do it and would like to supplement their local resources with federal money like is happening in oklahoma ity next year. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentlewoman from maryland and a member opposed each will control five minutes. charity recognizes the

gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: -- the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you again to the chairman and the to the ranking member -- and to the ranking member. representative comstock of virginia and i have an amendment that's at the desk and i don't have to tell my colleagues who ride metro every day to and from work of the issues that metro has had with safety performance and management. our bipartisan amendment gives the secretary of the united states department of transportation the authority to appoint the four federal members to the washington metropolitan area transit authority board. currently the general services administration has this sole authority and shares oversight responsibilities of the federal board members with the u.s. department of transportation. the board determines the agency's policy and provides oversight for the funding, operation and expansion of transit facilities. we've worked closely with the senator of maryland on this issue and she's introduced a bill in the senate that is

co-sponsored both by all three . her local senators from various conversations we've had, the secretary of transportation is also aware of this issue and is supportive of the department of transportation taking over. general services administration has stated that, quote, this was never in our wheel house. and it does not oppose this change. i want to thank the chair's chaffetz and meadows and ranking members cummings and connolly for working with us, since the amendment also falls under the jurisdiction of the house oversight and government reform committee. they've cleared this amendment. before i close, i want to remember our late colleague and former colleague on the transportation committee, howard coble, who died last night. he represented the sixth congressional district of north carolina, including the town i was born in. he will be sorely missed by all of us and his long time

constituents. may he rest in peace. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. who claims time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman, although i don't owe poles the amendment, i'd ask unanimous consent to -- oppose the amendment, i'd ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this particular amendment really is in the jurisdiction of the government reform committee wand that, they are in favor of the amendment. so we're going to urge our colleagues to support it and we're not going to depose it. with that i would reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. >> absolutely. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you. i would just like to say, it's been a real pleasure to be able

to work with mrs. comstock on this amendment. it's very rare that we have opportunities to work across the aisle and also across the capitol, to make sure that we're doing the right thing for our transit system here in the metropolitan washington area, that serves so many millions of both federal workers and tourists, from all of our different states and jurisdictions. it's really clear that the general services administration in this day and age is probably not the most appropriate place for the appointment of these members of the board. it is dutifully to be placed with the department of transportation, to which they've agreed. and i thank our colleagues for all agreeing to this as well. and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? florida. ms. frankel: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by ms. franl of florida -- ms. frankel of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. frankel: i thank you. first, i want to just thank our chair, rank members, all my colleagues who worked so hard on bringing this legislation to the floor. my amendment is really about

improving this bill, it's going to make it a better bill. and it's about making our nation's roads safer and the delivery of goods more efficient. there are 15.5 million trucks on the road each year, driving more than 93 billion miles annually, carrying over $1 billion worth of goods. there's no question that our nation's trucking industry is a huge economic driver, earning $650 billion annually, 5% of the united states' g.d.p. but with all that sunshine comes a little bit of rain. the national highway traffic safety administration said that in 2013 almost 4,000 people were killed and 95,000 people injured by large trucks. costing the public a whopping $100 billion annually. so what my amendment does, three things to increase safety and to reduce those costs.

first, the amendment brings the requirement for commercial truck insurance into the 21st century. it's shocking, mr. speaker, that the minimum insurance required for commerce trucks has remained the same since the 1980's, at $750,000 per incident, regardless of the number of victims or their injuries. the federal motor carrier and safety administration is currently engaged in a rulemaking to examine the appropriateness of this standard. the base bill requires studies that i respectfully submit will slow down this process. now, imagine a large truck hitting a bus full of schoolchildren and the insurance only being $750,000 to cover all the losses. do you want to be -- do you want to be the person that tells the parents that congress

needs to do more studies before their medical bills can be paid? my amendment strikes these unnecessary studies so that fmcsa can finish their important work without delay. second, the base bill creates a national hiring standard that brokers and shippers must use to hire carriers. one of these standards is based on outdated information. it's not updated annually. so my amendment at the desk would strengthen the hiring standard by prohibiting the motor carriers from -- prohibit the hiring of motor carriers defined as high risk carriers by the fmcsa. and finally, just this year, here we go, the fmcsa did a study that found that compliance, safety and

accountability scores accurately predict safety performance by drivers. these scores are currently used by brokers and shippers to identify unsafe carriers. and studies show that since the system has been used, there's been a 14% reduction in serious violations of law. i want to repeat that. there's been a 14% reduction in serious violations of the law. and now, and now this base bill requires another study. another study that's going to take 18 months. and not only that, the base bill now hides important safety statistics during this time. but my amendment does a very simple thing. the provision makes these safety scores transparent for the public to see. so, together these measures are going to improve the movement of goods across the country by

increasing safety and efficiency. it's a real good amendment. i think it's going to make this bill much better and i urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. or reserve? the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. does the gentlelady reserve? ms. frankel: yes. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i'd like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment literally just guts some very crucial reforms to this bill. and what it does is it does strike this amendment, the amendment strikes a section in the bill that requires the safety administration to remove from its website those compliance and safety accountability scores. what we found is -- it's a very flawed system and it treats safe carriers unfairly and has done little to improve motor carrier safety records.

the government accountability office and the motor carrier stake hoders have been very critical -- stakeholders have been very critical of the program, they've called for removes. mr. graves: what this does is ensure those reforms happen quickly. it doesn't hide anything. once the reforms are in place, the scores are going to go backon up on the website. but -- back up on the website. but in the meantime, that raw data concerning accidents, violations, out of service rates, it will remain publicly available and it's also going to be available to law enforce fment they need to investigate -- enforcement if they need to investigate or prosecute unsafe carriers. this requires these reforms are going to take place and they're going to take place very, very quickly. again, i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. frankel: thank you. i would just be repeating myself. i do want to repeat one thing. which i think is important. that since the system, since that system -- the system has been used by fmcsa, there's

been a 14% reduction in serious violations of the law. and i think that speaks for itself. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: again, this guts very important parts of this bill. with that i'd urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. duncan: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. duncan of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 512, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 114-326 be modified by the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. duncan of tennessee. on line 12, of amendment number 0, add the word, not after is. the chair: is there objection to the modification? without objection, the amendment is modified. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to commend chairman graves. nobody could have done a better job on this bill than he has done. and i also want to thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio, because they

have placed just about everything that i have requested into this bill, including accepting an amendment yesterday. and i will repeat something that i said during general debate yesterday, that i'm so pleased that after we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 15 years in an eament to rebuild the middle east, now we're finally going to pass a major bill to rebuild this country and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs all across this nation. but i rise today, mr. chairman, to offer an amendment with mr. paulsen of minnesota, to offer an amendment that is basically very technical in nature. but it's one that's very, very important to many thousands of the smallest companies in the trucking industry. i want to thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for including in the base bill some of the language, from a bill that i introduced, that deals with this situation.

