protecting privacy and security of persons who use i.o.t. technology. the i.o.t. refers to the wireless environment that will support networking of physical objects or things embedded with wireless electronic components software, sensors and network connectivity. the i.o.t. will introduce the functionality of computing into physical space as computing technologies integrated into devices and systems. this jackson lee-sewell amendment will allow congress to take into consideration how i.o.t. technologies can be used to make public transportation safer, more convenient to the elderly and the disabled and how it may improve mass personal transportation efficiencies. . this amendment will help ensure we harness the benefit of things and minimize the threats to privacy and cybersecurity presented by this new

technology. i would like to introduce two things into the record. first, the article entitled, how the internet of things is improving transportation and logistics and an article entitled mapping i.o.t. into -- the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be considered under general leave. the gentlelady yields back. mr. shuster: i claim the time in opposition although i do not oppose. the lady has a sound amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in part b of house report 114 dash

325. for -- 114-325, for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507 the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the work that has been done in this underlying legislation to put more -- national priority dealing with non-motorized safety. this new program gives states funding for vision zero-type activities that are on the

forefront of what's happening in communities around the country that are not accepting the carnage on the highways for pedestrians and cyclists and become able to use these tools and re-engineer and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. being struck by a motor vehicle is the leading cause of injury-related death for children under 14 and being struck by a motor vehicle is the second-leading cause for senior citizens. our young and our old. and in low-income neighborhoods, there is a much hire pedestrian rate than in hire income areas. fatalities on our roadways have declined but the number of pedestrians annually rose 16% over the course of the last five years. we spend billions on surface

transportation every year, not as much as we should, but a significant amount of money. yet, we are spending less than a billion on critical bike and pedestrian and federal projects. that's why i strongly support the new non-motorized public safety program. i have one modest concern. it only states where 15% or more of the traffic -- fall talts are non-motorized are eligible for this funding. only 20 states and the district of columbia would qualify. this seems backwards to me. when we have this carnage occurring in communities large and small across the country, this provision would actually reward states with federal money that are more dangerous for pedtrins and doesn't provide

incentives for those states who have lower the number of bikes and -- bikers and pedestrians. i introduced this legislation with my colleague, congressman buchanan from florida, who is the co-chair of the bike caucus to make this funding available to virtually every state by lowering the eligibility threshold to 2% of the fall talts and double the funding for non-motorized safety programs. madam speaker, this is serious business. i have encountered people from around the country who are part of this revolution in terms of enhancing bike and pedestrian facilities. this congress has been in the forefront of moving it forward. i think extending the eligibility of this program would be in keeping with this record of accomplishment. and i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i claim time in opposition. i do oppose this amendment. in this bill we have created a competitive grant program for non-motorized users. in this program, it stood up for the first time. we should let them have them stand it up. this amendment would cut funding for critical safety programs that keep drunk drivers off our highways and encourages seatbelt use and improves safety programs. the funds would be in a program. the focus is on bikes and pedestrian safety. i commend the gentleman, but this is a new program that is set up. i would urge that we let them stand the program up and whether or not we should allocate more

money. i oppose the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i appreciate what the committee has done putting this new program in. i think it's important and i look forward to its success, but since it is a competitive grant program, allowing most states to be eligible doesn't take that away. and the other areas that he is talking about have much more generous funding than programs that hit our youth and our senior citizens in terms of bike and pedestrians. i think by any rational re-allocation -- this is a drop in the bucket to $28 million overall. it would be money well spent and allow the program to be able -- to evaluate which programs are the best particularly some that are -- have successfully lowered

their accident rate a little bit below the 15% threshold. maybe they've got something going. maybe they've got something we could use for national application. i request that the amendment be approved. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the question is, on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. kirkpatrick: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report 114-325 offered by mrs. kirkpatrick of

arizona. the chair: the gentlewoman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. kirkpatrick: i thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio and subcommittee chair graves and ranking member holmes norton for accepting my amendment on distracting driving. texting is an extremely dangerous activity as it requires drivers to take their eyes, hands and minds off the task of driving. drivers aged 16-24 have the highest pro pencity to text while driving. cell phone conversations with hands-held or hand-free are dangerous as well. a study of m.r.i.'s shows the area of the brain responsible for processing moving visual

information, a vital part of driving, has 37% less capacity when talking on the phone. a driver texting may miss up to 50% of his or her driving environment even when looking through the windshield. this includes stop signs, pedestrians and red lights. according to the university of utah applied cognition laboratory. this simple commonsense amendment ensures that states that have enacted texting and teen cellphone bands qualify for funding. this amendment would allow additional states to qualify for a distracted driving funding by maintaining the core safety requimplete of the grant. the amendment has the support of a.a.a. and highway and auto

safety and madd the national safety council and safe kids worldwide. we want to ensure that states that make necessary improvements to their directed driving laws qualify for incentive grant funding. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i claim time in opposition although i do not oppose. this makes an important change to the incentive grant program that i will when sure more states can qualify for funding. i urge its adoption and i yield back. the chair: scrasm pennsylvania yields back. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment

