has been the worst period for motor coach safety with six crashes resulting in 25 deaths and numerous injuries since january. my condolences go to the families and loved ones and i joye in our partners in taking these losses to hire. it is frustrating that the risk to passengers continues from two bad actors. we are fully engaged in investigation and illegal passenger carriers. we have a comprehensive investigation in the case of the

crash which occurred may 31 in which four women were killed. when we found out they were trying to operate, we issued a cease and desist order. informal practices allowed them to [inaudible] and unregulated websites. we are shutting down on sick carriers as -- save carriers as quickly as we can. that washas been issued an order and that leaves a must not operate. we do not wait 45 days for the

appeal period hwwhen they are an imminent hazard. we have shut down three companies that had passengers in the cargo hold, the favor by these was a courageous. -- outragous. ntsa and the motor coach 6 [inaudible] better use of inspection violation data, a ban on texting and cell phone mews, and stronger overtime and drug and alcohol test results.

we are proposing rules in those areas but we need additional authority. as we provide technical assistance with regard to several recommendations, we will strengthen our authority. first is to allow us to work with people at the state and local level. second is to establish a federal successor liability standard to enable us to more swiftly and surely shut down reincarnated carriers. a r occurred this to require the safety audit before a company can receive its authority as a passenger carrier authority. the fourth is to raise the penalty for violations by bus companies that attempt to operate illegally to $25,000 per violation. it is currently $2,000.

allow us to regulate passenger sellers. we regulate household could brokers but we have no authority over passenger carriers. thank you for holding these hearings. we appreciate the spotlight on the safety. our commitment has never been higher and i look forward to answering any questions you have. >> the q4 that testimony. -- thank you for that testimony. welcome and your recognized. >> thank you for loading this hearing. let me say on the outset that behalf -- we have pledged renewed emphasis on bus safety. a step that we can take and no additional cost is to

[inaudible] the restriction removed a critical tool hampering enforcement's efforts. we encourage your state members and take loss of aggressive action when warranted. who the results of the recent fuss safety strike force has ordered her by a member -- number of state governors has resulted in a significant number of buses and drivers meeting services. the strike forces include safety inspections at origins of destinations. we are firm believers that many more lives can be saved. inspections are permitted to allow states to conduct these inspections when and where necessary. since the curbside operator who

does not typically operate out of the fixed place of business or terminal, the most effective way is to -- is the inspection program. although at the time they were being moved because of repossession of the bank, it so happened that two of the drivers did not have commercial driver's licenses if the and two did not have medical certificates and the others did not have lawbooks. this is one of many examples why route inspections are necessary. i would ask how many more are out there. when it is necessary to close down those operating illegally, we in conjunction got off -- state enforcement and

oversight is to uncover problems. finally when it comes to specific safety standards such as crashworthiness, we must implement safety belts and other safety system requirements. killion carriers are a problem that must be dealt with more aggressively. our process has been a tool in her identifying and taking action on carriers that are changing their stripes. must be given authority when it is discovered that they are the same operation. we must also be given more authority over brokers. companies that purchase transportation need to be held accountable for not conducting the proper due diligence for

safety. brokers discovered not doing so and hiring and save operators need to be shut down. another significant is thus fires. a study in 2009 showed that caught a bus or motor coach has a fire every two days. we can conduct more inspections of brakes, tires, and wheels. we support the provisions of the house and senate bus safety bills that require a compliance and state based inspections. east -- of speech must have a safety enforcement program. as you might expect by directing more of the efforts toward best safety, this is a need for additional resources and funding. what we do not want to have an is to focus at the expense of other commercial safety.

what on like trucking companies, inner-city passenger carriers have been exempt from changes. there is a contributing factor. if warranted, of which propose necessary changes. to reiterate, if congress chooses to once again enable us inspections, we will commit to assisting the states and conduct a of bus inspection as well as continuing with strike forces and other enforcement activities throughout the country. we believe this is the most appropriate and effective response to impact of the safety. this concludes my remarks and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you and we will hear next from the president and ceo of the american bus association.

>> thank you. the rest -- are members operate 60% of the coaches on the road today. aba shares click concerns and then for it -- and frustration transportation.afe these companies are not part of the american bus association and we are encouraged by copy of the work they have done to seek out and save companies and put them out of service. making bus travel safer is at the top of our agenda. the bus industry continues to be one of the safest mode of travel and one fatality is one too many. we ask for more effective regulation and for more enforcement.

baa we believe in strengthening programs and in forcing qualifications for drivers and using technology to enhance motor coach safety. the lack of dedicated federal and state funding for bus inspection leads to inconsistent enforcement, making it too easy for carriers to reopen after they have been put out of business. too easy for financially -- for companies to obtain authority and easy for individuals who have paid in commercial driver's license with an endorsement. a lack of enforcement must be addressed today. when the secretary issued the action plan he declared airbus compliance and enforcement program is critical to insure her that motor coach carriers operate safely. we applaud the house stepped up enforcement who and when near record number hauschka number of motor coach companies being put

out of business when and declaring some an imminent hazard. it has done a better job of vetting new entrants. we commend inspection but one time programs are transmitted and spotty. it is consistent and effective enforcement that is the most vital factor. the data shows that 54% of our fatalities were caught accidents caused by unsafe four illegal companies. we need additional staffing and money to inspect bus operations. for commercial motor vehicle and directions, we think a certain percentage of funds should be allocated for bus inspections. if states are not willing or

incapable of managing a bus inspection programs that meet the federal standards, we believe a portion of those should be used to hire third- party inspectors. perhaps eight or 10 states have good, effective inspection programs. this inequity must end. but the inspection programs must be informed as to not create safe havens for illegal operators. we must of raised the safety bar. while they make gains in vetting and visiting course sooner, we need it safe to before they barham first passenger reports. but of background check should be required, especially those with a passenger endorsement. when we have determined a carrier presents an imminent safety danger, they need to make

sure the vehicles are impounded work. we recommend that contained more consumer awareness as was began on may 5 with the secretary's consumer checklist and we believe more friendly -- and more from a database of is it thought recommended. there was -- they undertook to determine what build and the sea design and the records that would be appropriate. where are also enthusiastic supporters of h.r. 1390 and we thank the members. our industry continues to grow. we will provide the safest and most cost-effective and efficient mode of transportation what we can only do it if current regulations are enforced equally and all

carriers. thank you and i will answer any questions. >> welcome and we recognize you. >> i appreciate you calling this opportunity. the committee has a long and distinguished record. our goal of improving their record. found in 1971, there is the full spectrum of motor coach operations. hot over 90% four out of the motor coach operators are

affecting businesses. we extend our sympathies to the victims and families and all those who are affected. and our industry has the safest record. one fatality is one fatality too many. " if we do this through several initiatives. first we have our bus and motor coach academy which is accredited through the college of southern maryland. we do training for drivers and companies to instill a safety culture. we have safety management seminars we hold the the ntsb transportation training center. an laura ingle conference -- our annual conference features safety programs.

we volunteer to assist and he's been in any of their investigations as we did following the accident involving worldwide tours. we have advocated for safety regulations for vehicles and drivers and we have long supported initiatives based on sound science and research that truly improve safety, many of which are included in the bill which, is co-sponsored by members of this committee. as well as other members of congress. the bill includes guidelines that enhance the ntsb's efforts to promulgate new rules that will improve protection. in addition to the bill, ntsa

announced the approach to motor coach safety. a series of evaluations and emergency egress. nsta conducted its crash test. uma supports that initiative. fmcsa announced its safety analysis. they have the capability to more readily identify noncompliant carriers with the goal of preventing accidents before they occur. just months into implementation you may conclude csa is altering behavior is. we are satisfied with this program that it will support the community.

