tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 3, 2015 3:00pm-5:01pm EST
transportation and funding bill. what are some of the major details and how is this going to be funded? >> so, we're going to have the second rule today from the house rules committee laying out floor procedure on the highway and transportation bill. in the house, again, we're taking the senate bill as a shell and using the house policy inside of the senate bill which contains about -- now it's about $36 billion and $35 billion in paid fors and provision that offers the export and import bank. that's kinds of the overarching plan that we have today. we're going to have a rules meeting at 3:00 p.m. and then also 29 amendments on the floor today, the consideration of first of two rules on the house floor today. >> now, under speaker ryan, how open do you think this process will be and with this bill in particular? >> transportation committee bill
shuster was touting the open process laid out a leadership conference today to reporters. it's boasting that this process, which basically splits consideration of the highway bill from the house policy portions today and the senate and other provisions tomorrow and for the rest of the week as a process that gives members greater time and greater levels of consideration on both bills. however, the house rules process limits amendments on the floor. so technically, this isn't the most open process but with a highway bill that's spanning hundreds of pages and over 200 amendments submitted from the house, leadership has to do something to try to kind of limit the floor procedure process. >> and you mentioned bill shuster. here's a tweet that you sent out. "i've been waiting three years for this, so here we go," he tells the house rules committee.
why did it take so long and what is the current deadline? >> one of the major contentions behind the surface transportation reauthorization bill is the difficult funding situation. and again, we have a couple of timetables in terms of the deadline on the highway bill. first of all, current authorization runs out november 20th. we're trying to get a bill passed by thanksgiving. the highway trust fund which pays for highway and transit projects across the nation has enough money -- staff estimates there's enough money to keep programs going through the end of december. the department of transportation put out an estimate that the money in the highway trust fund could run through the end of the summer. however, they do note that there's a potential shortfall in the trust fund around the end of november. so all eyes are on thanksgiving as a deadline to get this bill passed. now, just to touch on the funding issue again, because the
gas tax that funds highway transit projects across the country has dwindled in value and there's not enough money in the highway trust fund to pay for the level of spending that congress has authorized, lawmakers have engaged in a process of transferring money from the general fund since 2008. it looks like this is going to be the continued process on this bill. again, we're looking at some $35 billion in a general fund transfer into the highway trust fund to keep programs going for three years. >> uh-huh. >> a six-year authorization bill but they only have three years of funding and that work was done by the senate. they are hoping that some type of international tax overhaul can bring in more money for the highway bill but that's something that leaders are looking at for a later date. right now they are relying on three years of funding in the senate's bill and that's going to be the subject of much discussion this week in the house. >> well, you mentioned the rules committee meeting to talk about
some of the amendments. what are some of the key ones? you've already mentioned the gas tax, the export and import bank. talk about safety rules. >> monday's floor procedure is mostly transportation-related amendments. those truck safety provisions, they are going to maybe get a little bit of consideration but the major truck safety amendment to watch on floor procedure monday has to do with raising the allowable truck weight limit on interstates. representative reed of wisconsin has gotten some support from democrats, and others are sponsors on this truck weight limit increase amendment. however, many democrats say that safety advocates oppose this amendment. this is likely to be a contentious amendment on the floor. as for finance amendments, other types of pay fors, that's going to be the subject of a rules committee hearing on tuesday.
so tuesday evening, there's going to be another rule that the house leadership puts out governing procedure on those provisions which again are included in the senate's legislation which the house is combining with its own house policy. >> and kelly reports on transportation for cq roll call. you can find her reporting at cq.com. house rules setting up the floor debate for transport parts of the highway bill. also, we'll find you on twitter. what's your handle? >> you can follow me and i'll be tweeting all day today. >> thank you so much, kellie. >> thanks a lot.
>> members of the committee are hoping to come up with the debate rules for house consideration of those remaining amendments which could be taken up tomorrow and thursday. live coverage here on c-span 3 should start in a moment or two. thank you for joining us this afternoon, as promised, we were going to be up at 3:00 and as soon as bob goodlap walked in, that meant we could get started. so i'd like to advise our friends and the number of members that we have here. we're going to try and do these
five at a time on a panel. i would encourage all of our members to feel free to be as succinct as they choose and there were a number of people who spent a good time talking with me about their amendments and i would expect and want them also to share with the committee. so i don't want to try and tell anybody just come up and do nothing. but i think that we will remember that we have several hundred amendments to go through today. please do remember, as you're speaking about an amendment, please give us that number, give us the ability to work through that. several people have several amendments. i'd like to call up first, if i can, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlap, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, the gentleman from mr. illinois, mr. kipinski and mr.