is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in part banch of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in part bmp of house report 114-325 offered by miss rice of new york. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york, miss rice and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mr. rice: one issue that has -- ms. rice: as any parent of a teenage child can tell you they don't have the maturity to drive

safely 100% of the time and that could have deadly consequences for themselves and others. in 2013, more than 4,000 people were killed involving teenaged drivers. the fatal crash risk is three times higher. my amendment will help reduce those risks by encouraging all 50 states to require requirements that we know will help keep teens safe. this amendment encourages states to enact meaningful requirements to keep everyone safe on our roads. the amendment would require young drivers to go through two stages of licensing, a lerner's permit and a driving stage. they have to pass vision and knowledge tests and supervised when they dive and gain 50 hours of experience behind the wheel with 10 of those hours at night they must be prohibited from using a cell phone as all

drivers should be regardless of age because the most experienced driver become dangerous. a lerner who passes a driving test advances to the intermediate stage and intermediate drivers cannot drive after 10:00 p.m. with reasonable exception. 80% of crashes involving 17 -year-olds happen between 10:00 and midnight and this reduces crashes. intermediate drivers cannot have drunk driver violations, failure to wear seat belts. these are the basic requirements that we know are necessary to help young people and keep people safe. this should be the law in every american state. my amendment helps us move towards that goal and give grant

funding. this amendment is supported by the national safety council as well as a.a.a., advocates for highway and auto safety, mothers against drunk driving and safe kids worldwide. the language in this amendment is the same language in the drive act which passed in the senate which passed by overwhelming bipartisan support. it deserves the same support in the house and i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. thank you and i reserve. . the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. shuster: i rise in opposition. this amendment would gut the reforms in this bill that ensures more states with graduated driver's license programs would qualify for this programs. map 21 established an incentive grant program to improve teen driver safety to adopt graduated license programs. unfortunately the federal

requirements for the program were too prescriptive which happens so many times. we put out something and what the results are over 40 states have graduated license programs in place today and none of them qualify for grant funds in 2014. the star act reforms the federal requirements and ensures more states will qualify for funding. this amendment does little to reform the federal requirements. few if any states will qualify for funds. i would urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment. reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. . miss rice: i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i'd be glad to work with you. there are reforms in here.

we'd love to work with you and move this forward to make sure these reforms get into place when we have a final bill on the floor. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the chair understands that amendment number 25 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. duncan: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mr. duncan: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. duncan of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee mr. duncan, and a

member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: madam chairman, my amendment requires the department of transportation to conduct a study on the operations of a double decker motorcoach equipped with a luggage carrier on the rear of the vehicle. the department of transportation will be required to report its findings back to the congress 60 days after enactment of the bill. federal law does not limit the length of buses but provides states cannot limit buses to less than 45 feet. the majority but not all states adopted laws providing for a 45-foot maximum limit for buses years ago when all inner city buses were no longer than that length. however, the 45-foot limit in the states effectively precludes the attachment of luggage carrier, known commonly as a luggage box, to the back of modern buses because the

luggage boxes extend the bus by about two feet and several inches over the 45-foot limit. luggage boxes have been in use, madam chair woman, for many years in europe where they are used by over 600 bus operators. they're currently in use in florida and georgia neither have a bus limit. even with the luggage box, these buses are much shorter than most truck-trailer combinations. further, an intensive study by two respected ex-nhtsa engineers last year has confirmed that the luggage box poses no hazard to the bus, its passengers or highway safety. in fact, no federal or state vehicle safety agency has raised in the objection to the use of the luggage box. while there is no evidence that the use of these luggage boxes are unsafe, i think we would

benefit from an independent study by the department of transportation so everyone will be completely assured that there is no safety risk involved in these luggage boxes at all. i hope my colleagues will support this very minor amendment to have the department of transportation conduct this study and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: though i am not opposed to the amendment, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition. the chair: without objection. mr. defazio: i congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. i think, you know, this will help provide us with more factual knowledge in terms of looking at any future changes as it might relate to these sorts of buses and also will provide useful information to consumers. so i think it's very well thought out and i congratulate the gentleman and urge support.

the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. defazio: i yield back. sorry. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: well, i certainly appreciate that support from the ranking member, mr. defazio, and i yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? mrs. comstock: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mrs. comstock of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507 the gentlewoman from virginia mrs. comstock, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virginia. mrs. comstock: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment which incorporates important provisions from a bill of mine, h.r. 3585, the surface transportation research and development act of 2015. i appreciate that i serve on two committees that are very important to my district, the transportation and infrastructure committee, and the science, space and technology committee. i'm also honored to the subcommittee on research and technology which came together to pass this measure. this amendment, which consists of parts of this bill, is common sense and bipartisan and provides for more and better solutions to ease traffic congestion and provide key research for transportation. the first part of the amendment further clarifies language in the underlying bill regarding universities' abilities to submit grant applications for the university transportation

center program as either the lead or partnering applicant. this provides more universities the opportunity to seek these funds. the second part directs the secretary of transportation to develop a five-year strategic plan for transportation research and development. the third part of the amendment covers an issue that will be appreciated by members representing urban and suburban areas of the country and that is traffic congestion. it provides authority for the assistant secretary of transportation for research and technology to conduct research to reduce traffic congestion, and that research would ask the assistant secretary to help first, accelerate the adoption of transportation management systems that allow better traffic to flow -- allow traffic to better flow in safe and more efficient ways. second, to assess traffic, transit and freight data from various sources. third, develop and disseminate strategies to reduce congestion for high-density traffic

regions. and fourth, to collaborate with other federal, state and local governments as well as industry and universities. the fourth and final part of this amendment authorizes the assistant secretary to transmit a report to congress on rail safety issues. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from virginia reserves the balance of her time. does any member seek time? the gentlewoman is recognized. the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized. mrs. comstock: at this time -- at this time i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the house science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: i thank the gentlewoman from virginia for yielding me time.