this amendment expands that by clarifying the requirements that a freight broker must meet before hiring a motor carrier for the delivery of goods. currently the bill requires the broker to check to ensure that a motor carrier is first registered with and authorized by the federal motor carrier safety administration to operate as a licensed motor carrier, secondly, has the minimum insurance required by federal law, and third, has the satisfactory safety fitness determination by the fmcsa. all of these things make for a safer trucking industry in this country. . our amendment inserts unrated in the requirement. currently there are thousands of small trucking companies that are which to be audited or rated by the fmcsa. by inserting this quote we make sure they are not precluded from being in the pool of

eligible motor carriers that can be used for shipping goods. according to the owner-operator's independent association, without this amendment we will be creating an incentive not to use small carriers, putting hundreds of thousands of truck drivers out of business due to no fault of their own. without this change we will hurt small mom and pop businesses and drive up the cost of shipping goods to everyone. the second part of our amendment adds a fourth requirement which must be checked by the brokers. this fourth condition requires a broker to check that a motor carrier hat not been issued an out-of-service measure. once again, this makes for a safer trucking industry in this country. if we do not make this part of the bill, thousands of small companies and mom and pop operators who have never had a wreck or violation would lose business just because fmcsa has not had the such s.u.v. time or staff to efficiently rate them.

in conclusion, mr. chairman, i'll say this amendment ensures we only have safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small businesses are not hurt in the process. however, i have received assurances from both chairman shuster and ranking member defazio that they want to do something about this. i think everybody on both sides of the aisle in this congress really wants to try to help the smallest businesses in almost any industry and they have told me that they will really try to do something about this in conference. so with that assurance and at their request, i'm withdrawing this amendment and hope we can improve the bill as it goes on through conference. i'll withdraw this amendment at this point. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 114-326.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. lewis of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is simple. it will strike a pilot program that allows teenagers to drive trucks across state line. right now this bill mandates that we allow teenagers to become truck drivers but, mr. chairman, it does not ask whether we should give them the keys. the american public has a strong opinion on this issue. after 92% of the comments strongly oppose this idea, the federal motor carrier safety

administration denied a similar program in twee. the vast -- program in 2003. the vast majority thought it was a bad and dangerous proposal. my amendment simply asks the department of transportation to take another look, a second look before starting a national program. we need to examine the safety of places where young drivers are already allowed to drive trucks within their own states. interstate highways are already dangerous enough. given the higher and higher accident and fatality rates of younger drivers, it makes no sense to make this change without looking at all of the data. mr. chairman, young drivers may not have the experience needed o handle heavy dangerous

vehicles. some follow too closely, others go too fast and don't check their mirrors. young drivers can use their brakes too much, and that is he real danger handling an 80,000-pound truck. and ask any parent. they know young drivers do not always listen even when an experienced driver is in the front seat. y amendment does not say no. it lets us do the research first. . should study teen drivers i urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would strike a limited pilot program that is authorizing drivers over the age of 19 1/2 to enter into a graduated program to attain a commercial driver's license. mr. graves: this is limited to a number of states and a number of carriers that can participate. and it also includes a number of safety requirements and a g.a.o. report to congress examining its safety impacts. mr. chairman, what's interesting about the way the present law is is that a driver -- a driver of the age that's being addressed here could drive all the way across the state of missouri, for instance, but they can't drive 10 miles in the state of kansas city across town because it's over a state line and doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it hampers a whole lot of businesses out there that operate in communities like st. louis, saint joseph that are split by a state line. the trucking industry is facing a severe shortage in the number of drivers and with freight expected to increase over 30%

over the next 10 years, the driver shortage will only worsen. we need to get young people interested in the transportation industry, as simple as that. this is a limited pilot program. it represents a delicate compromise that would accomplish a very important goal, and with that i would urge members to oppose the amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i appreciate there is a driver shortage but it's important, very important to follow the data. we should not put inexperienced drivers on the road before we have all the facts. in my congressional district, in metro atlanta, we have three major interstate highways unning through our city. even with experienced drivers,

there's always some major accident. we need to follow the data. i urge all of my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: i'd continue to reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. again, what we're trying to do with this program is allow those drivers to cross the state line. again, they're already allowed to go an entire state's length within the state. with that i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and with that i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lewis: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has

een requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in support of my amendment to h.r. 22. minimum insurance requirements for trucks have remained the same since the 1980's.

currently it's $750,000. health care costs have skyrocketed. for example, hospital care for traumatically brain injured people can average $8,000 per day. minimum insurance does not realistically account for multivehicle accidents where $750,000 must be divided among all of the injured parties. fmcsa is currently undergoing rulemaking to require current insurance requirements. congress should not delay or derail this effort. section 5501 conditions the agency's rulemaking upon its completion of detailed studies that must be completed in consultation with industry stakeholders. this amendment strikes language that is -- or that is designed to delay and ultimately derail this long overdue rulemaking. when a person suffers life-threatening injuries due

to the negligence of a motor carrier, the cost of long-term care and the loss of his or her livelihood often pushed this -- this often is pushed to the background. for families that undergo this ordeal, it often comes as a surprise that despite a congressional mandate in the 1980's, minimum insurance requirements for interstate truckers and bus carriers have remained unchanged. the motor carrier act of 1980 specifically set out to ensure public safety by requiring insurance premiums to be updated regularly. a similar bill, the bus regulatory reform act of 1982, was passed for the segment of the industry transporting passengers interstate. while a minimum insurance level in 1985 for general freight carriers and small bus

operators was $750,000 and $1.5 million respectively with higher liability limits for carriers of hazardous materials and large bus carriers, the intent of congress was to increase the minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation. in april of this year, the federal motor carrier safety administration act -- or actually, the administration, released a report to congress that examined the adequacy of the current financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers. the conclusion was clear. today, the cost of injuries and fatalities arising from crashes far exceed the minimum insurance levels interstate operators are required to carry. as a result, victims are often not appropriately compensated for their injuries.