we have deep reservations regarding efforts that would small entrepreneurs. there are no direct parallels that would signify new entrants before -- to the traveling public. uma supports the secretary's efforts to establish minimum requirements for companies that seek to transport passengers has recommended. the requirements are followed within what audits within 45 days. we [inaudible] we do not do and have never supported allowing drivers to continuing operating

unsafely. a 76-year-old woman from minnesota died when her car when she was driving not hit the back end of a motor coach that was stopped alongside the i-n 95. passengers on of the coach of where not injured. we appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding these matters and contribute to efforts to advance safety. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now from the vice president for highway and auto safety. thank you and your recognized. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify. i testified in 2006 about motor corp. safety problems.

in 2007, i testifiedafter " a crash in georgia. both highlighted the need for congress to take action to improve federal oversight as well as issuing overdue safety standards and. five years later, there have been more than 108 crashes resulting in 136 deaths and thousands of injuries. it is time for congress to halt -- pass the act, sponsored by representative john lewis and others. this legislation will direct and implementation of recommendations that have languished for over 40 years. those who travel by motor coach cannot expect to be treated as second set the -- second-class citizens when it comes to safety and they do not expect the motor coach to be a death trap in the advent of the crash.

-- even to the crash. why is this legislation needed? further delays for the -- and excuses can no longer be tolerated and have contributed to the needless deaths and injuries. congress must step in now and insure the safety improvements that have been recommended are implemented. the bill will protect consumers before they buy a ticket and boarding the bus and after they take their seats and the trip begins. there are no substitute training requirements for entry level commercial drivers including motor coach drivers. compare that to our recent proposed rule and shoot at the direction of congress that off 1500 hoursdredth before the pilot can operate a

flight. in my testimony and reference to efforts by staff to find out about the safety of florida motor coach companies. [laughter] [inaudible] [n36 companies had no safety ratings. they're operating with additional readings indicating there are safety deficiencies and among big what mattered to companies with satisfactory havey ratings, only to havy two ratings in all companies. it is time that we revise the hours of service role for bus drivers and get tough on companies that pushed drivers to exceed driving limits that falsify their logbooks. who virginia crash that occurred last week has also revealed a

dirty little secret that safety advocates have warned about for years. giving motor coach companies pick 45 days or longer to continue operating in carrying passengers is not acceptable carried passengers on it -- is not acceptable. in the 48 days during which an operator had an unsatisfactory rating, they may have six opposed 100,000 passengers to unsafe conditions. motor coach crashes are violent and cause passengers to be thrown around and frequently ejected. this is why the national highway traffic safety administration

needs to be directed to issue basic safety standards in the next two years that will result in occupants having the safety protections that we now have in cars. basic systems like seat belts, crash protection, anti-rejection windows and roll over pretend -- prevention technology. figures fory's safety improvements required are wildly inflated, unreliable, and are documented. the cost of equipping new motor coaches with safety improvements required in the act will cost less than a dime per passenger. who in this room today would not pay an extra dime to protect their child, or parent or spouse in a crash? i urge you to pass a motor coach enhanced safety act and think you for the opportunity to testify. >> think you and i want to thank

you -- thank you and i want to thank you for the testimony. i have some questions of my own and other members. what we're trying to do here is see what the missing pieces are and making certain we have the very best legislation in place. the best regulation where they are going to regulate the best cooperation from the states and private industry i heard first from our federal motor carrier safety administrator the list of recommendations that have been suggested. we heard of their recommendations from other panelists. but there are issues in just about all these.

some restrictions were put under the last that and have it all inspections. of thought is -- unless there was a serious problem sort of, you would not shut down the service. we probably could tighten that up a bit. part of the problem starts and others have spoken about this. getting a hand on these rogue operators. changing the name of the operation. we have seen that in other industries also. where players -- you tried to

build a mouse trap to catch the routes and they find some other way to get to the cheese, whether it is a passenger bus operation or other endeavors. we will go back to the very basic involvement. in reviewing these folks and the time we have. it is -- 18 months they can start operations before they get some of that inspection? >> that is correct. 18 months for new entrants before they receive their authority. for motor coach passengers, [inaudible]

>> your recommendation is before they start, they should have that certification. i believe that the division is about 800 in the field and 200 something in washington. most of the inspections are done or enforcement is done at the state level. ow the administration has recommended additional positions in washington. it is better to empower state folks that were closer as far as enforcement and regulation.

what would you think -- you are recommending more federal employees. is there any audit that could be done? do you think it would enhance the performance? the other thing is the bad actors. i hear the good tires come off and put them on another vehicle. the drivers the list are not the drivers they drive. how do we get the best of them, adding to the tough question. are there other things we could require that would do a good job? ? significant challenge in

the destination or inspection model is that rove operators do not necessarily have scheduled sites. it is a valuable to have the concept. most of those carriers will operate on the corridors. law enforcement would have clear guidelines over when and where it is safe to pull a motor coach operator aside and and opportunity to pick them up. additional inspection activity as advocates indicated creates additional data in our system and identifies the behavior of carriers. rogues are not complying with a destination. we cannot inspect their

planes on routes. -- airplanes on route. the presumption is that plane should be inspected before it takes off and carries the passengers. same thing with amtrak and others. we are not pulling the train over and everybody disembark gpt for quick inspection. we one a practical solution. i am trying to stop them -- from getting in business in the first place. the one i asked the staff how many operators we had and they say the administration cannot

tell us because it is a revolving and evolving number, the way things are set up now. people get into business by various means. they are sympathetic in the provisions they have. how do we get a handle on that at the beginning? >> copiah -- the most efficient model is to combine the activity on the way. we have law enforcement complemented by the new grant program. within the context of a safety audit. with our budget request, which include an additional $20 million in state grants in the context of strengthening the safety accountability component of these programs. in terms of the most efficient model, it is taking part of all three of those components annualizing what we have and

more effectively. >> her the other thing i favor is enforcement. it's a fine is a stiff fine of $25,000 but what does the bus association feel about that? >> when it comes to more enforcement, i do not think anything can be second. we're in favor of anything that gets the bad actors of the road and in favor of more inspections and one of the ways that we talk about in the past of getting more resources is not only increasing the budget but also taking those companies that are inspections.od in fac they are already being inspected. inspection poker is the same but some say it is more rigorous, but why have them re-inspected a year by the same state or federal system when they have looked at rigorously?

>> i will never forget the testimony we had by one of our field agents wear a small family operator, a husband and wife, a trucking firm and the wife gave testimony -- was that in arkansas? it might have been. the wife had compiled a list of all the agencies that their firm had to comply with and she read that thing, and it must have taken her five minutes to read the agencies that she had to deal with and after she got through, she cited all the taxes and the fees they had to pay. it was quite an eyeopener. the problem we have in dividing

the economic pie is how much

>> you were both pretty emphatic about how he would solve the problem -- danger, safety, inconvenience, how can we solve the problem because it seems this is critical for these gipsy operators. they have no fixed place of business. they have a post office box somewhere. how would you do it? >> clearly we said guidelines as far as where and when and what conditions need to exist for the bus to be pulled over into a safe place. there is a suggestion to consider something like this as a continuity from coach operators. they would be required to move

passengers safety -- safely away. there are some provisions to make sure state -- make sure safety and safe passage -- but i defer to major palmer. >> that is the case. in texas, we have policies and procedures in place so that even after current regulation, if you stop and i -- you stop a bus for a serious safety violation, we have procedures in place that the utmost importance when we stopped a bus, wherever it is that is the safety of the passengers and the driver and our enforcement officer. we do not want to put them in harm's way any more than we want to put passengers. depending on where it was and for whatever reason the bus was stopped, if it was deemed unsafe, we would export that bus