i support the amendment sponsored by representative barbara comstock, chair of the science committee's research and technology subcommittee and the subcommittee's ranking minority member dan lipinski. the science, space and technology committee has jurisdiction over research, development and technology programs at the department of transportation. in anticipation of a house surface transportation authorization bill, the committee exercised its jurisdiction with the transportation research and development hearing in june. and in september, the subcommittee marked up h.r. 3585 the surface transportation research and development act of 2015. it is essential that we find a way to maintain a healthy substantive research base for america's transportation initiatives. we have to ensure that congress gets its priorities right and that taxpayers receive maximum value for their hard-earned tax dollars. h.r. 3585 does just that.

this makes the science committee's jurisdiction over r&d programs at the department of transportation particularly relevant. since the introduction and subsequent markup of the underlying bill, members and staff of the science committee have worked closely with our counterparts on the house transportation and infrastructure committee to ensure inclusion of some of the science committee's priorities into the highway bill. so i want to thank chairman shuster for working with congresswoman comstock and me in this venture. i look forward to further discussions after the house passes this bill as we continue to work cooperatively on policy deliberations and resolution of individual r&d provisions during the house-senate conference. again, i thank chairman shuster for his support of this amendment and i thank the gentlewoman from virginia for introducing the underlying bill that has been put into this underlying bill as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition though i am not in opposition. the chair: without objection. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: thanks. i actually rise in support of the amendment, and i particularly wanted to congratulate my colleague, dan lipinski, who serves on both science and the transportation committee for his work on this amendment, and i would yield to him such time as he might consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: thank you. i'd like to thank the ranking member for yielding and for his support of this amendment. i'd like to thank chairwoman comstock and chairman smith for working with me and working together on this amendment. the piece of the amendment to address is the language based on a small piece of the future trip act which i introduced co-sponsored by chairwoman

comstock and we passed in the research and technology subcommittee of the science space and technology committee. the chairwoman is chair of that committee. i'm ranking member on that subcommittee. the language in this amendment from my bill calls for regional transportation center on connected vehicles and connected infrastructure. connected and vehicles hold enormous promise for safe, efficient transportation. and the research center could play a huge part in this area. so i'm very pleased to have it included in this amendment. the amendment also contains language from my bill in regard to university transportation centers. it allows universities to lead one proposal for each type of center. it also permits the university to collaborate on as many awards as they like as long as they're not leading the proposal. this gives increased flexibility to those universities that have special expertise in this area.

so i want to thank chairman shuster, ranking member defazio for their support in working with us and urge my colleagues to support this and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. and the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. mrs. comstock: thank you, madam chairman. i thank chairman smith and i thank ranking member lipinski for their support and i also thank committee chairman shuster and our ranking member for working with us on this amendment and i urge passage of this amendment that will help bring our transportation system into the 21st century. and with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from virginia yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. barletta: thank you madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment to offer? mr. barletta: yes. madam chairman, i'm offering an amendment to make the transportation of crude oil -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. barletta of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. . mr. barletta: i'm making an amendment that transportation of crude oil safer.

all flammable liquids should be retrofitted. this is in addition to the safety measures included in the recent tank rule. the new safety measures would place top-fitting probings on the tank car. these top fittings protect the relief valve which protects the integrity of a tank car. it can slowly release the gases. in the event that it is exposed to pressure buildup as a result of a derailment. this decreases the likelihood of a major incident. the newer tank cars have this protection. the newer cars do not have this enhanced protection. that's about 50% of the expected retrofit tank car fleet making this reform very important. a similar requirement was considered and rejected during

the tank rulemaking process due to cost benefit concerns. this is a less costly option that is supported by the association of american railroads the american chemistry council, the railway supply institute, the american petroleum institute and renewable fuels association and i'm proud to offer this amendment to improve the safety of moving crude oil by rail. this is an issue that is very important to pennsylvania. i thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for working with me on this amendment. i thank mr. lipinski for co-sponsoring the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i claim time in opposition although i'm not in opposition. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for noting this

deficiency in the rule the two gentlemen involved. it is inex politicable that they noted the need in the new design to have protection against the valve, they did not extend that to retrofitted cars. this amendment will ensure they meet the stronger standards. i think this amendment has tremendous merit and i would yield to the gentleman from illinois, democratic sponsor of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. barr leta for all his work. i rise in support of the amendment and ask my colleagues to support it. this amendment is common sense and strengthen the tank car rule for requiring legacy tank cars to include enhanced top-fitting