language in section 5501 is an attempt to stop or at the very least delay this long overdue fmcsa rulemaking in its tracks by taking away the resources necessary for the agency to evaluate appropriate levels of financial responsibility for the motor carrier industry. fmcsa rulemaking is necessary because current insurance limits do not adequately cover crashes primarily because of increased medical costs. to be on par with medical consumer price index inflation, the liability limit for general freight carriers today would be $4.4 million calculated from the 1980 passage date of the motor carrier act, and around $6.5 million for small bus operators. moreover, the april fmcsa report found that in real

terms, insurance premiums have actually decreased for the same level of coverage since the 1980's. the result is that thousands of crash victims are left without the financial resources to pay medical bills or restore the quality of life that he or she enjoyed before the trucking or bus accident and that, despite the fact that insurance premiums have gone down. in many cases, the burden of health care costs are passed onto taxpayers as medicare and medicaid shoulder millions of dollars of medical care each year due to inadequately insured carriers. we must keep the trucking industry accountable for safety by supporting this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and with that i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. graves: i rise to claim time in opposition to the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, what this amendment does is strikes very commonsense regulatory reforms in the bill. the underlying bill requires the department of transportation to study whether an increase in the minimum insurance levels for inner city buses are before proceeding to a rulemaking to change the levels. i don't know why we would strike language that simply tells the department to determine whether the problem exist before it regulates. the amendment also strikes language in the bill that requires the secretary to consider the impact of an ongoing rulemaking on small trucking companies and safety. . these considerations are not going to delay the rulemaking but what it's going to do, it's going to add transparency and accountability to the process. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and with that i would reserve. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. graves: i'll yield back.

the chair: all other time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ribble: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. ribble of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would increase the air mile radius from 50 air miles to 75 air miles for the transportation of construction materials and equipment to satisfy the 24-hour reset period under the hours of

service rule. it would also give states the ability to completely opt out of this increase if the movement would take place entirely within one state's borders. this is a bipartisan amendment co-sponsored by mr. lipinski, mr. hanna and mr. cramer. commercial motor vehicles -- vehicle drivers in the construction industry face some unique circumstances. they often haul perishable materials like asphalt and concrete from a construction company's central shop or dispatch center to a specific project site within the company's area of operation. these drivers spend long periodses of time waiting to pick up materials and loading or unloading equipment instead of driving but they are considered on duty for the entire duration of the trip. current law allows construction industry drivers to reset their weekly on duty time after a 24-hour consecutive off duty period. however this exemption is only allowed if those drivers work within a 50 air mile radius. because construction companies operate today in larger areas than they did when the exemption was first put in place two decades ago, i'm

offering this amendment to increase this air mile radius to 75 air miles. i urge amy -- all my colleagues to support this amendment 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 rise? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition, although i'm not in op sillings -- opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: this amendment tends an existing exemption, established in 1995, by congress. and i think it is a reasonable and very small adjustment to that. i think it will improve efficiency and lower costs and i have no objection and with that i would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from illinois, a co-sponsor of the amendment, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i'd like to thank the ranking member for yielding. i want to thank mr. ribble for his work on this amendment and other important transportation

issues. i think mr. ribble and the ranking member defazio have explained this very well. in recognition of the unique nature of the construction industry, congress did provide this exemption to certain hours of service rules for commercial motor vehicle drivers. increasing this from 50 to 75 miles is a small change, but i think it will be very helpful because the current exemption we've seen has come up short, it needs to be modernized for goods movement. as well as to account for the fact that many material suppliers operate in areas outside of the current air mile radius. so this amendment helps improve the exemption by increasing it a little bit by 25 miles, and it's also important to note that this amendment provides an opt-out provision for those

states who do not wish to participate in this increase, so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge all members to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part a of house report 114-236 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. chairman, look, these amendment marathons can often be a bit exhausting around here. all sorts of different ideas coming from different directions. but now for something completely different. if anyone recognized the reference, it was funny. our government is heading to having about a half a million light duty vehicles. so, think of this. as of today, i think we have about 460,000 light duty vehicles in the fleet of government. our amendment is something very, very similar. we all walk around -- simple. we all walk around with these supercomputers in our pocket, our smartphones. and we see the technology revolution, the information revolution that's happening around us. whether it be ride sharing, whether it be on-call services. or just the management of data. we have people living next to each other, going to the same workplace. let's use this information,

this new world around us, and ask three agencies to reduce their vehicle fleets by engaging in the new world of information, where it be ride sharing, whether it be an uber model, whether it be a zipcar model, whether it be a taxi cab model, maybe it's a hybrid that we have never thought of that gets brought forward. so the amendment is very, very simple. we have three agencies here, all we're asking is that they reduce their vehicle fleets by using modern technology, modern means of transportation, modern social transportation. and with that i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i rise in opposition to the amendment. and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: first i ask the gentleman quickly, to yield very quickly to a question. why these three particular agencies? viking viking mr. chairman, to my friend on the other side, there was a g.a.o. report, i

think it may now be a couple years old, and these three agencies actually were tagged as having the highest number of vehicles as a percentage of, i believe, employment population that sat idle. agriculture was close to 30,000 vehicles. interior, 18,000. so there was an actual reason. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. although the gentleman does reside in arizona, and i know he certainly is aware that both the b.l.m. and the forest service must cover huge amounts of territory with their employees, including, you know, many forested and remote areas. in my district, just doing my rounds on paved roads, i can be out of cell service 20% to 25% of the time and there's no uber, lift or any alternative available to me. let alone my forest and b.l.m. employees who are up in the forest. i don't think uber is waiting

around in the forest. so the agency choices are peculiar. they may have a large fleet and they have a large fleet for a particular reason. you will -- one forest service employee and one vehicle going to a remote location for one work duty. and they don't have an opportunity to ride share or do anything else. i find that to be particularly problematic. i think the intent of having the government reduce the number of light vehicles, particularly for agencies that are based in urban areas, or more urban environments, is and - is very intrigue interesting -- intriguing and interesting. i'd be happy to support his next amendment, which would have us study this issue. so the g.a.o., working with