to a safe location and inspect it there to ensure the passengers are well taken care of. typically, a very quick screening or a driver inspection, you are talking 10 or 15 minutes to be able to do that typically. we would focus on those efforts. it has been the late nineties since i inspected a bus but i know that when i would stop a bus on the roadside back then, one of the first things i would do after a made initial contract with -- after i made the initial contact with the drivers was i would address the passengers. what i found historical the is that the passengers were very appreciative when we did take the time when we told the what you are looking for and the safety aspects, they encouraged it. we would have specific procedures in place. that is something where there could be a leadership. they would be able to have

operational policies that all the states agree to. >> if the bus were speeding, you could stop it. if -- we had this elderly person who drove into the back of the bus. clearly not good driving on that person's part. every once in awhile, someone who is asleep or in combat and well drive into it and that's a problem. if your patrol car is here and there is a too late for a three lane highway, you are required to leave the lane and d. there are ways to protect those people for the shortstop. it only favors the people who do not have a fixed base of operation. where are you going to get them?

opposing this, they would urge the association in saying there would be no capability. think about how you can get at it. how'd we warned them? this is the key from law- enforcement and the head of an illustrator. we need to modify that provision of the law. the other thing would be state inspections. i see here in the testimony that state inspection programs must be strengthened. your than a dozen straight -- fewer than a dozen states have effective bus inspection programs and fewer have any program at all. >> that is correct. we do not think there are enough states focusing on the bus. they're focusing on trucks and doing commercial vehicles and

are doing an admirable job, but there are not enough focused on buses. we saw the accident in new jersey about two months ago. that company was supposedly based in pennsylvania but nobody ever saw them in pennsylvania. the company that had the accident in virginia was based in north carolina, but they were based in a housing development. there was no sign of the bus or buses at that facility or that house whatsoever. we are concerned about the way these companies operate. we are also concerned about in route inspections and the safety of the passengers. most of our passengers are seniors are children. we have passengers with disabilities. we want to make sure what ever change there is allows for accommodation of those passengers. >> de operating out of a housing developer post office box -- that seems to meet requiring an annual inspection by each state

of each vehicle every year would that be unreasonable? >> it would not be unreasonable. i think someone has to go in. >> that would get at some of these people. it could be like this is different from the coast guard. you can get the coast guard to certify your vote on an annual basis and it's improbable that they would do a random safety inspection if you have a sticker showing you were inspected. if we did annual inspection and people had some sort of the cal, that would potentially be someone the police are less likely to look at. seems to me getting the states to do this and requiring them to do it and perhaps -- i will take

it one step forward, what if you had to annually, you go one time and it's good forever, why wouldn't you say i'm annual basis that you have to show your vehicle has been inspected or we will suspend that authority? >> >> i would say as we look at the new entrant program, we think $300 is not enough. it cost $350 to get a hot dog vendors license on the streets of washington d.c., yet we allow people to come in the are carrying 50 people at time. there should be a higher bar of entry and if it is a higher amount, that can fund the inspections we're talking about. >> do you have a number in mind? >> could be $1,000 or $2,000. it cannot create a barrier to

entry. it is mom-and-pop, small business. we want to encourage that but we want to make sure people coming in have the wherewithal to maintain their equipment. if they do not have more than $300, question how they can do that down the road. >> what do you think of that? >> we have no objection to raising the bar. we want to make sure the bar is reasonable. if it is $500 or $1,000, that is reasonable, but we want to make sure it is not a barrier. these companies create jobs, they're good for the economic base of where they are. >> i'm glad we agree. do you have the authority to do that or is it statutory? >> currently, is statutory. we would propose increasing the limit and keep in mind is a onetime thing. >> seems like we have some consensus on that and it's

something we can hopefully put into the bill. a requirement for inspections, a higher one time fee for registration which could help fund the safety, and -- i'll see if i can get one step further. the chairman referenced airlines. when we do airlines, we required the operator be certified and i have been here long enough that i remember when we threw frank lorenzo out of the industry. the question would be could we require -- we talk about background checks or, could we have background checks for operators so we can get at this phantom problem? we know this person, they had a company that violated. they are not a qualified operator to start another company with a different name to run those buses. could we have something like that? >> we could. in terms of liability and

responsibilities for principals have been identified as unsafe and reincarnated, they could be barred from operating. >> can you do that administratively? >> i would hope we could provide that. it would only be used in extreme cases, but some of these people are repeat offenders and we want to stamp them out. we will provide more business for good operators. thank you. i think we have identified a few things we can do to help. >> thank you. >> thank you all of you for your testimony. the private, over the road bus industry provides 750 million passenger trips annually. how safe is the motor coach industry compared to other modes of transportation? >> i think we have agreed with many of the other speakers that it is among the safest. we are somewhat limited in our

inspection data on the industry writ large by virtue of this restriction that enforcement is currently under. but yes, in terms of the number of crashes, they are very low. >> i realize accidents are inevitable and are going to occur. do you attribute anything specifically to any shortcomings to the recent motor coach accidents? >> let me clarify quickly -- the vast majority of the industry is operating effectively and these are small operators to have made safety and profitability go hand-in-hand. the individual owner operators are small business owners. in regard to the recent crash, we are in the midst of the investigation, but at the outset, we see the facility with which some of the bad actors move equipment and drivers among companies with valid numbers is

one of the loopholes in our perspective. we need stronger leasing regulations which is within the authority that we need to proceed with as well as stronger tools that prohibit reincarnation on a more effective level than we can today. >> thank you. >> can i just add to that? motor coach grasses have increased dramatically and we have many more people taking them. unfortunately, our safety systems are not adequate. while this is a relatively safe mode of transportation, we have a double standard where we have zero tolerance for aviation crashes even though we have as many people using motor coaches and we have hundreds of people dying. this year, 24 people have been killed and hundreds have been injured in 11 motor coach thank you. >> thank you. distinguish if you will the difference between on route bus

inspections and strike force operations. in terms of time and money, which of the two service better? >> they are unique in their own right. they both accomplish inspections but they do it in a different way. the enroute inspection is something that's is a surprise. it is not something you can prepare for. the big carriers out there do not have an issue. the ones who did not do not have time to prepare or change out a equipment are make the quick fixes to get by for a day. most of the strike forces done now are related -- there is there going to be some kind of hazard violation involved but mostly, they are destination inspections either origin are where they will end up. >> will strike force inspections

give advance notice? are they surprised? >> they can be both. they are a surprise at the beginning, but once the first group of buses get to the location and we sarton's backing them, then the surprise is gone. so other folks can find out it's where we are at. but they both truly have their benefit. it's just that you are isolated to a particular location and you are at the mercy of the their business, whether it be somebody like sea world or something or the actual passenger carrier company, whether they would let us come to their facility and do inspections. that is one of the downsides to the origin and destination. >> i have one quick question for the administrator. it is my understanding you grant

the operating authority for these buses. it is my understanding operating authority was given to sky express worldwide travel and a super luxury two hours. the operating authority, you get that number they put. he gave all those, right? those were the ones involved. after the incident, you withdrew that authority. >> that is correct. all three of those carriers had passenger carrier authority prior to our betting program and all three have been shut down. >> that answers my question, but i'm concerned it did not happen in reverse order. >> what me yield to mr. richardson. >> thank you. in your testimony on page 3, you reference a new program, think safety every trip, every time