probings for pressure relief valves. the valves on a new tank car standards allow gases to reduce the tank car rupturing which could happen if it is heated after a derailment or accident. this valve is susceptible to damage as it can be torn off thus eliminating any safety benefits. to mitigate this issue, this amendment would require a small protective device to help keep this valve in place after an accident and save lives in the process. this amendment is supported by the american petroleum instulet association of railroads american chemistry council and something that has been called for by first responders who have a lot of these trains going through their districts. i know it's very important to me in my district in the

chicagoland area. we are the rail hub with 40% of the rail traffic throwing flowing through. more crude oil passes through chicago than anywhere else in the nation with upwards of 40 mile-unit railways and go through crossings in my district, which are close to my own home. while the energy renaissance has brought relief is the require use of rail to make sure it is transported in the safest possible manner. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. barletta: i urge a yes vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in part bmp of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: first of all, i want to come to the floor and say thank you to chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for their great work in bringing a long-term transportation bill to

the floor. they need to really be congratulated on the work they have done in negotiating the finer points of this bill which i think is nearly perfect with one small flaw which i will attempt to cure with my amendment. madam chair, in my district and many districts across the united states, we are dealing with a situation where high pressure gas lines natural gas lines are being extended and expanded in some urban areas and rural areas. i have three areas in my district that are impacted severely in some respects. the town of dedham and weymouth and west roxbury offers the most clear example. we have an active quartery, a

gravel quartery and located yards away from a residential area, you could throw a baseball from the blasting zone of the quartery to the residential homes. you have kids there, schools densely settled population. and ferc in its wisdom has authorized the placement of a high-pressure gas line that runs through the gas zone, through the active gas zone adjacent to the residential area where my constituents live where they are raising their families and kids go to bed at night and we cannot get entrance into the process because ferc controls the whole process. they make their decision and then in the appeal they get to review their own decision. what this amendment would do is in those situations like the

west roxbury situation where you have a pipeline company putting in a high-pressure gas line through an active blast zone, you would have an appeal process where the public safety officers of the state could ask tore a review on public safety grounds of that decision to place that pipeline. now in all fairness to the community they are just asking them to relocate the pipeline out of the blast zone. it would seem to make sense that that would be a reasonable request, but i think obviously the pipeline company is interested in reducing costs and delivering their product. and i'm trying to intervene as any member of congress would just to take a second look at this, a fresh set of eyes on the

request that the pipeline company has made and ferc has authorized. that's the purpose of my amendment here. i'm trying to get a fair hearing on this decision, which i think is a horrendous decision and may result in a loss of life here if they aren't careful. we don't have much of a buffer zone between the pipeline, the quartery and the homes where the people live. that's the purpose of my amendment. and i'm urging my colleagues here to consider themselves being in my position to keep your constituents from a palpable danger hoping that this body would recognize the wisdom in having a real appeal process. i reserve for now. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? mr. shuster: i certainly understand where the gentleman is coming from. i don't know all the details, but it sounds troubling, but your amendment as it's written would go far beyond the mandate. this would significantly slow down construction around the country to complete some of these pipelines or even to start them. pipelines are extremely safe. again i understand and empathize with the gentleman. pipelines carry 99.997% of all hazardous materials safely to their destination and make sure that scares resources are focused to make sure that pipelines are operated safely. at a time when the country needs more pipelines, your amendment is written broadly and the consequences. i would have to vote in

opposition to your amendment but i would like to he help the gentleman if i can. but this amendment is just too broadly written, so i would oppose. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: how much do i have to go on? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. lynch: we have a pipeline safety bill that is coming up later in the session. i would appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman to try to address that. but i do want to remind -- these are very very unique situations. you don't have cases where you have a high-pressure gas line being put through a blast zone near residential homes. it would require a special danger to exist before the state could take action. and we are only asking for extra review. and i would remind the members there was a tragic incident in 2010 where eight people were

killed and homes destroyed during a natural gas pipeline explosion. this is a rare situation. i realize you have to build pipelines, but i think you ought to do it without putting the gas line through a blast zone adjacent to residential homes. i think you can find another route that wouldn't go through the blast zone. one in my district and chose to go right through it. i know the gentleman and i know the hard work you put into this bill, but i'm looking for relief of people i care about and i'm fearful of the con see quepses. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lynch: i appreciate the courtesy and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. shuster: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. mr. lynch: may i get a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 114-325 offered by mr. lewis of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507. the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: i appreciate the chair and the ranking member's hard work on this bill. i rise to offer an amendment

that is very important to the people in metro atlanta. my amendment would allow federal funds from the surface transportation block grant program to be used to construct type two north barriers. these are barriers built to cut down noise along existing highways. current federal laws ties the hands of state transportation agencies. it limits their ability to address quee priority of life concerns in the planning process. madam speaker my office has been working with the georgia department of transportation for years to address these concerns. many communities in metro atlanta are tired of the noise and just want some peace and quiet. we are ready to move forward, but we need congress to untie our hands. my amendment does not cost one