gar ra men dee. and we're going to remember that -- if anybody has anything in writing, please leave that for our stenographer. john, i'm going to have you move around. it's a better shot of you with the camera if we get you right next to bob. yeah, i know. yeah, it is if you're from california. i wanted to defer to my friend, the gentleman from florida, for an opening statement that he'd want to make. >> [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, judge hastings. the committee and our staff has spent a good bit of time going through the amendments but there's nothing better than having the real-live person
behind the name that comes up and explains the importance of this. i want you to know that this committee is excited about getting this bill. we have been waiting for this rather than extension for a long, long time and we have seen many of you have been pushing some amendments on a lot of bills that go through but this is, i think, the right day to try to make this work and i'm just very glad that you're here. mr. goodlat, i'm going to let you go ahead and please be our first witness and the gentleman, chairman of the judiciary. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i have two amendments i want to call to the committee's attention. the first one is an amendment that i've offered, amendment 42 to the nontransportation provisions of hr-22 but very much related to transportation. that amendment embodies a preconference resolution of the differences between the rapid act which passed the house of
representatives and s-280 as incorporated into hr-22. senator portman and senator m mccaskill all support. these bills have been companion for multiple terms in our efforts to streamline the process in which federally funded projects is essential to create new high-paying jobs and strengthen our economy. it's a priority of the house, the senate and the president. s-280 was incorporated by a floor amendment into the senate amendments, hr-22 and is included in the base bill before the committee in two of three key respects it substantially achieves the goal introduced
into the house. to shorten the time it takes to conclude litigation over federal permitting decisions and require litigants first to present the substance of any claims before agencies during their administrative views. the senate falls short in the third key respect to expedite the time that the agencies have to conclude. the senate language includes many important steps towards this goal but multiple loopholes in the language open the door to extend administrative deadlines without end and without standards. we fix this problem by offering affirmed checks and balances through which the director of omb can prevent abuse of extensions and assure that permits applications are reviewed within reason deadlines. as i say, this is bipartisan and
has worked very closely with the white house on this and i think we all would like this to move forward. the house version is already passed the house. the other amendment that i would like to call to your attention is one offered by congressman hurt along with myself, congressman griffith and comstock, a member of the transportation committee and it deals with language to simply give states included in the interstate 73 corridor an important avenue for commerce and economic development the opportunity to band together to advance the planning and construction of this interstate highway. four of the six statements affected by this have submitted letters in subport. we're working on getting the other two but since this is a
voluntary, we think it would be very appropriate to offer this amendment and to make it an order. i do not know of any controversy that would surround it. nothing speaks more loudly of cooperation to work together to get common goals accomplished and that's what this amendment seeks to do and i look forward to seeing how this impacts states working together to build this north/south highway. >> thank you. one question real quickly. number 42 is the first one. what was the second number of the amendment that you were in reference to? >> 80. >> 8-0. thank you. >> i'm sorry. 88. >> 8 -- >> 88. >> 88. thank you very much. mr. lipinski, we're going to share that microphone with you. sir, it's good to see you and i'm delighted that you're here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here to talk about four amendments. i'll make this as quick as i
can. the first two amendments are co-sponsored by my friend from virginia, miss comstock. i serve as ranking member on. we marked up similar to these amendments as part of a bill i introduced a future trip act. it was designed to be part of the research title of this bill along with the bill by chairwoman comstock. because of timing, unfortunately, chairman smith had asked for a referral of the bill that we're considering from the t & i committee which is -- should be done according to rules, although i understand that we have our limit on time and we are not able to have that occur. so i'm asking that the rules
committee would make an order and the first of these amendments is rules committee number and amendment number 38. provide congressional research and automaticed vik technology at the department of transportation. the language in the research agenda was developed in coordination with transportation for america and as well as numerous local and state transportation agencies. all aware are at a major turning point when it comes to automated transportation. it holds promise for decreasing commute time and reducing fatalities. much of this depends on basic research into robotics and intelligence transportation systems done in conjunction with state and local transportation agencies.
i've heard from stakeholders we could fit as many as four times the cars on the road today if which had autonomous connected vehicles. the basic research of today could become technology tomorrow but only if we are directed in the right way. my amendment would direct d.o.t. to move past short-ranged communication technologies that have been the focus of much of the research in this area to date. it includes language requiring d.o.t. to analyze the effects of the vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications as well as other technology on things like traffic congestion and fuel economy. also in conjunction with state and local transportation agencies. this language was a product of three transportation round tables and we had a hearing in the science committee also on this. the second amendment is
amendment number 62, which would permit d.o.t. to carry out freight research and development activities to increase sufficiency of freight transportation. once again, chairwoman comstock, i want to thank her for supporting this amendment. majority of that coming via trucks. that number is expected to double by 2040 which means we need to efficiently transport freight across the country. this amendment would help in that regard by allowing d.o.t. to do research on new technologies that can improve efficiency as well as ways to broadly share freight data with state and local policy makers to assist in future transportation planning. this would go well with a title in the bill which is a new one
which i commend the transportation committee i'm also a part of for putting in their freight movement which is critical to our country. the last two amendments i'm going to ask you that make an order, first, number 106. the bipartisan regulatory fix that will alleviate the burdens on welding rigs and work in a pipeline industry. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. hastings, for co-sponsoring his support on this commonsense amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same. this will help welders and pipeline contractors focus on construction projects instead of abiding by fmcsa regulations that are more suited to trucking and inner city bus companies. the last amendment is number 110. it's another bipartisan amendment that will fix an issue
with new start transportation projects. this is a compromised measure between the majority and the minority in terms of what funding can be used for new starts projects for transit. like anything that's a compromise that's not perfect that reflects democrats and republicans can work together to find a solution that creates jobs and helps people get to work. i hope the committee can make these amendments in order. they are all amendments that have bipartisan support. the two from the science committee has approval by chairman lamar smith. thank you for your time and i would again ask if you can make these in order. >> thank you. i'm delighted that you're back. you're a regular up here and we're glad to see -- if you could borrow that microphone from the young gentleman, he'll