and you talk about how is available on-line. what other process and -- is in place for consumers? this seems a little unrealistic. i was recently in new york and brought in -- and bought a ticket. i did not go on line and i may fairly informed consumer. what else are you doing to communicate with people? >> we have several strategies. one is to make sure people know there is safety information available on our website about carriers and some of the trade associations provide links to the safety data so that the customers can understand they can't think safety every trip every time. >> but other than websites, what process do you have for the average consumer? you are talking about seniors or people who are not going on the web site. do you have a process where people can call a number or is there something available that

people have to post? what other aggressive things have begun? we need to know where we are. >> there are van operators and the whole population of the face based community who utilize the 16 passenger vans are a core constituency to whom we have actively reached out in the past. with regard to motor coach operations, it is through our web site and this particular campaign the secretary launched recently. but importantly, it is the proposal through technical assistance that allows us to regulate brokers of passenger tickets. this is sell tickets online, through brokerages and travel services. >> i don't think your understanding my question. the question i am asking -- if i am an average consumer and go buy a ticket for a motor coach and i walked up to greyhound, how do i know what to look for

in this particular motor coach to know that it is safe or they have passed or are emperor -- or are approved by the department of transportation? is there a system in place to communicate to the average consumer who walks up -- i'm not talking about someone using a web site, do we have any good vacation in place? >> we do not. >> thank you. you mentioned in your testimony that you think there should be some sort of inquiry and to the fitness of an operator prior to that in from -- that individual being able to begin operations. can you describe what she meant by that? >> there is an 18 month window and at the degree job of shortening the window. i think the administrator said nine months. but before the first passenger gets on board, someone needs to look at the carrier and ask where they're getting their

maintenance done and what kind of equipment are they going to operate? what kind of training do they have for their driver and how knowledgeable is the operator? those things before anybody ever gets on board. >> would you mind submitting those questions you think should be considered? >> absolutely. couple of other things i want to ask a few questions on. there was talk that the states use the same pool of funding for truck inspections as they do for bus inspections. coming from a port community, i would find that to be problematic. are you opposed to identifying a specific percentage or do you have a suggestion to ensure more motor coaches are getting some of these funds to be inspected? >> we're pleased to work with the committee and that recommendation. i will tell you that we require

states to develop and include in their commercial safety plans the identification of a region or state appropriate bus safety plan driven by what their bus safety data is saying by their bus population. it is incorporated into every state safety plan. it is less formal in some states, but with regards to your proposal, we would be happy to work with the committee on that. >> last question is dozens of states don't have programs at all. is it your understanding -- accurately describe your statement? >> to clarify, we do not see good bus inspection programs in a lot of places. some states are very vigorous like minnesota and michigan. california does a great job.

massachusetts, new jersey, connecticut, there are others that do very good jobs and are very rigorous. yet we see a lot of places that do not put a lot of emphasis on bus inspections. >> are you working with the aba? >> we do what we can to readout the worst offenders. we are familiar with that concern and it has been part and parcel over the past four years why the agency has inc. and expectation of a bus safety action plan within the states. it is an evolving process and it's part of the expectation for each state. >> thank you. >> i grant unanimous consent that the recommendation requested by the gentle lady from california be made part of the record.

unanimous consent is requested for today's record to remain open for two weeks for submission. informational response to questions by the committee. without objection, so ordered. let me now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. i apologize for the delay. i know that you wanted to get out by 4:00. >> i am a little confused on the roadside inspections, so i will direct my questions there. are we allowed -- or is it prohibited to do roadside inspections? >> roadside inspections are authorized for high-risk operator behavior. if the driver is showing extreme rates of speed, unsafe operating behavior, if the buses smoking more a wheel is on fire, they can certainly take action. >> what about targeting a bus

company that has shown it is violating operations save your roles? that would not be -- violating operations safety rules? >> our concern goes back to the safety of the passengers and if there is a change in the law. as long as the passengers are in some fashion protected, as long as the seniors, students, those passengers with disabilities are taken care of and are not left on a hot bus, we are fine with modifications to the existing law. >> if we put in the bill i proposed, allowing those bus operations that do not have a home base, is that something your industry would support? to be able to inspect them on the road? most of your -- not all of your

operators have a home base and it is easy to get in -- >> companies that operate from the curb like some of the ones we have seen operating point to point, may not have a terminal where people go but they do have a home base. there is an owner of the company and have facilities and training. the other thing is they all take passengers to the same place. they all go to the same destinations. if it is a charter or torque, the to the same places that good bus companies go. -- if it is a charter or a tour. certainly, if there is an opportunity to do it and take care of the passengers, the passengers are first and foremost. >> i would add to that that if the company does have a marginal safety record that they would be stopped before they got on the

road. whether it be closing them down or the program right now -- those companies are red flag -- because of one of the five categories they are considered a risk, they have an alert listing next to their name. hopefully, when the carrier has enough alerts on their listing, they would be prevented from operating. that would be the best way to catch them as opposed to trying to get along the road. >> these rogue operators are the very ones that would have never been inspected because we do not know where their origin or destination is. they are stopping at nt strip shopping abandoned sites, large parking lots, areas that are not

fixed terminals in terms of a tourist destination. against this very population we did not have inspection data on, we would not see them as a flag. >> but they start somewhere. they have some sort of home base. >> if i may -- i can give you an example in texas, in the houston area, we have operators that literally the only way we can figure out where they are or where they will pick up or come out of this we go to certain areas and look for fliers. the flyers tell them where to pick up at. that is one of the major challenges and that is happening in houston tx. in relation to specific legal language about who the inspection would be applied to would be very difficult and, to us, from a state perspective, that's more of a policy issue.

it could be a policy -- at the very least, you would see that states would implement certain policies to ensure the safety of the passengers because that is the bottom line. we want them to be safe. >> at the beginning and at the destination, you can inspect them at both places. >> that is correct. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have questions related to the budget process. do you know what your budget was in 2008? >> i do. >> can you tell me? >> we had $300 million in state grant authority. i believe was $220 million in

operating revenue. >> ballpark: $530 million. how about 2010? >> we were at $310 million in grants and $250 million in -- $246 million, -- it is about 566 -- >> you can add faster than me. the request for the 2012 budget for the total -- >> the request is $50 million more, $20 million for state grants and $30 million for operations. pirelli for additional folks in the field and systems investments. -- primarily for additional folks in the field and system investments. >> my concern is that a time when we are expanding spending at the federal level almost exponentially, compared to 2008

and this year, the 2012 budget, and try to figure out in my own mind exactly why in 2008 if it seemed like what you are doing was adequate, but every year it seems like every agency in the federal government, not just yours continues to ask for more money and we recently had bus crashes in 2011, which did not seem like the increased amount of money you had from 2008-2010 really made a difference. exactlyng to justify why that would be. it seems to me that it might be more or a better thing to do to transfer more of the money allocated from the federal role to the states so we could have a

more pointed inspection program at the states rather than continuing to increase our budget the federal level. what do you think about that idea? >> i defer to the wisdom of the committee. i will say that the investment -- >> we will leave the last few minutes of this hearing on bus safety because the house is reconvening now. they will begin voting on amendments to the bill for military construction and veterans affairs. this is life health coverage on c-span. -- further consideration of h.r. 2055 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, had been

disposed of and the bill had been read through page 61, line 2. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. latourette of ohio, amendment number 4 of mr. amash from michigan and amendment number 2 by mr. sherman of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latourette of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

papapapapapapapapapapapapapapap through line 21. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: this is a simple, straightforward amendment. during the committee markup of the military construction bill and under the abled leadership of the subcommittee chairman, a motion -- an amendment was offered by mr. flake of arizona