cent, not one dime. if anything, it improves the effectiveness of the money we already send to the states. it does not require the states build these barriers. instead, it allows them the flexibility they need to minimize federal funds to raise property values and to improve the quality of life in communities across america. mr. speaker, we have the opportunity to do something that will make our citizens' lives better. living next to a highway can be a headache when you have good -- can be a headache. when you have good and quiet neighborhoods, when you can get some sleep, you can be happy. i urge adoption of my amendment. thank you madam speaker.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition on the amendment by the gentleman from georgia? the gentleman from pennsylvania? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i rise in opposition. this is the prohibition on noise barriers on existing roads is put in place for a reason. residents and businesses have coexisted with highways should not be -- people built their businesses. i understand there's increased traffic. certainly here in the washington, d.c. area, but these noise barriers should be reserved for new highways. significant highway expansion that will result in change of conditions to neighborhoods. again, if a home builder is willing to build the house next to a highway or an airport they know what the consequences are. and to have to put this burden on the taxpayers is just something i don't believe is fair. and given we have limited resources, funding should be reserved for highway and bridge

construction and not used for noise barriers on existing highways. it's up to the developer if they're building a development along that to pay that bill and, again, not to the taxpayers. so i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania yields to the gentleman from washington. mr. defazio: i think there are different conditions. certainly if a developer buys a large track of land next to an existing interstate and then expects, you know, the taxpayers to pay for sound protection, that's not right. but i think there are cases where you found that, you know, a lot of interstates were built in areas, you know, where there wasn't a lot of traffic, houses had been there for quite sometime and now the traffic has grown phenomenally particularly truck traffic and things that create noise.

i think there may be a way to do it in certain circumstances where it's not due to new development but due to traffic and noise and that. i don't know if the chairman would consider -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i that i the gentleman from oregon has a reasonable argument. i think those things do occur and that will be something i'd continue to work with you and work in the future on as we move forward on this. as the amendment stands right now i'd have to oppose it. i'm fully willing to accept what the gentleman from oregon says and work with it. i have great respect for the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania -- mr. shuster: reservings. the chair: reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: thank you, madam speaker. with the discussion and words of the chairman and the ranking member, i withdraw the amendment. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his amendment, without objection. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in part b of house report 114-325.

for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from california, mr. takano and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. takano: madam chair, the nationally significant freight and highway projects program in this bill will address critical infrastructure needs that will

improve america's economic competitiveness. but will also bring tremendous benefit to our communities, especially districts like mine, which is the ep center of the international -- epicenter of the international supply chain moving through long beach. freight corridors that run through areas such as mipe including chicago, new york, new jersey, seattle bring jobs and spur economic growth. however, they also create congestion, pollution and safety concerns. one of the primary strategies to alleviate these conditions pollution accidents is to build rail grade separations that allow trains and cars to flow freely. in fact, grade separations are explicitly mentioned in the bill as eligible to receive funding from the nationally significant freight and highway projects program. however, the $100 million threshold far exceeds the cost of most grade separation projects. to better achieve the intent of

this bill, my amendment simply clarifies that a program of eligible projects, such as a corridor of grade separations, to be eligible to receive funding from this program. there is ample legislative precedent for programs of projects to be eligible -- to be eligible for funding. most notably the tifia loan program, the national highway performance program, highway safety and improvement program. this amendment recognizes that addressing nationally significant transportation challenges are not always best addressed through one major project but instead a comprehensive package of related projects that achieve a meaningful national objective. an example of this type of project is the alameda corridor east which was first recognized 10 years ago by this house in the safetea-lu. the almaida corridor east was

designated as a project of national and regional significance spanning four counties in the nation's largest urban area, stretching over 100 miles of rail. in my county alone, riverside county, this federal funding in partnership with local self-help tax dollars has made possible nearly half billion dollars in freight projects that is cleaning our air, making our constituents safer and making the national economy more efficient. however, of these 16 projects in the corridor the highest cost project was $67 million. yet, together they have had a tremendous impact on the transportation system. my amendment ensures this momentum can continue, not just in my district, but in all communities that are impacted by our national freight system. this is an easy technical fix, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: the nationally significant freight and highway projects program is the core reform, a new program in this bill. it's fundamental to this bill's redirecting us back to our national interests on these freight corridors and these major projects, allowing a group of smaller -- small projects to count towards the $100 million threshold for eligibility would actually destroy the very purpose of the program. to provide funding for large-scale projects, that's large-scale projects that states cannot fund with their formula dollars that they get. in our bill it's very different than what the senate bill does. the senate bill puts it out in formula. that's not going to solve the problem. this program will solve some of those problems that states cannot fund with again, the money that's coming from their formulas. many bridge projects, for example, fall into this

category, as do large highway expansion projects. the only exception is a 10% set-aside for smaller freight projects with an impact on interstate commerce. again, the nationally significant freight and highway projects program in this bill was carefully crafted and negotiated with our ranking member and the folks on the other side of the aisle. and we believe the program is properly structured. so, again, i would oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam chair, i yield two to -- two minutes to my colleague and neighbor, congressman aguilar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. aguilar: i rise in support of my fellow empire inland colleague, mr. takano's amendment. improving our roads, rails and bridges is crucial for the inland empire an area we