g.s.a., i think could point to appropriate ways to reduce the fleet and to more efficiently reduce costs and yet still have employees be able to use their time very efficiently. so with that, you know, i would oppose this amendment, but in order to save time, i will say now that i will support the next amendment. with that i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognize recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, -- is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. to my colleague from oregon, one more time. the reference points in the g.a.o. study actually said vehicles that laid idle. and that's why we chose these. there was actually a reason for choosing these three agencies. with that, mr. chairman, i will reserve with hopes to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i have the right to close. so you might as well close. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. schweikert: one of these

days i'll get that right. mr. chairman, a couple of data points. agriculture, 29,818 light duty vehicles. interior, 18,752 light duty vehicles. department of energy, 7,315 light duty vehicles. and we're asking them to do the 10% reduction of those vehicle leets over the four years. if technology, efficiencies, the new gig economy, however you see it, can't accomplish that, then the simplest reforms brought to us by the modern era , we're in trouble. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back with asking for support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i think the gentleman

misstated. it's 10% per year for five years. that's a 50% reduction in fleet. so that seems, without, you know, much more granular data, pretty radical. i wouldn't want to see that the next time i have a major fire, that the forest service doesn't have adequate vehicles in any forest in my state to dispatch all the people they need to command and control and to deal with that fire. so, i think the idea of the study has merit. i think an arbitrary cut of 50%, particularly with two land management agencies, that manage millions of acres of land, you know, i mean, i know of forest service b.l.m. employees where on a given day their duty may require them to drive four hours to a remote spot to do a particular function, spend an hour there, and drive back. and there's no way around it. because they had to do something at that particular point. so saying, well, gee, you're

going to have to ride share or thumb or call uber and see if they'll take you out there for a couple hundred miles in the mountains, it just doesn't work for me. i think a study, good idea. and we may find indeed there are efficiencies. but to arbitrarily reduce the fleets of the two largest land management agencies in the federal government, the forest service and the b.l.m., by 50%, i think could cause very unanticipated and potentially disastrous problems. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. urge opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,, the noes have. it the amendment is -- chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek

recognition? mr. schweikert: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. not to belabor this one, because actually in many ways our friend from oregon has already spoken to this one, i actually believe we may have some misreading what have the previous one says. but we'll adjudicate that again, maybe over coffee. this is basically the similar concept that we were just discussing, but actually trying to produce some data set for future policy with that, mr. chairman, -- setses for future policy. with that, mr. chairman, -- sets for future policy. with that, mr. chairman, i ield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. 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 26 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. reichert: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. reichert of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. . mr. reichert: today i rise to you are an amendment that would collect the facts and evaluate the impact of the 2014-2015 west coast port slowdown and dispute. the efficient movement of goods is critical to the economic success of this country. our farmers and manufacturers must be able to export their

high-quality products to the customers around the world that they rely upon. beginning in the summer of 2014, these customer relationships and our economy were threatened. this was the result of a prolonged contract negotiation between the pacific maritime association and the international longshore and warehouse union that ended february, 2015. just how serious was the impact of these prolonged negotiations? one example from my home state provides a clear illustration. our apple growers in washington state were faced with an estimated $100 million worth of apples that they could not sell, and other stories can be told about multiple types of produce and products including hay and potato industry in washington state. in fact, mr. chairman, i was in malaysia and singapore during part of the slowdown, and the

complaint in those two countries was they couldn't get their potatoes and especially they were upset they weren't getting their washington state potato -- french fries -- excuse me. so this did have an impact across the globe. this wasn't just the united states economy impact, it was a global impact. in fact, the ships coming from those countries to the west coast were slowed down to 8 knots hoping this would be resolved by the time the ships reached the west coast. this amendment simply requires the government accountability office to study the economic impact of this dispute, review the steps taken to reach an agreement and suggest what other tools might be used to prevent future slowdowns. like many of you, i've committed to my constituents that i will work to ensure this is not repeated for the sake of our workers, farmers and manufacturers. this amendment moves us in that direction. i thank my colleagues, representative schrader,

newhouse, rad wagon and coffman for work -- radewagen and coffman for working with me on this issue. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: you know, we would all like to prevent future disruptive shutdowns like this, and i think a full survey of all the causes would be interesting. it would be an interesting thing to have the g.a.o. conduct. unfortunately, this is directed only at one factor which is the union itself. in fact, in here it says any legislation that might ensure better regulation of the operations in the ports in the

united states to such labored negotiations. u know, i think that is very focused just on the labor side and not a balanced look at what might have gone on the management side of this -- gone on on the management side of this issue. there are many port congestion factors out there that should be comprehensively looked at in order to more efficiently move freight in and out of our ports absent any sort of labor dispute or, you know, shutdown or lockout or any of those certain things that relate to labor that also merit a comprehensive look and i think merit potential action by congress. but this report would not enlighten us in those areas either. i would like to see a g.a.o., you know, conduct an analysis

of the myriad of factors of port congestion, provide congress with options of financing intermodal efficiency to enhance the trade of goods in and out of the united states. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: just as a matter of clarification, mr. speaker, this legislation addresses both pacific maritime association and the union issues. how can you be against something that would be, you know, an investigation that would clearly reveal what the problems are on both sides? so this legislation is not designed to point the finger at any one entity. two entities involved in this issue. we need to find out what we can do to prevent from happening in the future but it costs the united states' economy money, it costs jobs and it affects the entire global economy. at this time i'd like to