to deny funding to the presidential executive oer deing with project labor agreements. the amendment was accepted by voice vote and it's accepted by voice vote because quite ankly i codn't wrestle enough votes in the committee to overturn it. this continues a pattern we've seen in the congress. believe we've had on the floor four votes they are not davis-bacon should be law of the land. the pponents of davis-bacon had been successful. the last one garnering 52 republic votes. this would be the third vote by those who would wish to do away with project labor agreements that will occur on the house floor and the previous two, again, the proponents of project labor agreements have propelled. mr. chairman, basically project labor agreements are those

greements wherein someone who is doing a construction project determines that they want to have an all-encompassing universal agreement that cers the construction from start to finish. if the union labor is involved it denies unions the ability t strike. it denies the contractor the ability to lock out. wages are set, terms are set, conditions are set and quite frankly the project labor agreement have been resoundin successes. as a matter of fact, project labor agreement are used -- 90% of them are used by private industry. some of the biggestnes are disney, the disney corporation and in fact wal-mar so neither of those companies have ever been sort of identified as big labor-loving organizations. now, this is a back door piece of language in line 16 to 21 because it doesn't attack project labor agreements. what it does is, if you go back and look in february when president obama enacted this executive order, he said, you know what, i don't know which

is going to be better and which is going to be cheaper based on the size of the project, where the project is located shes what it is we want to get done so funds are appropriated to the agencies. say it's to the department of veterans affairs and they are going to build a new hospital, the department of veterans affairs, you study which is going to bring that project in at the best quality, at the best price, on time and giving the taxpayers the best bang for his or her buck. well, this amount strikes that funding, and so it indicated you can't use project labor agreements. what it does say the agency can't make that comparison. and if you are a not making that comparison to find out which is better for the taxpayer, which is in fact going to cause the project to come in at the lowest cost and with the best quality and under time, then it has nothing to do with saving the taxpayer money. we hear, these are tough times and we have to titen our belt tellses. this is union -- belts. this is union bashing.

we don't know if they can develop a project that's cheaper, better quality and on time. there are studies on both sides, the organization call abc, they have a study that shows it adds so much cost. you have a study by organized labor that says it reduces so much cost. i choose not to look at either of those because each of those folks and organizations, quite frankly, have some skin in the fight and have some incentive, if you will, to look at the data one way or another. i would go with our nonpartisan, bipartisan congressional research service which last october was asked to study this issue and they indicated quite frankly that the jury is out, and if anything, the data indicates they really can't say and they can't find any convincing data as to whether or not project labor agreements save money or don't save money. which is really e genius of the president's execute order because it says you should study it. quite frankly, the c.r.s. goes on to indicate those areas of the country where there's a lot

of organiz labor, the project labor agreements tends to bring these projects in on time, uer cost and better quality and those areas of the country which isn't heavily unionid, the opposite is in fact true. so with the jury being out and all of us wanting to achieve the greatest savings for the taxpayer d build good quality projects in the military construction account wch benefits our men and women uniform, why would we deny -- why would we deny the departments the opportunity to study which way is cheaper, better effective and with a better quality? and so there's only one reason, it's to continue this constant dream beat of we hate unions and that's no reason to have this language in the bill. i urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition of the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: this is a straightforward vote of the house whether we, on behalf of american taxpars, vote to

impose union collective bargaining requirements on any private company doing business with the federal government. the executive order that our bill does not fund and the amendment attempts to strike language in our bill which does not fund this executive order, the executive order says that a -- according -- quoting directly from the executive order. quote, in awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, the administration may require the use of a project labor agreement. well, a project labor agreement, under the executive order own definition, means a prehire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations. so the obama administration, through this executive order, is attempting to impose -- its attempting to unionize any private company in america that

wants to do business with the federal government. it's just an outrage. there is about -- again, this is looking at a "wall street jurm" editorial from april 14 of 2010 that reiterates data that is widely available and is -- had been repeatedly verified that, quote, only about 15% of the nation's construction workers are unionized. so from now on, under this executive order, the other 85% of ameca's construction workers will have to givep the opportunity to work on a federal project or fought to be unionized. it's a obligate apt attempt by the obama administtion to impose union collective bargaining on any private company in america that wants to do business with the federal government. . the idea was to duce the cost, that's fine. we are in an era of austity unlike anything the nation has

experienced. we cfront record debt, record deficit, record public debt held by forei nations, this is unlike anything we have ever seen before. and as i showed when we debated this bill earlier, just before the brea the -- every single dollar of federal revenue that comes in the door is already spent on existing social welfare programs. in fact, 1% of federal income is obligated to pay for the existing social safety net. social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans befits, and interest on the debt consume 104% of our nation's income. therefore america is living on borrowed importanty, and it is our -- borrowed money, and it is our obligation as stewards of the treasury to ensure we do not waste any of these precious dollars. that we are cutting spending everywhere we possibly can. we have done everything within our power to limit the atrocious debt burden that we

are passing on to our children and grandchildren. this is an unok acceptable direction the nation is taking because of uncontrolled spending by previous congresses. why would we voluntarily, knowingly allow our kidsnd grandkids to pay as the "wall street journal" points out, as the veterans administration discovered, why would we voluntarily pay 12% to 14% more for construction contracts as the v.a. discovered in a study they did? the v.a. discovered when they looked at the construction costs for hospitals, in three of five markets, the cost of construction would jump by as much as 9%. the beacon hill institute at boston suffolk university in 2006 said that when you impose these project labor agreements, it would increase school construction costs by 12% to 14%. why would we voluntarily do that? this amendment must be defeated. this amendment is an effort to prevent the congress from savin precious tax dollars,

and if this amendment passes, the obama administration will be able to impose collective bargaining o any private company that wants to do buiness with the federal government. i strongl urge members to oppose this amendment and i eserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. does the gentleman yield back? mr. culbers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. >> move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, as much as i agree with many of the objectives expressed by the chairman in his discussion just a few moments ago, particularly that we want to make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, i think the very arguments that he makes support why we need to have project labor agreements. mr. bishop: this has nothing to do with union or nonunion work force standards.

the project labor agreements do not mandate or predetermine that a work force has to be union or nonunion. it allows forthe project owner such as the government or private sector entity to establish work force standards that both union and nonunion workers have to meet in order to be hired by contractors and subcontractors under the oject labor agreements. this is a model tt increases the efficiency and the quality of construction projects. and of course the ultimate objective is so that we will have work force that will ensure construction projects are built correctly the first time. we won't have cost overruns if they are built on time. we won't have to expend the -- extend the contracts, we won't have safety problems because we have unskilled workers. basically it's just allowing in

the award of these contracts that these project labor agreements will mke sure that the government's money is spent ll. we want to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks. we want to make sure that we make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. and that is study after study after study that illustrates that the use of these project labor agreements do not extend the cost to the taxpayers or the jects -- the projts. they often save money. in most cases they do save money because as a result of having a higher skilled work force, they don't have to worry about equipment being broken. they don't have to worry about the waste of resources and materls. they don't have to worry about the contracts not being performed on time. to the contrary. if you are worried about

protections, project labor agreements would prohibit strikes, work stoppages by any kind of a construction work on the projt. it esblishes a single procedure for handling work force disputes. it's a tool for ensuring that large ed complex projects, as of our government projects are, completed on time. it allows for the employment of local citizens which right now with the unemployment rate as it is and with so many of our skilled workers out of work, it allows flexibility. and the order which seems to be the source of the complaints are -- really does not require that they be used. it gives the govnment the option to make a decision that is in the best interest of american taxpayer and certainly we want to do