represent. working families rely on transportation to get to and from work to get their children to school, and to play a role in our regional, state and national economies. this amendment would allow more local projects to meet that $100 million threshold to qualify for nationally significant freight and highway projects program that would otherwise not meet the requirements and would be excluded from funding. the project in colton is just one program in san bernardino county that would benefit directly from this project, one in california and throughout the nation. this would help sbrernsbrern and millions of working families and public safety officials who require the grade separations throughout our country who rely on transportation and infrastructure each and every day. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i just again say i know the gentleman where you

come from. i've not been there once i've not been there twice, i've been there several times. southern california has every known problem in the transportation world because of the congestion, your ports. it's an important part of the country but again, this program was carefully crafted to make sure there are projects we can get to. smaller projects would take away from the focus of this program and this bill and try to get back to what our national priorities are when that has to be moving freight and one of those key places is the port of los angeles long beach, but there are places around the country and we think this program will be address those with large sums of money, not bits and pieces flowing out there. at this time -- i understand where you're coming from. i've been there. i understand the problems in southern california but i would have to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam chair, i

appreciate the sentiment of the gentleman from pennsylvania that he's been to our region and understands the importance of making sure that freight through rail is moved expeditiously. i do urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i wish that the gentleman would have a change of heart, but in any event i do yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. takano: madam chair, on that i demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 114-325.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. brownley: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by ms. brownley of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentlewoman from california, ms. brownley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. brownley: thank you, madam speaker. and i would like to begin by thanking the chairman and ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee for their work on this bipartisan bill. i worked very hard to become a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee because i wanted very much to be part of a team that gets things done. when i first joined the committee, many of my constituents back in ventura county questioned whether the 114th congress could get a

surface transportation bill through the house. the progress that we've made so far on the bill is a testament to the good work that congress can do when we work together in a bipartisan way through the committee process to get things done for the american people. i'm also very appreciative of the rules committee for making my amendment in order this evening. . my amendment would fix a small problem with the freight program and allow smaller and mid sized communities to compete for a slightly larger piece of the pie. i agree with many of my colleagues that we absolutely must address capacity issues along long haul routes and frathe corridors and we must address the bottleneck in congested metropolitan areas. we must also address the first and last miles to our ports,

freight yards and other job centers in our community. however, i am concerned that the freight program created in this bill includes a minimum project threshold of $100 million. let me repeat. $100 million is the minimum threshold. many of us represent small and mid sized communities. in my district of ventura county, we have struggled over the past few years to address freight bottlenecks in our community including along rice avenue where we have seen far too many deadly accidents in recent years. but as this bill is currently drafted, ventura county and many other small and mid sized communities across the country won't be able to fully compete for the freight program. we just don't have the resources back home to compete with these large projects. but that doesn't mean that we

don't have freight bottlenecks and all that i'm seeking is to ensure that small and mid sized communities, like my county, ventura county, can better compete. my simple amendment would increase the small project set aside from 10% to 20% of the available resources to allow more communities across the country to compete neers limited resources. the small project threshold is $5 million or more. my amendment will still leave 80% of the money for larger projects. increasing the small project set aside will not gaurn tee funds for any specific project but it will give many of our districts at least a fighting chance to compete for one fifth of the fund under the new freight program. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ereserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: let me first say to the gentlelady from california thank you for your valuable contribution in putting this bill together and your hard work in committee. we thank you for that. you play an important role in developing this bill. once again, the nationally significant freight and highway projects program in the bill was carefully crafted. we do have a 10% setaside as you mentioned for some of the smaller projects but the idea is to really have these large projects, let's focus on them. and once again southern california and that region, you have numerous projects that are there, that are going to be far -- that are going to far exceed $100 million and around the country whether it's texas, new jersey, new york around the country we have these projects. we believe we crafted this to be able to realy get these dollars to these projects to be able to

move them forward. again, just like the last amendment, you cobble together a couple of smaller ones, take away money from smaller projects, we're not going to get the impact we need. i appreciate the gentlelady's passion and her work on the committee. at this time i'd have to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. brownlee: thank you, madam speaker. i'll close -- ms. brownley: thank you madam speaker, i'll close. i'd like to reiterate that this will leave 80% of the funds for large programs. this is allowing the large projects to win. small project may not win at all. but just giving us the small and mid sized communities an opportunity to compete and again for many, many districts

$100 million is just an insurmountable sum but we can and want to compete under the freight program for very important projects. again i thank mr. chairman for all of your work on this important bill and i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. brownley: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 33 prointed in part b of house report 114-325, offered by mr. costello of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 450 the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cots tell low and a member opposed each will control pive minutes. mr. costello: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the record. the chair: without objection. mr. costello: i tries offer this simple bipartisan amendment with my fellow transportation and infrastructure committee member, representative lipinski of illinois. this amendment would make a minor modification to the freight and highway projects grant program. this amendment would not change any dollar threshold or increase funding to the program nor would it increase the cost of the overall bill. under the program set forth in the bill large grants, as they are defined meaning those in excess of $100 million are eligible for four types of programs.