-- gnize ms. rag wagen from mrs. rag wagen from american samoa for two minutes -- mrs. radewagen from american samoa for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized for two minutes. mrs. radewagen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, first, i'd like to thank representatives reichert, schrader, newhouse and coffman for their work in offering the amendment that will simply direct g.a.o. to conduct a study on the impact of the recent west coast ports slowdown so we can avoid these costly slowdowns in the future. as we all know, the nation's economic stability and prosperity are directly linked to our ability to import and export goods. in fact, 30% of the nation's

g.d.p. stems from imports and exports. 30%, that's a large portion of the country's population. during the slowdown, many of our businesses struggled to maintain the flow of capital due to their inability to ship goods. additionally, many of our retailers found it difficult to keep their shelves stocked due to the lack of incoming goods, causing revenue loss and even the shutting of some businesses. now, just imagine if instead of 30% that number was 90%. could you possibly imagine the devastation to the economy of even a brief slowdown? it would have been the biggest story of the year. our constituents would have been camped out on our front steps demanding action from congress. well, let me tell you that in american samoa that number is 90%. we rely most -- almost solely on imported goods for our food

and our energy needs. the main revenue generator on our beautiful islands is the tuna canning industry, which comprises more than 85% of the island's g.d.p. this industry relies heavily upon their ability to ship their products quickly to the main land and other nations. we must ensure this does not happen again and this amendment being offered by my colleagues and me will take the first step in finding solutions to future slowdowns in the operations of our nation's ports. with that i ask that my colleagues in the house support this bipartisan measure, to ensure the continued flow of goods to and from our ports and the growth of our economy. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute.

mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased here to join my colleague, representative reichert from washington, in offering this important amendment today. i want to assure members on the floor this in no way is picking sides. when we talk about labor disputes, this is labor management disputes. the problem we have on the west coast is that this particular dispute last year actually crippled severely the united states economy, not just on the west coast but into the midwest and beyond. we can't have this happen again. we cannot have this happen again. we have to remain competitive in this global economy. we have to figure out a different way to resolve these disputes so what is a legitimate labor management negotiation does not affect businesses, farmers, workers, thousands of jobs across this country. in my state, terminal 6, the port of portland's container terminal is no longer operational. why? because the carrier doesn't

come to this port because it's too unreliable. they don't know if they have ships anchoring to weight up load. instead, they'll call ports north and south of us. this -- mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. schrader: the reichert amendment simply allows us to have a g.a.o. study to talk about what possible outcomes could be different than what we endured last year. the goal here is just simply to get some facts, get some information, protect american jobs, protect american workers and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: well, just yielding myself such time as i may consume. i would suggest in reading the language i think it could be more balanced and i think it

should also include those other factors which are day-to-day congestion which do cost our economy, you know, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars a year. this, urge to people to oppose it and hopefully we can work through the conference committee on something that will give us a more comprehensive analysis of what we need to do to increase, you know, the viability of all american ports. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. 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. reichert: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. newhouse of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. househouse thank you, mr. -- mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank those of the transportation and infrastructure committee for this legislation. the amendment i offer today for myself and mr. schrader of oregon is vitally important to the american economy. nearly a year ago, a dispute began at 29 of our nation's

west coast ports that drastically slowed imports and exports to a stand still -- a near standstill. agricultural products rotted on the docks. retailers couldn't get products to stores, and american manufacturers could not get their products to foreign customers. by one estimate there was nearly $7 billion in damages to our economy. mr. speaker, i have no interest in pointing fingers over who's responsible for the dispute, however, i do believe that congress has a great from in preventing future disruptions from harming our businesses and consumers as well as our economy. one thing that became abundantly clear during the disruption is there was very little data to gauge how our ports are functioning on a day-to-day basis. if something is impeding port performance, be it a dispute, major congestion or even a natural disaster, we need to know if and how our ports are

suffering before it harms our economy and standing with foreign trading partners. this amendment is simple. it requires the bureau of transportation and statistics to collect and make available data on how our nation's ports are operating. currently, the bureau collects this information for our railroads, for our highways and our airports. we also need this information for our ports as well. the amendment that we're introducing is already in the senate highway bill. it's been approved by the senate commerce committee by voice vote. this is not and should not be controversy. i also want to know -- should not be controversial. i also want to know there are organizations that support this, the national retail federation, the american farm bureau, the association of american railroads, the national association of manufacturers, the american

trucking association. the list goes on and on. ery broad, multiindustry and -- multiindustry support. mr. speaker, this is about transparency and certainty for our nation's economy. if something is harming our ports, our decisionmakers need information to address and mitigate that harm. i would have urged my colleagues to support this amendment, but i have been in close conversation with staff of the transportation and infrastructure committee as well as the chairman and ranking member and i would ask for continued commitment on the part of the chairman to keep working on this issue. it's very important and vital to the economy of the united states and with that commitment, i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is

withdrawn. the chair understands that amendment number 28 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in part a of house report 1114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? > i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part a of house report of 114-326 offered by mr. desantis of florida the chair: the gentleman from florida, and a member opposed will each control five minutes.

mr. desantis: we are here discussing how to meet the country's important infrastructure needs. and i think what my amendment does is offer a vision for a different approach in the future. i think it's an approach more accountable to taxpayers and rests on governments closer to the people making more of our transportation decisions. i don't think anyone is going to claim that the transfer transportation highway system that is done up here is being done well. it is chronically underfunded and using gimmicks and doing the strategic petroleum reserve to pay for this. you are projected to be sold at $85 a barrel. i think part of the problem is, if you look at our infrastructure needs, most of them are intrastate, not necessarily interstate. and while the interstate system

is very important and needs to be maintained and expanded where appropriate. most of the needs that we have in a state like florida can be done at the county level or state level. i would note that since we had the highway trust fund since 1956, florida has paid a lot in taxes and we received about 88 cents on the dollar back. so i'm trying to figure out why we would want to perp freight a system that is not sustainable and put more power in washington. think about it. most of your needs are done county-wide, state-wide and people in florida will pay their gas taxes that will be shipped up to washington. people fight over it, interest groups, everything and the money that comes back is 88 cents on the dollar. i would like to extend the gas tax that is going to fund the interstate system but leave a

portion of the gas tax for state legislatures to spend or for people in local governments to spend. i think you will be able to do it cheaper and accountable to the taxpayers and it would be accountable for motorists and people who are using our transportation system. it's not binding. there are different budget rules but it lays out a vision that we can do this in a way that rests on decisions that are closer to the american people rather than putting it in washington, d.c. and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: we want to go back to the good old days before president eisenhower was president. here is what we had before when

we didn't have a national highway program. this is the brand new kansas turnpike. oklahoma said, we'll build ours. -oh, they have financial problems. this is where the concrete ended. and until we had a national program where the federal program would partner with the states that was of something of national import, it didn't happen. let's go back to the good old days. it came from grover norquist. and somehow they will coordinate this. and if you happen to be a coastal state, florida has a few of those, gee, you are going to have to pay for all the costs of

transshipping the goods that flow out to your state. you are florida. raise the money to do it. i don't know how you are going to do it. different category. this is an idea whose time has not yet come, a time it's time has past a long time ago. we need more investment. 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement. 40% of the highway surface, the roadbeds need replacement. a backlog in bringing our system up to good repair and not dealing with the growing population and need for national freight program and send it back to the states and they will somehow take care of it. poppycongress. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves.