loan it to you. >> very jogenerous with the sou system. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i have three amendments. and request that they be made in order. the first is 138. this amendment deals with the extraordinary good and bad in the bill. we have a six-year bill before us and, according to the congressional research service. this bill provides the needed to cover the projected inflation and the cost of existing service transportation programs. unlike the senate bill, it has not increased spending beyond the baseline. so what we have done with this bill in the current form is to lock in a woefully inadequate
funding level. the amendment i have before us would plus up the funding to the grow america funding level. and while i won't go through all of the details of this, it was substantially increase the funding for highways from -- well, the total funding would be increased by $149 billion, increases the funding for highways from -- >> can you please go back and state that again for the stenographer? 149 -- >> billion. over a six-year period. which is the funding level for the grow america act which is also introduced. for transit, it more than doubles the funding to 114 billion. these are levels of funding that are necessary today. the current bill, unfortunately, continues. the present levels of funding which are leading to the decay of the road, 63,000 bridges that are in bad shape, some of which
are destined to fall down very soon and on and on. i think we're all familiar with the shortcomings and the funding levels. so this amendment basically takes the funding levels in the grow america act deemed by the department of transportation to be the minimum necessary to meet the ongoing needs of the surface transportation programs from freight movement to transit to -- and highways. so that's the first amendment. and the second amendment, which is amendment number 35, pays for it. pays for the increase. we're not going to increase the gasoline or diesel tax but we can, by repatriating earnings which has been kus discussed in the house and senate but nothing done with it, this would repataki tree ate at a 14% tax rate and bringing back to the
states the money necessary -- actually, more money than necessary to fund the transportation increases that i just described to you. the 14% rate is less than half of the current federal tax rate. i think all of us are familiar with various american corporations. some of the biggest. some of the best known. apple, from my own state of california, that basically skip out on their american taxes by taking their intellectual property offshore to places like ireland where they enjoy a substantially lower tax rate and the profits are there and the need is there. that's amendment number 35 so these two amendments go together. it will pay for those increases in amendment 35. now, i know the argument is going to be made that this is the work of the ways and means committee and indeed it is and
indeed it should have been but it isn't. we're going to the floor, maybe this week or sometime in the next two weeks, with a bill that does have pays for it and in its present form will have tax increases. for example, the recent amendments to the bill bringing in the senate would pay for the highways by taxing housing. now, maybe that makes sense to some. it doesn't make sense to me. in any case, amendment number 138 provides enough money to make sure that our transportation system is adequate and -- where did this come from? my apologies. and amendment 35 is how it's paid for. the final amendment is amendment number 183 and this one deals with the problem that exists in
i guess maybe all of our districts in one way or another. this is the crude oil by rail problem, the volatility of the bulk and crude oil and this amendment along with congresswoman man would set a volatility factor for the crude oil that it cannot be shipped if the volatility factor was about 7.8%. we seem to have an epidemic of phones here. i'm not sure what that's all about. in any case, that sets the volatility of the psi, which is the pressure, at 8.5 on the psi index. i have five cities through which the bulk and crude has come and will continue to come into california. i think we're all familiar with the accidents and the extraordinary exposures that occurred. those are the three amendments.
i've requested that they be made in order. >> thank you very much. mr. denim, i've had a whole bunch of people on both sides of the aisle talk about you during the week. what are they talking about? >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. this is amendment number 40. this keeps our american's roadways safe and the economy growing by reen forcing motor carriers. this is an issue that came up in 1984 under then speaker foley, passed a bipartisan bill and then recently, after more than 20 years, the ninth circuit court is undermining that. it's creating a lot of issues with the patchwork across the entire country. one of the questions that comes up as giving this certainty, i want to be very clear, this amendment does not prevent drivers from taking breaks when they think it's appropriate. the drivers across the country are professional drivers. this amendment does the exact opposite and allows the
professional truck driver the flexibility to take rest breaks when they think it's appropriate and not worry if they are actually violating the law. they make it very clear for the employer so the employer is not attacking the employee. nor does it put the employee in a position where they are violating the law in the process. this has bipartisan support. corrine brown is a co-author on this. we did a number of letters through the t & i committee with huge bipartisan support. this is something that's going to keep our country moving, our trucks moving across the country through interstate commerce and i would ask your favorable support moving this to the floor. >> thank you, very much. mr. davis, welcome to the rules committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman and to members of the committee. the first amendment i'm going to address is amendment 131. 131. i really appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today about this amendment. it's an issue that has been my top surface transportation priority since being elected to congress and that priority is increase local control of transportation dollars. some of the most flexible transportation funding that may be used by states and localities for the projects that preserve or improve our federal highways and bridges comes from the surface transportation program or the stp. prior to map 21 and after the long-term surface bill, surface transportation bill, states were required to suballocate 62.5% of their stp apportionment for use in localities and that's companies under 200,000 people. ultimately there were changes that were detrimental to some of the local jurisdictions.
first, it was reduced from 62.5% to 50%. this had the immediate effect to losing transportation dollars. additionally, before map 21, all bridges were eligible for funding under the highway bridge program. however, map 21 eliminated this program and put the vast majority of the money into the highway performance program. that means that 77% of all bridges across the united states, those not part of the highway system, are only eligible for stp funding these changes were significant for local leaders like those in my district that are not eligible for 50% of our nation's bridges. i've introduced this amendment along with my colleague, congresswoman dina titus, who is
with me today. our bipartisan amendment would fix the policy changes made under map 21 by modestly and gradually increasing the share of existing stp funds suballocated to metropolitan areas to 60% by fy 2021 and increasing one percent each year. i want to make clear, too, that this is not new money. the amendment simply adjusts the share of existing stf funds. importantly, this would increase transparency for areas with population of less than 200,000. it would ensure states make public the procedures by which local governments and regional planning organizations from these areas must use in order to request project-specific funding. it would also make sure that states publicly available a list of all project proposals for