one, freight projects from the national highway freight network, two, highway or bridge projects from the national highway system three, intermodal or freight rail programs on the national multimodal freight network, and four, railway highway grade crossings and grade separations. however the bill sets aside 10% of program funding for small projects defined as those projects that are less than $100 million. however, the bill only allows one of the previously mentioned four programs, freight projects on the national highway freight network, to be eligible for this reserved small project funding. madam speaker my home state of pennsylvania, the structural integrity of our aging bridges and roadways is a major concern of my constituents and a personal priority of mine i feel seek to add the other three programs to be eligible under the small projects definition. so i ask should a $50 million

or $90 million project to restore a crumbling bridge have less shot at funding than a $100 million? or for the 55 short line railroads in pennsylvania if they would otherwise be eligible for program funding to be improve roadway grade separations, why should they not be eligible to compete for those dollars set forth for small projects? this amendment address this is discrepancy. with that i yield -- i reserve the balance of my tim. -- of my time of the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i claim time in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: this is a very meritorious amendment offered by the gentleman. it provides for projects under the freight program rather than only highway freight. states and localities will be able to apply for funds to carry out a variety of project types

such as roads, highways, bridges, intermodal. this is giving more control to local governments to do the most cost effective solutions to their problems that they know best so i think it has great merit and i support and recommend our colleagues support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. costello: i urge support for this meritorious amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from american samoa seek recognition? ms. raid what again: i have an amendment -- -- ms. radewagen: i have an

amendment at the desk. choi the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in house report 114-325. the chair: the gentlewoman from american samoa and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from american samoa. ms. radewagen: the amendment that i am offering along with my colleague from the northern mariana islands brings rationality and logic to the allocation of territorial highway program funds among the four smaller u.s. territories. at present, these funds are simply allocated as the department of transportation sees fit using a formula set back in 1992, i understand. that system may have been ok for the last 23 years but now that i'm representing the people of american samoa, i want to be sure that federal funds are distribute aid among the territories in a way that has some rational basis. i cannot say to my constituents, we just have to live with the

way things have always been done. i want to say to them that the assistance we get from the federal government is based on our real needs. i also believe that my constituents deserve to have their elected representative participate in decisions like the distribution of highway funds. we elected no one at the department of transportation where the decision is now made. the amendment i'm offer, however does not override the experts at the department. the amendment simply instructs the experts to use the data they have set up, an allocation based on objective, quantity final measures that apply to all territories. if it turns out american samoa gets less as a result of that so be it. whether it is road distance or traffic volume, whatever it may be, let the department ground its decision in some transportation reality. that would be a responsible use of federal dollars.

madam speaker i reserve the balance of my to im. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. who seeks time on the amendment? the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i'm simp at the ex i've heard from all the territories -- i'm sympathetic, i've heard from all the territories in this project. the funding to territory, no matter the formula we use is inadequate to the growth and problems they are experiencing. and i am not opposed to the idea of developing and updating statistical measures that target the limited funds. my preference would be there would be more funds. this funding formula was set in

1992 by the federal highway administration, they included consideration, transportation, for each of the four covered territories and based on that review they came up with these allocations. obviously that's 23 years ago. 40% each to guam u.s. virgin islands 10% to american samoa and northern mariana islands. before we take steps to change this formula that's been in place for two decades, we need to hear from the delegates of all four. i have been contacted by the other two territories that would be impacted who are strongly opposed and i'd certainly like to work with the gentlelady and all of the delegates to see what we could do to have a fair and balanced update of the formula and you know, formulas are some of the most tricky things around here. you change just one factor and get dramatic differences at the

other end. so i mean, we would have to first agree on criteria and proper factors and then direct the fhwa to run those numbers. so i reluctantly rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. defazio: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from american samoa is recognized. ms. radewagen: i yield to the gentleman from the northern air maya islands for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sablan: let me make one thing very clear. the amendment does not change the formula. but i also want to take the time

to thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio and all those who worked together to bring this bill to the floor. i want to thank the me for deciding to increase funding for the territorial highway funding. the territories are some of the poorest parts of our country. we face a financial challenge providing transportation on separate islands and from one island to another island. i think the only territory that's not -- that doesn't have to do that is the southernmost territory in the northern mariana islands. we're grateful for the assistance we have received from our fellow americans and in the spirit of bipartisanship and with a deep respect for the wise use of federal funds, congresswoman ratewagen and i are offering the amendment at the desk. . the amendment simply requires the department of

transportation to allocate funds among the territories. currently the department is on autopilot. it uses a fixed allocation it devised back in 1992 and has continued to use ever since without thinking about any changes that have occurred in the last 23 years. i believe that federal dollars should not be spent willy-nilly. there should be some connection with the needs underground. i would like to make clear that this amendment does not slice of the pie to take money from one area and give it to another. in fact, thanks to the transportation and infrastructure committee, the pie's actually getting a little larger. our amendment does not even specify which objective measures the department uses in allocating the territorial funds. it could be road distance traffic volume population, land area or a combination, as long as the decision is based on some concrete reality related to highways. and we think the linking of the