everything that we can possibly do to make sure that we come in on budget or under budget with the highest quality, with the safest work environment, and that we are able to employ the people in our communities to get the job done. as much as we need to improve employment, to increase the number of people who are working, these project labor agreements just add another tool to allow in the world of taxpayer funded contracts to make the most efficient use of those dollars. so i join the gentleman in support of this amendment. i think it's well thought out. it's a benefit to the taxpayers. and with all due respect to my colleague on the other side who is opposed to this amendment, i think thathen it's all said and done, the bottom line is,

these projects, labor agreements, and this executive order while not requiring the use of project labor agreements, will give an added tool in our arsenal to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks to enhance what we do for our country, for our citizens, we put to wrk, to make sure that conditions and terms of their employmentnd work they do are done within appropriate standards. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from ohio for introducing the amendment. once again on an important issue. although i brings up the fact this has been decided in the chamber twice already on other similar circumstances, it's not really the same. because last friday, of course, we found out that our unemployment rate is rising in

the country. it's now 9.1% again. we only created 54,000 jobs, not the 200,000 jobs we hoped we would create. and certainly way less than the 150,000 jobs we need to create in order to get back to full employment. that's how many we need to create every month. at this amendment does very simply, is it means that we are going to have to spend 10% to 20% more on every single project that ends up in a project labor agreement, and more projects will. if more projects wouldn't, then the advocates wouldn't care about whether we put this provision in. it clearly will result in project labor agreements. let's review what a project labor agreement does. what it does first and foremost is increase the cost 10% to 20% of every project. now, mr. chairman if you or i or people in my congressional district the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 204, the nays are 203.

the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for the recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those who support the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 178, the nays are 232, the amendment is not adopted. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will please come to order. the committee will please come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california,

rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. will the committee please come to order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. >> today we had an event on behalf of the wounded warriors, disabled sports vets u.s.a. these are many of our men and women fighting for us who have come back an we appreciate everything they've done for us. on behalf of ander crenshaw and myself my co-captain on the republican side, we want to thank all the members who participated, both members and former members and all the sponsors and all the members involved with the tournament for a good cause. mr. baca: there were no losers. the winners were the wounded warriors. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. will the committee come to order. this is about our wounded warrior the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may proceed.

mr. baca: thank you. the winners were the wounded warriors and the disabled vets who will get an opportunity to revamp their lives, enjoy golf and this is a match between the republicans and the democrats and i know that last year the republicans won and retained the cup then, but today the democrats ended up winning and we daning the cup. -- retaining the cup. so on behalf of all the democrats here and the players who participated, thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield to ander crenshaw, my co-captain. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let the record reflect it's a small trophy that he just held up. but certainly want to congratulate the democratic team. it was a great day to make some friends among the serving members, it was great to see some of the former members come back and visit with them and as

has been pointed out, the real winners were the wounded warriors and the organizations that work every day to help them rebuild their lives. so i want to again congratulate the democratic team members, thank everybody for their involvement, it was a wonderful day. i yield back. mr. baca: thank you very much. with that, it's the speaker's trophy. thank you. i yield back. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nays are 163, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read the last two

lines of the bill. the clerk: page 61, line 3, this act may be cited as a military construction and veterans affairs and related agencies appropriation act of 2012. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundayly ri amendments with a recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill is amended due -- as amended do pass. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr.

chairman. the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2055 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole with recommendation that the amendments be adopted and the bill as amended do pass under house rule 288. the house rule is ordered. the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from washington is correct. pursuant to section 2-h the question is on retaining the title of the bill beginning on page 2, line 8, relating to the department of veterans affairs. the question is shall the title be retained. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 409, the nays are one, with none

answering present they feel question is decided in the affirmative and title 2 of the bill vetained and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19 further consideration of h.r. 2055 is postponed. the chair lay tpwhevers house the following personal requests. the chair: leaves of absence requested for mr. rokita for today and the balance of the week, mr. shimkus for today and mr. wiener for a period of two weeks. the chair: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor to h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk:res. report to accompany house resolution 300, making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agency programmers in fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from house resolution 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now recognize unanimous consent requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, having

just returned from iraq with other members to see our military, we further met with prime minister maliki. we discussed the killing of freedom seekers by iraqi authorities. the united states has turned over protection of these people who oppose dictator ahmadinejad to iraq. the prime minister's candid procedure was the dissidents were responsible for their own deaths and the iraqi government was not responsible for their demise. upon requesting to view the camp and talk to witnesses, you would have thought a political i.e.d. went off. that request was denied. it is disturbing that the prime minister refused us access to the iraqian -- iranian dissidents he promised the united states he would protect.

what does the iraqi government are to hide? maybe the truth. 35 people are dead and hundreds wounded by this new free democracy in iraq. that's just the way it is. sfroip for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas wish to be recognized? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: i rise today to recognize the dallas mavericks on winning the 2011 national basketball association championship. this is the organization's first nba world championship title and i congratulate the team owner mark cuban, coach rick carlisle, his staff, and the entire mavericks organization in this great accomplishment. i also congratulate the team's captain, dirk nowitzki on being named the recipient of the nba's most valuable player

award. so much disturb the mavericks displayed a strong commitment to the dallas community through its foundation. the dallas mavericks foundation is dedicated to inspiring and motivating youth to take their education seriously and stive for healthy bodies and minds. i urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating each member of the 2011 nba championship dallas mavericks for their many victories and their very first championship, the champions of our community. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one minutes? seeing none, under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'd like to yield to some of my friends here. we're going to spend some time talking tonight about the difficulty this country is having in terms of unemployment and job creation. and we've got a big challenge ahead of us and the republicans here in the house have a lot of good ideas about how we can get this economy going. how we can take the regulatory burden off of small businesses, how we can reform the tax code for individuals and for businesses so we can be competitive. i'd like to yield to my friend from illinois, adam kinzinger. mr. kinzinger: i thank the gentleman from arkansas for yielding. you know, we're facing some pretty tough times in our country. i remember days when we had very

little unemployment and if you wanted a job, you had multiple offer when is you got out of college and everybody needed you and the economy was thriving and now we're creeping back up in the unemployment. i remember we passed an $800 billion spending package out of the house of representatives, $800 billion and we were told that if we passed this spending package unemployment will not exceed 8%. and we approached 10% and thankfully unemployment began to come down but now it's stalled out and it's begun beginning to go up again -- beginning to go up again. what we have is this idea of we need to spend, we need to borrow and we need to tax our way to prosperity. and what does that do?

i'll tell what you it does. it raises our taxes and it just piles burdens on our children and grandchildren and us. i mean, yeah, we don't care about our children and grandchildren but even this generation now is swimming in debt. think about this. if you combine the cost of the war in iraq and the cost of the war in afghanistan you can -- afghanistan, you combine them this year, do you realize that's less expensive than what we're paying just in interest on our national debt, just in interest. and that's going to continue to grow. as we add more and more debt, that interest is going to continue to get bigger. and bigger. you know what? we have another year of deficits so the interest is bigger and we have another year and the interest is bigger and meanwhile the job creators, the people who really get this economy rolling, the people who we're going to rely on to take individuals who

are unemployed and take them from recipients of tax dollars where they don't want to be to taxpayers, but it's a small business owner and these factory owners and everything that we want to get manufacturing back, they're the ones that have to say, look, i have to invest for 10 and 15 and 20 years in the future and all i see is the future of debt, doubt and despair -- despair. i think my colleagues will agree with me when i say we live in the greatest country in the world. and i think they'll agree with me when i say there is absolutely no reason, there is no reason that americans should begin to accept the fact that we're in decline. america doesn't have to be a nation in decline. america is a world leader and we can retain our position as a world leader but it's not going to be through what's done in government, it's not going to be by passing more regulations, it's not going to be by passing