>> we would love these to be done at the federal level. mr. desantis: there is not a reason to send the money up to washington and beg back for pennies on the dollar. we have a responsibility to have an efficient interstate system and we need to understand that washington shouldn't be dictating what local communities do. in a state like of florida, let's empower the states and empower the local communities and just imagine in they were able to have a portion of that gas tax go directly to them. i think you would see great decisions made. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield two minutes to mr. shuster.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i share many of the same conservative beliefs that my colleague from florida has. this town is liltered with agencies that don't belong here, according to the founding fathers. they have grown up and federal government has taken over power. when it comes to transportation, this country, the constitution we have today, one of the breaking points was the transportation system. maryland and virginia couldn't come together on a treaty to navigate the potomac river and realized we couldn't connect this nation, we would be a separate entity. 50 entities today. but the founding fathers wrote the constitution, article one, section eight talks about the role of federal government and establishing post roads.

they are the highways and byways of this nation. washington shouldn't be dictating and this bill does more to send back power to the states and let the states drive the issues but there is a federal role, not to do it all, but partner with the states and build the infrastructure system we have today. this is what physically connects us, our highway system and transportation system. florida, i agree, i know what the return is, but florida has benefited tremendously by i-95 and i-75 and go to the east or west coast of florida, people are traveling down to florida to spend their dollars and many are relocating. florida has benefited tremendously by this system we have today. again, i believe in this bill we are returning back to the states a lot of responsibility.

this is a conservative bill on that and also remind the gentleman and my colleagues, i things e to turn back to the states that they asked for. i haven't heard that governors have said give this back to us. and adam smith said in "wealth of nation," preserve justice and erect and infrastructure to promote congress. if you don't believe me, read "wealth of nations." to would urge everyone oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida has yielded back. the gentleman from florida is organized. -- oregon is recognized.

mr. defazio: so actually under the gentleman's proposal, going back to the states away with the receive news would actually be in that loss of florida but they would have to raise their gas taxes by the 18.3 cents and a bit more in order to make that up. and again, we lose the coordination among the states. priorities of states bordering florida may not match the priorities of florida in terms of access, egress to the state of florida. so i think we are well served as a nation of having a coordinated federal program, stream declined reformed and efficient. and i urge members to oppose. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. 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. >> mr. speaker, request a recorded vote. charmente further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 512, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will offer. the clerk: en bloc number one 35, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 8, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51,

52, 54, 55 and 56. printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. shuster of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: let me start off by saying we lost a valuable member, former member of this committee just recently, howard coble passed away and i wanted to say howard was on this committee. he was a valued member and champion of the coast guard for which he served and he was always there fighting for them. he was an excellent

representative to the people of his district in north carolina and he was a great friend of mine and i know many, many members of this congress. howard coble will be missed greatly. i'm proud to say we were on the last coast guard re-authorization and able to name it after howard coble. so again, it is with a heavy heart, i say i salute howard coble and say good-bye to a great friend and member of this institution. i rise today now, these amendments en bloc are reflected priorities from both sides of the aisle. i thank all members for their cooperation inputting together this en bloc and i urge all members to support it. i would like to take a moment at this time to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle that participated in this debate. i want to thank the speaker for putting us on the floor for this new open and transparent as some

of my colleagues on the other side don't think it was open enough, but many of us on the committee -- i don't want to speak for mr. defazio but it was an owe process for me. and mr. polis had ideas and was able to incorporate some of those. and we certainly think it was the hard work and willingness. this makes it stronger when we go to the senate. the star senate goes to the senate and enables our country to ensure our quality of life and as we talked about in the last amendment. this is a federal responsibility. the founders would have wanted it this way. they had differences of opinion. this role is something this federal government needs to be part of. it provides the serpt for state and local governments and this bill helps to improve our

nation's infrastructure and provides important reforms that help us to continue more effectively. we are pushing back to the states giving them to have the flexibility to make sure they can drive these projects done more effectively and efficiently and which will save us allmon. i urge all members to support the amendments en bloc. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman for his support. i have two amendments in this en bloc. one i offered with mr. davis from illinois and a number of other members, the other amendment is a bipartisan compromise i offered with mr. dold and mr. nadler, an effort

to clarify the transit agency can utilize cmac and tifia funds to match the funding in a star grant. i appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on this issue and restore the core capacity match limit back to 80% . without these funds, without these changes, local flexible would be greatly demin herbed and many projects would be greatly delayed or canceled. this bill still restricts the use of s.t.p. funds they are -- for the remainder of the match and codifies it at 50%. i strongly disagree with the new restrictions and hope we can work on this in conference. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. hip the gentleman from oregon.

mr. defazio: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nolan: my amendment and the body of these amendments en bloc are about public safety. mine is a commonsense solution to a limit bud seriously dangerous problem. in short, it will help make winter travel safer for truckers and travelers, pedestrians, who live, work, do business in and around the great sea port of duluth, minnesota. i'd like to thank chairman bill shuster and ranking member peter defazio for working with me on this and the endless hours you have put forth in committee and here on the floor, yesterday, today, late into the night and tomorrow for opening up and demock rahtizing this process, making amendments like mine and others possible. i urge adoption of the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: does the gentleman -- from air: the gentleman oregon. mr. defazio: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin two minutes to describe her amendments which are included. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. wroun: thank you. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendments on the d.b.e. prompt payment issue and to allow teen driving safety grants to be used to help fund school based drivers education to help our young people meet the graduated driver's license requirements. ms. moore: i want to talk about the last of my amendments, requiring a g.o.a. report requiring the changes on the ability of those who previously benefited from transportation services under job access and reverse commute program to get