suballocated stp funds. the davis/titus amendment has the support of organizations. i'll leave that list for the q & a. with that, i would urge the committee to please make an order amendment 131. if i may also mention amendment 132. auto haulers. technically -- or automobile transporters are the truck tractor-trailer rigs that deliver finished vehicles from a railroad shipping terminal to a car dealership. naturally, this includes 12,000 tractor-trailer and making it a niche market within the trucking industry. there are five-axle rigs that can carry up to nine cars or five suvs and deemed by statute
as specialized equipment, auto haulers may legally carry finished vehicles and typically travel about 500 miles or less, short runs, and make multiple stops unloading each vehicle at each automobile shop. but under the current policy, truck drivers will have to do what they call a turn and burn. they will have vehicles on their truck to deliver but then they'll have to come back without anything. this return trip is also known as the back haul. it's costly and unproductive as they are only delivered for the goods they deliver and hence the drivers of these rigs aren't getting paid for their empty miles. my amendment helps reduce and eliminate empty miles by allowing general freight to be carried on back haul only. clarifies that the general cargo may be used on the cargo unit as current vehicles are allowed and keep as level playing field
within the trucking industry by reiterating auto haulers must comply with the same weight limitation that restricts the general trucking industry. and i would urge the committee to please make amendment 132 ruled in order. thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. thank you very much. was the last one you spoke on number 132, the back haul? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. miss lipinski, there's been a good amount of what i would call exercise in congress that we're we're less than happy with many of the rules and regulations that this administration in particular has placed upon the american people about industry. all sorts of rules and regulations across the board. are you in any way in your amendments empowering that
process? >> the two amendments from the science committee are specifically on research. otherwise, they would not have been the jurisdiction of the science and technology committee. the only amendment of mine that has r does anything on regulation is easing the regulation on plumbers and welders for the pipeline industry. >> but you're supporting what would be processes for them to go study and learn and provide information, not for them to go right rules and regulations therein? >> no. it's to do research and to not develop. it has nothing to do with developing any kind of regulations on this. >> well, it's my hope, if this survives that we really do understand that. because i have a problem with empowering a bureaucracy to
learn more and they do that and then they tell us what the answer is rather than reporting back. >> i understand. >> i think you do and i think you get that. that's just my one overall concern. >> we worked with the republicans on this committee, chairman smith supports this. and we want to make sure that we cleared up any concerns on that. >> thank you. awesome. thank you for your service to the armed services and anytime i get on up here and i know we have several others that i will recognize, i thank you for your service. mr. chairman? the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. hastings? >> just very briefly, i think all of the amendments are very thoughtful but i did want to
direct a question to my colleague. thank you for [ inaudible ]. the question that i have for you is, does your [ inaudible ] beyond minimum wage? i was just curious about the provision you were talking about, if they make beyond minimum wage a concern. what's your response? >> this allows drivers to make a meaningful wage. it's proven to be the most beneficial for the drivers and shippers and eventually the end consumers. this is reinforcing federal
exemption passed by then speaker of the house tom foley. this just gets us back to the firm footing. >> you mentioned the ninth circuit. does it in any way modify who is covered under that? >> the issue with the determination of the ninth circuit made is it is -- creates an inability to follow current law. currently a driver going through interstate commercial would have to pull over during a certain time period. california may not have a rest period that would have a place to take a break, a restroom facility. we can't afford to have trucks pull over on the side of the road or get stuck in a community that has delivery times and restrictions. so again, we leave this up to the professional driver to make the determination.
they still receive all of the breaks that they are due. we just leave it up to the professional driver to choose the most appropriate time and safest time to be able to pull over. we don't want them to pull over when ten miles down the road there's a rest stop that would provide a better opportunity for a break. >> that's all i have. thank you. >> thank you very much, judge hastings. does any republican seek time? i want to thank this panel very much for being here. if you'll please remember that our awesome stenographer would use anything you brought in writing. she'd appreciate you keep it on the front of the table here. i want to thank each of you for your time and attention and thank you very much and you're now excused. >> if our next panel would
please come up, mr. clawson of florida, mr. renaci of ohio, gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, and the gentleman from texas. thank you, mr. davis. i want to welcome this next panel and let you know that we're trying to go through several hundred amendments. your ability to effectively communicate with us including a discussion of your amendment but the number that you would be in reference to be would be of vital assistance to each and every one of us. and i'm delighted that you're here.
i'll err on the side of telling you that i'm delighted that mrs. waters is here. i'm going to refer to you first for testimony. the chairwoman is recognized. yes, ma'am. glad you're here with us, maxine. >> i have financial services amendments that are -- >> probably we'd be good for to you note those as you work through those. you are the ranking member of financial services. if you'd go through those -- i would put them in groups together, kind of a mix and match, and then we are able to identify them accordingly. >> thank you very much. i'll try to get through these as quickly as possible. >> yes, ma'am. >> amendment number 22, the text of 1309. offered by mr. lukeameyer. and i was hopeful that mr.
lookameyer would not proceed with that legislation because it's still a law that would be including this legislation for consideration in the transportation bill but still be working on it in committee. the bill would remove the dodd/frank $53 billion threshold for enhanced standards imposed by the federal reserve under section 165. in its place, hr 1309 would provide that only globally, systemically would require enhancement from the fed. 1309 would provide affirmatively designate the bank for enhanced regulation. mr. chairman and others, this is
all about whether or not we are going to abide by dodd/frank that says that, you know, when you are past $30 billion in assets, you will have enhanced supervision. you will be looked at a little bit closer and there are those, of course, who feel that that should not happen and this is an attempt to modify that in ways that i think would be very harmful. i'm not going to go through all of this but simply give you the bill for it. >> yes, ma'am. that is well received by this committee. >> okay. >> on a bipartisan basis. >> okay. amendment number 36, inserting the text of hr 1266 on the sfbb structure. he would add this bill which
would change the structure from a single directed to a commission. without going through all of this, this is a hotly contested issue. as you know, dodd/frank created the consumer financial protection bureau with one director and there are those who would rather see a commission. of course, you know, miss warren who was basically the founder who constructed the consumer financial protection bureau adamantly opposed to this. barney frank who was the chair at one time is adamantly opposed to this and for those of us who are pushing back on this, we just feel that this is another way to undermine the cfpb and from keeping it from doing its job. we would ask that that not be made in order. the next bill is amendment 86. this is the chairman's bill that passed the house on suspension.