dollars to need is simply good stewardship of federal resources and american taxpayers' money. we hope that the house agrees to this responsible approach and agrees to this bipartisan amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from american samoa is recognized. the gentlelady has 30 seconds left. mr. radanovich: i want to thank -- mrs. radewagen: i want to thank the chairman and the committee for their consideration and thank you. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back the balance of her time? mrs. radewagen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized -- yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from american samoa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. radewagen: madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from american samoa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? edwards edwards i have an amendment -- ms. edwards: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentlewoman from maryland and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, madam chairwoman. the amendment at the desk is consistent with the streamlining effort that's already been under way in this bill. and i want to thank chairman

shuster ranking member defazio, because they have put in much work to make this a bipartisan effort. ultimately my amendment will redules the overall costs of projects and the need for mitigation. and if implemented it would save money. as we know all too well, highway storm water is a growing threat to water quality aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that depend on the health of these ecosystems. moreover, the high volumes and rapid flow of storm water runoff from highways and roads poses a serious threat to the condition of our nation's water and transportation infrastructure. impervious surfaces create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted storm water that rush off road services, erode unnatural channels next to and ultimately underneath roadways, compromising the integrity of roadway infrastructure. and increase the stress on storm water sewer systems, shortening the life of all of this infrastructure.

the total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area usually expresses a percentage of the total land area. according to the chesapeake bay program, impervious services -- surfaces compose roughly 13% of all urban and suburban lands in the chesapeake bay watershed. the great conservation of impervious ever -- surfaces in the baltimore, washington, metropolitan areas of d.c., and virginia. the virginia tide water area and philadelphia's western suburbs and lancaster, pennsylvania, are also regions in our watershed where impervious surfaces are greater than 10% of the total land area. and while there is serious water quality concerns with not adequately controlling roadway infrastructure runoff there are also serious infrastructure costs that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers. these can be avoided if transportation authorities do more to control and manage storm water runoff with the infrastructure assets they plan and manage.

the aim of the amendment of course is to improve highway design, to better manage storm water to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed storm water causes, and to move up in the planning process so that thought goes in at the beginning how best to plan design and construct effectively while also reducing costs. now that work is done near the end of the process, where mitigation is often used and costs are much higher. my amendment would simply move up the consideration of storm water issues in state-wide and metropolitan planning and specifically it would require consideration of projects and strategies that will improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce the -- and mitigation storm water impacts on surface transportation. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to address the problem that's facing america's waterways and infrastructures and to do that early in the planning, which is more efficient and less costly. and with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman from maryland reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i claim time in opposition, but i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: with that i would yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36

offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 307, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: thank you, madam chair. the highway bill crafted by my friends, chairman bill shuster and peter defazio and rest of our colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee contains a number of important reforms to our highway programs that will benefit commuters across this country. one of those provisions section 1313 establishes a pilot program that would allow states to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under state environmental laws and regulations instead of federal laws and regulations. it's expected that this pilot program will save highway projects time and money. while maintaining the same environmental standards. the bill permits the state to designate 10 local governments to administer local projects under the new pilot program. however, for large states like

california new york, texas and florida, limiting the program could 10 localities is simply not enough. my amendment would increase the allowable number of localities to 25 in order to allow more communities to take advantage of bringing down the cost and shrinking the amount of time required to complete highway projects. the amendment is supported by the california state association of counties, local transit authorities and caltrans is not opposed. we're well aware that our need for highway infrastructure continues to outpace the resources we have available. that's exactly why we need to support efforts like my amendment, that can make more highway projects a reality by bringing their costs down and completing them more quickly. i urge all my colleagues to support the amendment and i hope -- which will help our communities counties and commuters. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time.

no other members seeking time in recognition the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-325 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. swalwell of california, amendment number 5 by mr. gosar of arizona, amendment number 14 by mr. ribble of wisconsin, amendment number 15 by ms. brown of florida, amendment number 29 by mr. lynch of massachusetts, amendment number 31 by mr. takano of california, amendment number 32 by ms. brownley of california,

amendment number 34 by mrs. radewagen of american samoa. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-325 by the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, 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 2 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. swalwell of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 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.]

the chair: on this this 181, the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. please clear all conversations from the aisles, members, please clear the back aisles. if you have conversations, please remove them from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for purpose of an announcement. the chair: without objection. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, we are in the middle of a healthy and bipartisan debate on the highway bill. this is an important process and i'm encouraged by the enthusiasm of all members' participation. i'm encouraged, all right? while we rarely schedule votes later than 7:00 p.m., members are advised that due to the number of amendments expected to be considered it is likely we will need to vote late tomorrow evening. members should be prepared for both late and multiple vote series tomorrow night. now, members are further advised to expect a full day on thursday, as we will not leave until the house completes its work for the week. i will yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as a former majority leader, i

want to tell my friend that the enthusiasm of the members for late nights has a very short fuse. but i appreciate his efforts. mr. mccarthy: well, i do thank the gentleman and we are into the process of regular order. and giving feedback for everybody having their amendments. tonight's work has gone very fast. faster than we expected. i did not want to keep people too late. but i do expect tomorrow night will be a late night, very likely. and multiple series. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. reminder, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 fingerprinted in part b of house report 114-325 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar on which further proceedings were postponed and the iaeas spre veiled by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 5 frinlted in the bill offered by

mr. gosar of arizona. 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 rote 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.]