more taxation -- taxation, it's not going to be by more and more rules and red tape and -- no. it's going to be done by restoring that entrepreneurial spirit that made our country so great in the first place. i remember as a kid watching cowboy movies and seeinging the old west and how america built the country that we have today and learning about the industrial revolution and learning about those folks that worked long hours to make what we have and being very proud of what i saw every moment. but we've began to accept that that's no longer in our d.n.a. ladies and gentlemen, that's not true, that is in our d.n.a. that is who we are. we can recover from this massive debt we're seeing and we can do it easily. we got to cut spending but we got to get people back to work. my home state of illinois, the president's home state of illinois is a shining example of what not to do to create jobs. in illinois we just increased

the individual tax rate, well, that was probably not overly brilliant because now people are leaving illinois at an even fast er rate than they were prior, but then we did something especially crazy, we increased the corporate tax rate in illinois. so now you have our neighbors in indiana that are really having a field day with businesses coming over to them, you have our friends in texas and in the south like my friend from arkansas that are begging folks to come over and bring their businesses from illinois. in fact, the wall street journal d just came out with an article that said, while illinois has raised $300 million in receipts from this tax increase, they've given away $240 million just to keep businesses there that were leaving because of the tax increase. and then we wonder and then we even contemplate in these halls increasing taxes on job creators again. debt, doubt and despair and big, bloated bureaucracy is in our future right now. it doesn't need to be. our future is a future of the

america that when you remember your parents and grandparents working hard, that's what we're going to be again. the situation we're in is not fun. situation we're in right now is very difficult. it's going to take a lot of hard work, it's going to take tough proposals. we put forward a budget plan to begin to get us out of the deficit and balance the budget, but you know what we got from the other side of the aisle, as my colleagues can attest to, is just demonization. not an alternative that we can take our budget and their budget and try to come up and meet in the middle somewhere which the american people want, they want both sides to talk and come to a conclusion, but we didn't get that. we got television commercials, we got attempts to frighten senior citizens, we got politics as usual. i don't think it's any doubt if you're watching, i'm a young guy. i can tell you that the generation today believes in an

america that i believe in. we see people go overseas all the time. to iraq and afghanistan and defend freedom and stand for what they believe in. you know what? some of these people going overseas today were 8 years old when 9/11 happened. but they know what we represent. i will not accept second place. my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle will not accept an america in decline. because we will maintain our position as the great of the country in the world. -- greatest country in the world. but, ladies and gentlemen, to do that we got to make tough decisions. it can't be about the next election anymore. it's got to be about the next generation. it can't be about 2012, it's got to be somewhat about 2011, right now. so i thank the gentleman from

arkansas for organizing this opportunity just to talk to the american people and say, look, we want to get people back to work. but you can't spend, you can't tax and you can't borrow your way to prosperity. never accept second best. and we will continue to maintain our role as the greatest country in the world and i kind of like being in that position. so i yield back and thank you. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman. you know, i hear a lot of folks who talk about the problem that we have economically, the debt problem, all of the many things that we've been tryinging to address here in the house and i hear them say, well, if we can just -- if we can just get to where we need to be after the next presidential election, after the next president, whether -- whoever that

president is, after that president's sworn in january of 2013, if we can just get to that point in time, then we can really address the problems. that scares me because i don't think we can wait anywhere near that long. in fact, i think we are already, we are already living on borrowed time in terms of the crisis of this country, it's facing. we know for a fact that president clinton appointed a medicare commission over a decade ago, a bipartisan medicare commission, why did he do that? he did it because we had a problem then. we had a problem then in 1998 and we still have that problem now. we have a problem with the insolvency of medicare.

we have a problem with rising health care costs. we have a problem with our debt. and the deficits that we run year after year after year. we have a problem with too much regulation, too much government regulation which stifles job creation. we have a problem with our tax code. you're talking about our business tax code and business taxes, we have a problem there. why? because it's hard to compete with other countries. when you got the highest corporate tax rate in the world. it's not about whether you like big business or small business, it's about job creators and our tax code discourages job creation. if you're talking about individual income tax, we got a problem there, too. we got one of the moast most complicated tax corrode -- one

of the most complicated tax codes. so what have we done about it here in the house? well, on all of these counts we have acted. we have acted. and we've been passing legislation that addresses the jobs issue, our spending issue, medicare, the tax code, overregulation, this is what week of been doing, day in and day out since we got here. and i'd like to yield to some of my friends. before i do i'd just like to say this, we're the only one with a plan. where's the senate's plan? where's the president's plan? so as we discuss here tonight, i just ask us all to think about where's the other plan that we can compare ours to? there's not one.

in fact, former democrat national committee chair who's running for senate now in virginia, tim mccain said today, it's a pretty bad dile deal when the senate hasn't even passed a budget. the u.s. senate doesn't have a plan. the president doesn't have plan. this house, this house has a plan and we're working hard every day to execute it and implement it. i'd like to yield now to the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you and i appreciate my friend's work here on the floor. i just came back from a week in my home district in southwest washington, it's a tremendous place, it's where i grew up. some of my fondest memories are in and around southwest washington, whether it was lakes or rivers or streams or working mirkse first job at the vancouver mall, i know it's not

even called the vancouver mall anymore, i had a lot of opportunities. a lot of opportunities that i am very worried the next generation of washingtonians are not going to have. beaut beaut let me tell you why. our unemployment has been -- mrs. beautler: these aren't just empty numbers, these represent families and lives. clark county, 10.2%, 11.9%. mrs. butler: lewis county, 13.2%, 12.5%. 11.8%. 12.9%. and 8%. one of the reasons and let me compare those numbers quickly. you know, one of the reasons that i'm not happy about 8%, i'm not happy about 13%, but there's a slight difference in the reason that the counties are

slightly lower than other counties and that's where the state government is housed so there are more government jobs, more public sector jobs in that area. ms. herrera beutler: but the rest of the district and even in thirsten county is based on small businesses. those are the hearts and souls of our economy. small business owners, entrepreneurs, mom and pop shops. i got to tour a vacuum pump, an engineer that started a small little company, built it up, he's passing it onto his son, who he's now expanded into two accounts and he has a vision to grow and hire people. in fact, he has been able to stay afloat these last few years because a lot of the trade that he's done, he's done, he deals with other corporations and other companies across the world, which is one of the reasons he's been able to remain competitive. but you know what he told me this last week when i was home and i was touring his new facility? he said, jamie, and i wish i could give you his greek accent by i can't, he said, jamie, i'm

a proud american. i built this company. because i believe in the entrepreneurial spirit of america. i believe in this country. but you in washington, d.c., and he's speaking to the governing class here, are making it harder for me to function. you're making it harder for me to survive. the unpredictability, the high taxes, shoot the new energy proposals, some of which the president has supported, he said, jamie, if that cap and trade bill went into effect or if you increase my energy taxes through the e.p.a., i will be out of business. i will not be able to hire the next generation of engineers and pass this company on. and other small businesses around our whole region and around our nation are saying the same thing. can you give us some applicantability? quit raising our taxes, get the e.p.a. off our backs? we all want to protect our way of life, but what's happening right now is small business owners, the job creators are being squeezed and why? you know, i was reflecting on, it's true, neither the senate

nor the president could support a really strong governing jobs agenda this year and when we got to meet with the president a couple of weeks ago he said, you know, he pointed to some of the bills that they passed last year and some of the plans. if i reflect on the $700 billion-plus bailout or the $800 billion stimulus or the health care bill that was over $1 trillion, one would think if we spent that kind of money we would have the jobs to show for it. but where are the jobs think? just read you the unemployment numbers for southwest washington state, they have actually not gone up in tremendous rise, so clearly borrowing and spending more has at least at the very least a negligentble affect. we can do better. we have to do better. the way we do that, stop bailing out big corporations, banks, auto dealers, right? stop spending more money.