each of the bills have previously passed the house under suspension of the rules. and while i'm supportive of some of these, i think it's not wise to add substantive changes to a bill like these bills. each of these bills have been sent to the senate for their consideration and, of course, the senate under leadership of motorcycle can choose to take up these bills if they would like and i would ask that these financial service amendments not be made in order. with that, i'd like to move to the xm-related amendments. there are about two dozen amendments that were filed and i simply would caution against these bills being made in order. these amendments being made in order. we have come a long way in this struggle to reauthorize the export/import bank and we had to
take extraordinary measures. but if you take a look at the boat that was on the floor, the xm reauthorization measure, i think that indicates very strong support from both sides of the aisle and, of course, any attempts to amendment it is an attempt to stop the bill in its track. it was synonymous to the bill taken up in the senate. i would simply ask that these amendments, all of these amendments on xm not be made in order. these amendments are not designed to improve reauthorization of xm but to basically stop it. with that, that takes care of the financial services amendments and i'm just wondering, mr. chairman, if the transportation amendments that i have should be presented at this
time. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. i've submitted a total of three amendments to the rules committee print. 114-32, the transportation to the hr-22, amendment number 122 is for one of the cities in my district, the city of englewood. it was previously -- this amendment will clarify that the city of englewood, california, can use highway funds to make improvements in a prudent manner with the city's priorities. i'm told that are a number of amendments and issues that are similar to this where they were allotted earmarks and they were not used for whatever reason with this, a little bit of changes in the way that they are redeveloping the city and whether or not the money should
be used specifically for one street or whether two should have been included, something like that, i would ask that this amendment be made in order. it's about the street improvement project which i won't go through except to say that in the small city where they have been very aggressive in creating jobs and with community development, they are on to a big, big project that would include an indoor entertainment venue, restaurants, retail shops, 780,000 square feet of office space, a hotel up to 300 rooms, et cetera, et cetera. and so we would like the money that was allocated for the improvements in that area to be allowed to be used. that is one amendment for that city. the second one is 124.
congressionally designated projects, my second amendment, number 124, was submitted as an alternative in case the rules committee does not offer 122. amendment 122 will permit states with congressionally designated projects that are more than ten years old to use remaining amounts for the highway and state. the first amendment was specifically about englewood. this would cover a number of concerns throughout the country about bonds that were obligated but have not been spent would allow them to go to the same city and within that state, basically. the third is a tiger amendment, 123. it's a final amendment. it would provide an emergency successful tiger program which
creates jobs through investments and transportation, infrastructure. this emergency will not be subject to sequestration. i thank you for not only calling on me to take up my amendment in this panel to be the first to take up the amendments. i thank you for considering my amendments and i request that the rule for the surface transportation bill provide waivers where necessary. thank you, mr. chairman. i tried to not bog you down with all of what i had to develop in terms of a presentation but i know how terribly busy this day is and how you are trying to hear everybody. i thank you for your consideration. >> yes, ma'am. i would ask that you provide
that for the stenographer which will enable her later to put this all together. so please, i speak on behalf of the management and her and please feel free to leave rules. >> thank you very much. >> i'm sorry, excuse me just one moment. >> i'm sorry, may i be excused? >> if you hold on just a moment please, ma'am. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. i will. >> do you have any questions for the gentlewoman? i previously known that she had had some problems. i told her i'd try and be nice to her, nobody else, but i'll be nice to her. >> having a hearing at this time. >> i just have one question knowing that we're trying to define what regular order means in a new management style. i hear in the house, you mention that there were 17 bills that had moved through the financial
services committee, passed the floor of this house by a supermajority, but were stuck, somewhere in the senate. we all know the senate has its own set of challenges, but there are -- i sit on the transportation committee, it's with great stress that we've worked so hard to deal with. in an effort to get them across the finish line? >> the financial services bills for the most part are extremely complicated, and they should be taken up, they should be debated, discussed, and members should know what they're voting on. this is so extremely important. as you know, there are a lot of differences about the implementation of the dodd frank act. but that act was put into existence because of the crisis that we were confronting within this country that caused so many
homes to be foreclosed on, communities to be devastated. people to lose their 401ks and we have to be careful about how we deal with modification, how we deal with changes in dodd frank and people should understand what they're doing because, they should be able to explain to their constituents why they voted to change dodd frank or to in any way modify what was done. whether i agree with it or not, all of the members should really know what's in those bills and that's why i oppose it. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much, does any other republican seek time? miss waters, you did ask and i will give you that ability to leave now as you choose. i want to thank you for taking time to be with us today. >> thank you, and i appreciate that. we have a mark-up going on in financial -- >> yes, ma'am, and i was aware of that. chairman told me about that, and i told him ooit get you out as
first, if you'd please, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. >> and this amendment basically prohibits reclassification under the 2008 epa air quality standards and sanctions for failure to retain the 2008 standards. in 2008, the epa strengthened air quality standards for ground level oh zone known as the national ambient air quality standards. the 2008 standard is 75 parts per billion compared to the just finished 2015 more stringent standard of 70 parts per billion. compliance with the 2008 standard even in light of the new 2015 standard. without this amendment, the 2008 standard progress and the current format creates overlapping and conflicting planning and attainment requirements. this amendment begins to rant down the 2008 requirements to allow the epa and the states to focus their resources on the more stringent 2015 standard. it removes due politictive state
planning requirements and it stretches, which stretches the limit of state resources. the pursuant to 2008 oh zone standard would continue for areas based on their current classification. basically the epa has said that without any action at all, most of the nation would be in an attainment, but with the 2015 standards by 2025. we're basically in this amendment trying to pull the epa to what they say as the new cafe standards and some of the tier 3 tail pipe and other standards kick into effect. everybody will be at the 70 parts per billion. but in the meantime, if they're above 75, they could potentially be put in non-attainment under the old standards while they're working on getting to the new even stricter standards. that's what this amendment, amendment does, and i offer it for the committee's