to work. the report would examine whether services to low income riders declined after map 21 was implemented as well as efforts by the f.t.a. after passage of map 21 to encourage public transportation agencies to maintain and support these services so that low-income riders would allow them access to jobs and medical services and other life necessities. map 21 ended the stand alen grant program. instead those activities were added as eligible uses of funds under larger formula grant programs. there was no requirement that transit agencies use any of their annual federal transit funding to provide services to meet the needs of low income individuals trying to get to work. none. my amendment would allow us to know what the real world impact of these changes are. congress did not intend these

changes to make it harder for low income and tanf populations to use transportation to get to work. that doesn't make sense. these hardships should not occur. i hope that adoption of this amendment sends a message to transit agencies that they must continue to provide innovative services to ensure that low income people and marginally employed are able to reach places of pliment, educational opportunities, job train, child care, medical appointments and other life necessities. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back this egentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i recognize the gentlelady from north carolina for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much for yielding. i rise today in support of this package of amendments that includes my amendment which clarifies minority groups be targeted in human resource

outreach effort best -- efforts by the department of transportation. my amendment would expand the bill's use of the term minority and specify the inclusion of underrepresented minority group. oftentimes when policies are put into place to create diversity, they're not implemented in communities that are underrepresented. this is a special burden for underrepresented minorities who have higher than average unemployment rates. further we know investments in infrastructure means jobs for our constituents and opportunities for our businesses back home. as we work to pass this legislation, i believe we must make a concerted effort to diversify the people able to take advantage of these opportunities. i know in particular areas of the transportation industry such as public transportation service providers, see better levels of diversity but it's time to expand the opportunities to include engineering and contracting, project development and other components of the process. our transportation industries should reflect the diversity of our country at every level.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's -- the gentlelady's time has expired this egentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. graves: i want to make note of an important provision inclouded in the en bloc amendment package. as you know, the transportation bill includes a new program that addresses significant roadways, addresses some of the more expensive projects and establishes a competitive grant program in excess of $740 million a year. one thing we have to do is provide guidance in regard to criteria they use in this competitive process. an amendment to this bell includes the importance of strategic energy assets to ensure roads like l.a. 1 in louisiana are included. after hurricane katrina, gasoline prices spiked about 75 cents a gallon. following hurricanes gustav and

ike in 2008 gasoline prices spiked about $1.40 a gallon, the largest spike since the arab oil embargo. it's important as they go through and look at the grants that they look at factors that are important and have national consequences. i want to thank the ranking member and chairman for helping us on this i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: we're not quite at the end of the epic but i'd like to take a moment. first i want to reflect on the chairman's brief eulogy for howard coble who was a wonderful member of the committee. howard's embarked on his last great voyage and we all remember him warmly. i'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking -- and the chair of the subcommittee. for the way in which we moved forward. this bill was a product of many, many months of negotiation

between members and staff and i think we have a good policy based product here so i want to thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee, i want to thank my ranking member of the subcommittee, eleanor holmes, i want to thank my , we tee staff on my side are blessed with interesting , it's our side andrew late, i'm tire t.d. ben, jennifer, brian, alexa, of course my chief of staff, kathy who was here, had much mention of the last time we did one of these bills. kathy staffed me when we did the last long-term bill a few year ago. jamie, luke. and on the republican side, i particularly want to thank chris

behr tram and murphy barrett and all the other republican staff for their fabulous work. you know, i won't say all the meetings were warm and fuzzy but we worked stuff out in the end, i think we got a good product and i think going through this legislative process was a demonstration that house members can individually be relevant, offer their ideas. and they might be rejected. they might be accepted. but i think this was a very good process. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized to close. the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes remaining. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. this has been three years in the making. when i first became chairman just about three years ago to almost the day today, one of my top priorities was to pass a multiyear surface transportation bill. so i've had some people lament and say, you've been on the

floor long, you've had to go through these different fights but i can tell you it's all been pleasurable. it's exciting that we finally are getting this thing to the floor and get it into conference. but i couldn't do it without the help and advice of a great staff on the republican side and i also want to thank the democratic staff. i know you, both staffs have spent long nights and long weekends trying to get this thing all worked out. they've done a great job of it. i thank each and every one of them on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. i want to thank all the members on the transportation and infrastructure committee on both sides for their valuable input and hard work and putting this thing together to bring it to the floor. i want to thank the ranking member defazio, ranking member norton an subcommittee chair of the highways and transit graves for their work. peter defazio has been a good

friend and able opponent at times. he's been here a long time. he's bright. he's tough. he's passionate. but at the end of the day we're able to come together on a lot of these issues and work it out. i appreciate mr. defazio's efforts. finally, let me say for the first time in my 15 years of congress that i participated in a transportation and infrastructure debate on the floor, my father's name has not been mentioned one time. so let me be the first. to mention my father, bud shuster. i'm not sure if he's watching at home. if he is, he's taking notes and telling me things i said right and things i could have said better. i want to thank him for the guidance he's given me throughout my life for the valuable advice he's offered to me at times when i've asked, and many times when i've not asked. and again, i keep watching -- if he's watching tonight, i'm sure he's writing down things he'll

give me pointers on. i want to thank my father, bud shuster, for his great support over the years. i'm looking forward to getting to conference and getting this thing done. i think it's important to the american people that we have that long-term highway bill. this has been an issue that people say is great bipartisan support, and there is, but these are issues that republicans, democrats, americans care about our infrastructure and want to get to work out delay and want to get products to market and want to get the raw materials to the factories that keep us competitive in the world and we are in a world market that we have to remain competitive and transportation is one of those vital things that will keep us there. so with that, i thank everybody for their hard work, staff, again, thank you and with that, i urge all members to support the final bill and yield back the balance of my tile. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendments en bloc 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 en bloc amendments are greed to. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 57. for for what purpose does gentlelady from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 57 a nted in house report 114-326. the chair: the gentlelady from washington and a member opposed will each control five minutes. ms. herrera beutler: over 50% of all transit riders in the u.s. travel on buses, but only 10% of our transit funding actually goes to buses. over half of the people in this country who use public transportation take buses to go