we had a meeting, with bankers, they were asking about more investment, i asked them about the $800 billion stimulus bill that the president and democrats voted on and passed last year, how much that stimulated job creation. you know what they told me? less than 3% of that number went to build roads. remember the shovel ready that was talked about, we're passing this because we're going to build infrastructure, i'm one of those who believes infrastructure is important. less than 3%, less than 3.5% was used to build roads. where is the rest thoof money? my goodness, we borrowed almost half of that. we're going to pass the interest and debt to the next generation yet we didn't use it on what we said we were going to use it on that tells me we're spending too much, borrowing too much, it's time to cut back. every family in southwest

washington and across this nation has cut their own budget back in recent years. every small business owner, job creator, i have several in my area who haven't take an paycheck in several years in order that they not lay anyone else off. and they're looking at us saying, why can't you live within your means? guess what, we're going to. not only are we going to make sensible cuts in reductions but we're going to stimulate job growth. energy was one of the things i mentioned. in the last couple of months we passed several bills that allow us to drill for energy here in america useding american entrepreneurialism, american innovation and creating american jobs. i call on our senate to pass those bills and the president to sign them into law. they're saying thousands and thousands of jobs could be created here in america if we simply take advantage of the resources in our back yard that will do several things, it will drive down the cost of gas that

will hit every family and every small business here in the next several months. that's one step we can take in addition to cutting back spending, that's a jobs production bill. we could also make sure we allow for predictability. with these federal regulations coming out, small business owners call me regularly and they say, good grief, i barely get one rule under order and you're sending me fave more. i can't keep up. small business owners can't hire someone to dedicate, someone who is not productive and dedicate that person's time to going through federal regulations. maybe a big corporation could, who can retain lots of lobbyists or lawyers, but you know, the true value hardware on main street in ridgefield don't have -- both owners actually work the store. they can't waste money to jump through government regulations and government hoops. it's got to stop. the e.p.a. last year released

$900 -- released 900 new regulations. 900. do you know what the e.p.a. acting director for the water department told us in the transportation committee two or three months ago? she basically said she didn't have to take into account any of those regulations and their impact on our economy. that wasn't her concern. i'm sorry, since when does the government put forward regulations and rules and say, we don't have any concern for what that's going to do to the economy. that's why we're in the mess we're in now. we can change it. we can take some steps to bring some oversight to these regulatory agencies that are just going crazy. we're going to work to streamline those and we're going to do it now because house republicans believe and understand that job creators and job growth occurs in the private sector when individuals and entrepreneurs have the freedom to gre and develop, not

when they're hampered, not when their wrists are tide, not when they're told, you have to jump through hoops just to sell your product or hire someone. it's got to stop. that's why we're putting forward and house republicans are proud to put forward bills that are either going to pull back some regulations, streamline them, reform them, or allow for more american job growth here in the united states. i appreciate that and look forward to hearing what my other colleagues have to say about this pro-growth ayen da. >> before i yield to my colleague i'd like to go through the plan that the house republicans have put together that certainly includes addressing the debt and addressing our spending. mr. griffin: we believe that will help get us on the right fiscal path and help this country, the private sector, create jobs.

but there's much, much more to what we're trying to do here in the house to encourage private sector job creation. i'd like to run through some of those. as i indicated, certainly we need to deal with the debt. that's why we talk about reforming medicare. and saving medicare for those on it. and saving it for the next generation. we talk about that a lot because that directly relates to our debt. we have to get our debt under control if we are going have the type of job growth that we are accustomed to in this country. job growth based on technological advancement and innovation. so dealing with the debt is a critical component of encouraging private sector job creation. but there are other parts to our plan. they include increasing energy

development, maximizing energy production. we have passed numerous bills here in the house that will encourage drilling in the gulf and that will encourage drilling offshore. so that we can create more jobs in energy production and become energy independent. it's not just the jobs issue, it's a national security issue. there's also the issue of the tax code. i referred to it earlier. we can't be competitive in this country if we don't reform the way that we tax individuals and the way we tax businesses. ultimately, when businesses decide to land somewhere, they look and they say, is that where i want to do business? and unfortunately, we have created an environment in this country that runs business off.

we want businesses to look around the world and say, the united states is where i want to create jobs. that's the only place for me. in order to do that, we've got to make sure that we have rules in place that encourage private sector job creation. so i'd now like to yield to my colleague from colorado. >> i thank the gentleman from arkansas for organizing tonight's conversation with our plan for detailing what our jobs plan is all about and how we're going to restore the greatness of america, by creating an economy for job creators. the gentlelady from washington reminded me of my visits throughout my district this past week, eastern colorado, northern colorado, colorado's fourth congressional district, it's around 6:00 back home, probably a lot of people just

now coming flome work or about to get off work and they're worried about how they're going to continue to pay for their daughter's education. mr. gardner: how they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to afford the car payment. i would make sure that every single person here tonight is to assure them that we have a plan for jobs that we have voted on for jobs and we'll continue to pursue policies to create jobs in this country, not because they're created by government, but because we get government out of the way and allow the private sector to flourish. this last week in colorado, i met with a number of businesses, toured a number of businesses in northern and eastern colorado, had an opportunity to talk to the leadership of those companies and to the people that work on the lines in the factories. and i was struck by one statement. one statement by an individual who said, it's time that we let loose the innovators and entrepreneurs in america.

what are we doing to let loose the innovators and entrepreneurs in this great country? i know what the republicans have been doing to make sure we're reducing regulations. to make sure we have an energy policy that instead of strangling the american working family, helps the american working family, that opens up our resources. we can do so in an environmentally responsible manner. we have done it and will continue to do it. we will continue to pursue tax policies that are fair that don't chase bayses -- businesses overseas but allow jobs to be created right here. another business own for the my state gave me a call last year and said, my number one competitor just moved to ireland. and i'm left with a choice. i can either stay headquartered here in colorado and pay 30% more in taxes than they do, or i can go overseas and find another place to do business and take those jobs with me.

that's not the kind of choice that we ought to be presenting in this country to the men and women who create business in the united states. instead of deciding where to go, the question they ought to be asking is, how much can we grow right here in the u.s.? along these lines of the factories that i toured, the manufacturing plants i toured, i spoke to one employee who came up to me and said, i'm glad this business is located in colorado. i'm glad they chose colorado. it wasn't that long ago that i was a state legislator and i remember one of the debates we were dealing with was a particular regulation that many small businesses were struggling to figure out whether or not they could survive under that regulation. while the debate in the colorado state legislateture was taking place on whether or not it was good for job creation or not, there was an advertisement on one of the state's largest radio stations from our neighbor to the north,

the great state of wyoming, and their chamber of commerce in one of their municipalities said, come to wyoming a business-friendly place. they said that because colorado is forcing a regulation on its business owners that was going to put the men and women of our state out of business. they saw an opportunity. they said come to us, we'll take your jobs. we'll take your businesses. you can do it right here and you'll be better for it. that's not the kind of policy i want for colorado and that's not the kind of policy i want for the united states. the policy of this country should be this, we will make sure our government gets out of your way to let you do what you do best, run your businesses, your families, and your lives. and we're not going to foster policies that force you to make a decision to go overseas because of an arbitrary decision on the tax code or a