consideration and ask that it be ruled in order. >> thank you very much, i've been advised by the staff that 76 was included within the provisions that are being made in order on the floor today. >> all right, very well. my work here has been done. unless anybody has any questions. >> i'd like to gentleman to stick around. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> to also provide long-term certainty and predictability to
the underlying legislation. it assumes the underlying bill provides for three years of funding. but during those three years, congress should consider all options for highway funding, be it evolution, vehicle miles traveled, international tax reform or user fee system. but this amendment requires a long-term solution. something longer than three years. our amendment creates a bipartisan, bitask force within congress to develop a longer term funding solution, again, assuming that the conference committee adopts a three-year paid for. if a bipartisan supermajority of the task force reaches agreement, congress will be required to consider it with only a simple majority needed to pass it. if congress fails to act by december 31st, 2018, that's over three years, the secretary or treasurer will be authorized to raise the various excise taxes on motor fuels to fund the
highway trust fund through 2025 making it this a ten-year pay for. almost every member, republican and democrat has acknowledged our transportation infrastructure is crumbling and we need to invest in our infrastructure system long-term. we just need to face the difficult decision on how to pay for it long-term. my amendment, this amendment actually lays the path for that solution. given the initial pay for period, congress will have the opportunity to really tackle international tax reform and find alternative ways to pay for our roads, and we really do need to seize this opportunity. i know funding the perfect solution to fully, i know finding the perfect solution to fully fund our transportation infrastructure long-term is not easy, but as members of congress, we have a responsibility to our constituents to make those tough decisions. we have put out this decision far too long, and this amendment will ensure we finally fund our roads and bridges over ten years, and allow certainty and
predictability to the industry, those who have the equipment who have to hire employees, this will bring that long-term certainty. again, i thank the chairman and members of the committee for allowing us to testify today. i ask the committee allow the amendment to proceed regular order to the floor consideration. i would also ask if i could yield some time to my colleague. >> well, i was just advised by the staff that in fact the coach was here and did want to testify. and bill, we've got an extra chair there. >> thank you. >> so i would ask that you both testify at the same time and if it's on the same amendment. >> thank you. >> chairman, members of the committee, the house consideration of a six-year highway, mr. chairman, reauthorization is an important accomplishment, there's no two ways about it. however, in this legislation i'm concerned that the congress
moves further away from a system, i'm concerned about this. where the highway user pays for the highway trust fund. using revenue racers, unrelated to transportation, continuing to transfer general funds to the highway trust fund is not the right way to fund our system, my opinion. and i believe my friends' opinion. i'm proud to be joining my ways and means committee colleague along with transportation committee mr. ribble. several other members submits a modified version of our bipartisan bill. i understand that the committee made the low to allow amendments to the funding title that's important legislation, we know that, we understand that. but this legislation, when we put it out there, mr. chairman, our bill at the time, now an amendment, had the support across the line. conservative, progressive,
liberal, whatever you want to call. chambers of commerce, labor unions, the people who do the work, the contractors. our amendment has not changed the underlying financing final, which as we know funds only three years of the six-year bill. our amendment would not change the current financing, rather it would fund the remaining three years of the bill. as well as the remainder of the ten-year budget window. that means that when this plan expires, the congress could enact another bill without reliving the embarrassing cycle of last minute short term cuts. the amendment allows all ideas for funding our system be considered. while simultaneously keeping the trust fund solvent. continuity ensures that construction projects and the jobs they provide don't come to a grinding halt when congress fails to act. the three years provided by the senate allows time for the
creation of a bipartisan, task force charged with determining the plan. versus sustainable funding. if the task force is able to reach the agreement, it's recommendations to receive an up or down vote will have as my partner said, pointed out, i won't go into it, you know what happens if it's not done by a certain time. we fail to act current user fees would be indexed. for those who support sustainable funding for highway trust fund, using the conservative principle that those who use our highways should be the ones to pay for them, this amendment is for you. if you trust that speaker paul ryan and our ways and means committee can accomplish international tax reform, he's no longer the chairman, but and pay for hiways to repatriation, our amendment lays out a path for that to happen as well. we have a diverse coalition of colleagues co-sponsoring the amendment, let's be frank.
being on the democratic-republican control mr. chairman, this body has been loathed to make the tough choices needed on the issue of transportation funding. we can't point fingers at the other side of the aisle, nor can you put it at us. i strongly believe that the only way to solve the problems are democrats, republicans work in a bipartisan manner. chairman, the committee did not have an opportunity to act on a financing title. please give our bipartisan team the chance to put the trust back into the highway trust fund. i plead with the committee, look at this amendment, i think it's good for all of us. it's mainly good for the nation. and i thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. welcome to the rules committee, gentlemen took a few minutes before we got here, and i believe rationally explained not only why he's here, but i'm delighted that you're here for this body to be able to see you in the gentleman's now
recognized. >> full appreciation and respect, mr. chairman, thank you. my amendment is amendment four in the non-transportation section of hr 22. i am replacing two words, when speaking about the xm bank, i change line 7 and 8, i strike 25%, which is the money that goes to small exporters, and i put in in its place, 100%. i acknowledge that our exporters have a competitive situation versus firms particularly in europe who have government back-up to their financing. if we did not have xm bank, this would be a competitive disadvantage for our exporters. moreover, if i was a ceo of a company, getting back-up from the xm bank, i would do exactly what the ceo's involved in the
xm bank are doing now. i would represent my shareholders, i would represent my board of directors and employees and try to hold on to this benefit. i don't see them doing anything wrong here because i'd do the same thing. and if i did a minute, i'd be hypocritical. but as a representative in this house, i have a broader constituent base. and broader stake holders. with respect to large firms that use the xm back-up in their customer financing. i think not having this will lead to a marginally higher financing rate for their customer sales, particularly in difficult parts of the world. i think that the private market, however, would step in and supply these funds, or this back-up. this guarantee.