to the grocery store, the federal government dead indicates less than 10% pecifically to buses and buses false. we have an opportunity to recktive eye the transportation. this bill funds buses at -- in 2016 at roughly half of 20127 levels. that is unless you happen to represent one of seven states for whom this bill sets aside an additional $272 million a year. while all 50 states can compete for funds for the competitive bus grant program which is unded at $90 million and 200 million, a select few northeastern states get an additional pot to draw from. these high density states,

maryland, massachusetts, delaware, rhode island and delaware have a special set-aside pot for money for them that averages $90 million than the nation wide pot that all 50 states compete from. and those seven states can compete. the idea that seven states have available to them more money than all 50 states combined isn't fair. my amendment would move the nding from the seven-state set-aside program and allow all states to compete for much needed resources. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. defazio: i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington, a former member of the committee. let me be clear. i agree we should be increasing the funds for bus pro curement. map 21 cut funding to smaller agencies. we tried to reverse these cuts as much as we could but with severely limited funding there was only so much we could do and also would like to much the bus procurement funds in the bill and provided several different mechanisms and buses are expensive, larger purchases will help them to get lower costs. this amendment will further increase the combuss procurement programs and shift money that

states. seven northeast this was carefully drafted by the members of the senate banking committee some time ago and is of great benefit to those seven states. i'm sympathetic to the amendment, but i'm obligated to reluctantly oppose it. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. herrera beutler: i yield to the gentleman from ohio for one minute. mr. chabot: i rise as a co-sponsor. >> in support of this amendment, amendment number 57. mr. turner: this has been interesting in the debate and has been clarified that we see this as an earmark, seven states ake from this amount based on,

new york, new jersey, massachusetts, connecticut, maryland and delaware. you should vote for this amendment because declaring them is a meaningless designation. chicago. los angeles, many urban areas are high density and ought to participate and they cannot because they aren't located in these states as the ranking member has indicated, a senate formula set-aside. our founding fathers when they created the house and senate they did so that we would have a balance. this is not a balance when you have a set-aside. i would call on my fellow colleagues who don't live in these seven states to vote for this amendment where she has identified this is an earmark to

these states and robs money from other states that need money. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because it does correct an injustice and i yield back. ms. herrera beutler: as was well said. 371 members of the house represent people in states that will benefit for this amendment. by voting yes, 371 members have an opportunity to increase access in their districts without raising spending levels. they aren't losing access to the funds. they will compete based on the needs of the area and the merits of the project. how can anybody vote against this? and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. defazio: in closing, i would say all politics is local.

with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. chabot: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58 printed in part a in house report 114-326 offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. chabot: mr. chairman, i will be brief. all of us here have the honor to serve in the people's house and

we are here to serve our constituents, the people that send us back from all over the country and also in the best interests of our great nation. and i had a constituent who approached me and i toured the business he works at and he told me something that affected me greatly. his son, who was just days before his 23rd birthday and a student at the university of cincinnati, he was coming down interstate 75, minding his own business, i don't know what he was thinking about but he had his whole future ahead of him, but a completely unajoidable accident occurred. a wheel was so rusted and broke free from a big rig and crossed the median and struck the vehicle he was in and killed him immediately. a couple of days before his 23rd

birthday and it had been a couple of years but his father was emotional about this. and we looked into this situation and talked with a number of our colleagues and did a lot of research on it and worked with the trucking association and the independent truckers' association as well and we came up with an amendment to this particular bill that we are discussing here this evening, the transportation bill and what it would do is easily stiffen the penalties of a driver who knowingly operates a commercial vehicle that has a serious defect that results in a fatal crash. what i would like to do. we are trying to make the public more safe and deal with a family that's been tragically changed forever. they lost one of the most

important members of that particular family and trying to do it in a responsible way. and the trucking industry in this country for the most part is very safety-conscious and their rates have come down and i commend them greatly, but there is a hole in the system. this was a rusted thing that shouldn't have been on the road and this thing doesn't happen all that open and it happened this time and killed my constituent's son. we discussed this with the chair and staff ap it's my understanding that the chairman is willing to work with us on addressing this issue and trying to make the american public safer and with that understanding and working with our distinguished folks on the minority side as well, we are

willing to withdraw our amendment here this evening and continue to work with them through the process to hopefully address this issue in a way that will receive support on both sides of the aisle so we can make the public safer and allow this particular family that was affected so tragically in this instance to know they have done something to honor their son. o i would be happy to yield to the chair -- the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. shuster: i would be happy to work with the gentleman on this. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman. the chair: jop the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i claim time in opposition although i'm not in opposition. that's a story that tugs at you and the gentleman brings before

us an important issue and there is an important way to get at this and work with the gentleman when we go to conference. with that, the indulgence of the house, the the gentleman from tennessee wants to talk about mr. coble. mr. cohen: i want to thank mr. shuster and mr. defazio working with me. the transportation committee works together in a bipartisan fashion. on the other hand, i had the pleasure of knowing howard coble. i was his ranking member on judiciary. he was my ranking member on judiciary. we had a great relationship. and one of the finest gentlemen i have ever known. he loved north carolina and this house and he will be missed and he was an example of the way

people can work together. i was honored to know him. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. mr. chabot: i would like to share in the gentleman's comments about howard coble. he was a wonderful part of this distinguished institution. i served on the judiciary committee for the better part of 20 years with howard and we all looked up to him. he was kind of one of a kind and i say that in the most honorable way. he was one we looked to. he had a sense of humor that wept with your heart. he will be truly missed not only by his constituents but this house that he loved for so many years. and my amendment with the understanding, i heard both the

chairman and our friend on the minority side they are willing to work with us on this amendment and with that understanding, we will withdraw it at this time. the chair: withdrawn. the chair understands that amendment number one in -- will not be offered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 114-326 on which votes were postponed, earment

number five, amendment number 7 by mr. hunt over california, amendment number eight by mr. denham of california, amendment number 10 by mr. king of iowa, amendment number 14 by mr. culberson of texas, amendment number 21 by mr. lewis of georgia, amendment number 26 by mr. reichert of washington, amendment number 29 by mr. desantis of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote on these questions after the first vote in the series. pursuant to clause 6-f of rule 18, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic votes on any amendments consisting of the text of rule committees print 314 as amended. the unfinished business is the request for a vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-326, by the gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment you were in five printed in house report 114-326 offered by mr. desaulnier 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 numbering are vizen -- having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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.]