for companies that have market capitalizations of over $100 billion? i'm not so sure. i know a little bit about manufacturing cost structures. and i don't think of a point or two of extra interest on customer financing would be a game-changer for companies who have this kind of market cap who also have great balance sheets. they have great balance sheets. the u.s. has plenty of advantages, versus their competitors in the european market. moreover, middle class wages are down 7% since this president took office. do you think it's right that we should take money or guarantees from the middle class tax payer to help and assist large multi-nationals who confine financing on their own in the private market? a better plan for me would be a
competitive corporate tax system, clearly our multi-nationals pay too much money on taxes and are faced double taxation. finally, i think that the accounting in the xm bank is not real world. and if private banks had -- used the accounting that the xm bank uses to show their profit, they would not be allowed to do so. smaller companies i believe have more of a need to the xm bank because smaller companies can't get the financing. therefore my amendment aims to help the small guy, small, if we take away the xm bank, big guys will pay a little bit more financing marginally so on their customer contracts, but the small folks would be hurt because they may not even get
financing. >> mr. palmer, the man in the middle. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you. >> was recognized. >> members of the committee, i come before you today to be very brief, and to discuss my amendment 52 to the transportation bill. my amendment would aprotorate 20% of the royalties received from unite, from the u.s. exporting oil and gas that is produced on federal land.
for oil, and gas production, and accumulative addition to revenue that's projected to the $1.3 trillion from 2016 to 2030 in the base production case and more than double that, 2.8 trillion and potential production case by using 20% of the royalties to find the highway trust fund, ting helps us address the longer term funding issues to make up the short falls that we've experienced over the last ten years from trying to find through fuel taxes. i respectfully question that the committee find my amendment in order, and i'm willing to answer any questions, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. thank you very much. i received information about your amendment, you've been most helpful to get me to understand
it. it's important to understand how to fund the remaining years. it's a conundrum for us all. >> mr. cole. >> one quick question, mr. claus son, on the amendment i may be incorrectly advised, so if you know better, perhaps you can clarify that there are contracts overseas that you have to have xm financing to compete for. and if that's the case, would that put american companies, in that case, disadvantage or would that encourage them as we saw some of them at least threatening to do to move parts of their operation overseas before other countries that have that mechanism? >> i believe that the private market would absorb that. and that the buying customer would take that under
consideration. >> in other words, for big contracts, there's a market for money like everything else. and there's a market for loan guarantees like there's a market for everything else. and by the way, representative cole, our big company exporters have good income statements, good balance sheets, and they're very well run. these folks know what they're doing. i have utmost respect for them, but i think if the xm guarantee went away, that they could find it on wall street or london or in asia, those guarantees, and i think that the customer would accept that. >> well, that second part i think is the part that causes me concern. i don't agree with the first part at all, i think they are well-run companies, and i think perhaps they could, but if that's the condition of the competition and if these institutions are petty common, there's 59 other countries that have them. there are other countries that compete in the markets, i just say that would cause me some concern, but you may well be
right and your business experience. >> i think you make a valid point, if i was a buying customer of large, large contracts, would i trust a well-funded hedge fund or a government that prints trillions of dollars? i might trust the hedge fund more, and moreover, these guys that are offering the products for overseas sales, these men and women, they really know what they're doing. and they have factories here in the u.s. which is a great place to build things. and so i think that they would do what's necessary to protect those contracts, and moreover, i think there is a small part of their income statement. >> but you make a relevant point. >> thank you very much. yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i thank all of the presenters, i would hope we would make all of their amendments in order.
i especially point out the amendment and my colleague from florida. i certainly hope that those amendments will made in order mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> no questions. >> gentleman does not seek time, is there any republican that seeks time? i want to thank this panel, not only for their intellectual capital that they provided us today, but really the thoughtful ideas of trying to address real problems that we've got. i'll be honest with you, i don't know what we're going to do on your amendments. i know it's a recommendations are, but i think this committee is going to have under new light, we're going to have to evaluate. and i will tell you every one of you have presented us with an
answer, not just a new direction, but really an answer, and we're going to have to challenge ourselves. i want to thank all of you for taking the time and i thank you very much, if you'll please make sure that you leave anything you came in writing with for our awesome stenographer, it enables her the ability to effectively work through the work that she's got too. thank you very much, gentlemen. we're next going to go to panel number three. and i'm going to empower this, i'm going to have a meeting in my office, i'm going to have you sit-in if you would not mind doing this. if you would call up this panel. i'm going to let you call up this panel. >> thank you very much. >> yes, sir. >> okay, if i could call up the next panel, panel number three,
it would be steve russell from oklahoma, ryan from montana, scott molten from massachusetts, mr. sabland from the islands, and keith from pennsylvania, welcome, gentlemen. >> if we could mr. russell, we'll go to each of you in the order that you were called, so you're up first. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members. this amendment is amendment number 26 to the highway transportation bill. it's an amendment to prohibit federal financial assistance for any project or activity to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise support streetcar service. it does not apply to existing contracts. the intent of the bill is not to bash streetcars, it is to ensure
that the resources are husbanded towards highways, bridges, and critical infrastructure. streetcars also known as trollies are mass transit vehicles that operate on raillines embedded in normal roadways often drawing electrical power from overhead structures. in 2009 to 2014, the department of transportation awarded a half a billion dollars for streetcar projects and 14 cities throughout the country. streetcars are highly impact call from a public transit standpoint. like a bus, but unlike a train, a streetcar's speed is constrained by the speed of the traffic around them, but unlike a bus, they are bound on their tracks. if anything blocks the track, such as an accident or construction project, the entire line will shut down. streetcars are constantly to build and operate, and they require extensive infrastructure. including tracks and overhead power that is not required for buses. per passenger, per mile, they were also significantly
insistently more costly to operate than buses. according to a 2013 journal of public transportation study. yet, the congressional research institute can find no clearer evidence that streetcars increase transit ridership, streetcar corridors that saw economic growth often benefitted from other substantial subsidies. it is unclear if streetcars contributed to any of this growth. the main argument for streetcars is their psychological appeal which is understandable. but it's very subjective and depends on the sentiments of tourists and the local community. they are more comparable to water taxis or ferris wheels than buses or light rail. the department of transportation is not in a good position to judge how tourists or locals will feel about a streetcar project in a particular city. the agency therefore lack bs the insight to predict a success of a project. most streetcar funding has come from the transportation investment generating economic recovery with a tiger grant
program. tiger is an extremely competitive program. so competitive that there were 627 eligible applications requested totalling $10 billion in request which is 20 times the available funding. but a recent rule change makes it expected that it will be easier for streetcars to receive funding from the capital investment grant program, also known as new smarts and small starts program. president obama's administration requested 3.2 billion for the sick program until 2016, including 75 million for streetcar projects. at least six more projects are under development. any further grant awards of streetcars will scare federal funding from other high priority transportation projects. projects for example with higher quality stations or buses. traffic lanes fully or partially and reliable in frequent service. unlike for streetcars, there's an objective evidence that the
transit tends to increase transit ridership and decrease time, according to the government accountability office. streetcar projects, while maybe having some emotional appeal are expensive, uncertain gambles that depend on subjective local and tourist sentiments more than objective facts, unless anyone thinks that my district or community is anti-streetcar, in the capital city of oklahoma, oklahoma city, they are not. they just approved a major project to the $129 million for downtown streetcars. but in true oklahoma tradition, it was not funded with any federal assistance. and this, mr. chairman, and members is the way that we need to approach streetcars. we have way too many projects and way too many things that we need to dedicate the priorities of our transportation dollars and this would be a good way to save a half a billion dollars. and with that, i yield back my time. >> thank you, we'll go through each of you and come back for questioning. you'd be next up.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. and i offer hr 22 for consideration to be made in order. mr. chairman, what the bill does, is we have a process, we have al need for pros, we have environmental process, and it is unfair to skirt that process because of particular project. be it coal, be it a facility, there's a process. and if you're an investor, it's important to have an investment certainty that the process will be carried out. regardless of what the conclusion is. that's what the bill is. what the bill is not, is that the bill is not between the state of washington and the state of montana, and certainly it is not between tribes. i have in my home eight great tribes, and i am honored to be a member of one of them. but what i -- when i hear an opposition, this is between the
tribes -- it is not. it's simply an amendment it has to do with, it's follow the process. and what occurred in the background is the army corps of engineers is in a position to make a ruling before the eis and the process is completed. i don't pretend to know what that ruling is. although in this particular site, the ruling probably will be favorable. that's what i think. but, you have to get -- let the process play out. and when a government agency, any government agency suicides to skirt the process and give a judgment before the facts are in, it is inappropriate, and it breaks a long standard of condition. that's why we have the environmental rules that we do, let the process play out and let a facility or a project be deemed on the basis of that study. so with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> very good. mr. molten, if we could go to
you next, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment addresses the ongoing controversy with positive train control in america and tries to bring some basic business sense to this problem. the amendment i am offering would require the gao to conduct a study of the implementation and et ka si of the european train control system or etcs to determine the feasibility of implementing a similar system throughout the u.s. rail network to meet the requirements of ptc. etcs, europe's version of ptc has replaced more than 20 incompatible national signaling systems with a single inoperable standard that is proven to increase efficiency and prove ambassador safety, save energy and lower ownership cost. there is a clear parallel between america's rail network and that of europe before the
adoption. i believe we would benefit from this technology that harmonizing technical standards across borders and regions. from china to mexico, nations with the largest economy's in the world have seen the value that etcs has for the efficient, reliable, with and safe transport of goods and people. as the railroad industry, the administration, and congress continue to move forward with the implementation of ptc, it is important to see what lessons we can glean from the global leaders in rail transportation. this amendment is not about relitigating ptc. it's about bringing some common sense to this controversy. and simply saying that if there is a technology out there, its been around for 20 years, and does what we're trying to achieve here in the united states, why do we keep trying to develop our own multiple proprietary systems that then have to be made compatible and
the process has been so inefficient that the railroads continue to ask for delays before congress every single year. i just to want have the gao take a look at the european system and see if it would make sense for the united states. mr. chairman, as i have asked folks in the administration, including the administrator, and members of congress about this, the argument that i hear against this amendment is simply one of some cost. we've already invested a lot of money in ptc. anyone who knows thousand run a basic business or taken economics 101 knows you don't make decisions based on some costs. we ought to make the best decision we can going forward and this amendment will help our country make that decision. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much. you're next up.
>> it allows formula program funds the deals for public ferries between any two points in the united states. and territorial highway program plans between territories or within a territory. currently, ferry or territorial funds are limited. they may be used for public ferries that operate within a state or territory, so for instance, a deals for service between seattle, washington, that's within state ferries. it could be for service between the islands of st. thomas and st. john's in the u.s. virgin islands. within territory ferries. also currently ferry boats may be used for public ferries that operated between two u.s. states say from alaska to, from washington state to alaska or
vice versa. the funds can even be used for ferries between a u.s. state and a foreign country from maine to canada. and that's okay. according to the law. but, now here's the problem. those same funds cannot be used for public ferries that go between a u.s. state and a u.s. territory. florida to puerto rico, not allowed. and the funds cannot be used for ferries between two territories. now, so even though in my district and on the islands, we could use federal ferry boat or highway funds for a ferry off the island of saipan of which mr. woodal, was my guess recently, we would have to stop right there, debt underwater. we could not use the same federally funded ferry to the last 25 miles to the island of guam. now what is the rational for
national transportation policy that does not support transportation between all points of the united states? do we really want to a national transportation policy that supports ferries from the u.s. to canada, but does not support ferries from point to point within the u.s.? that does not make sense. so my amendment makes the necessary technical direction to allow for travel between a state and territory or between two territories. and just to be very -- absolutely clear, my amendment does not increase the amount of money authorized for the ferry boat program or the territorial highway program, my amendment does not require any state or territory to operate a ferry service. my amendment simply fixes a crashing anomaly in federal transportation that says you can't get from there to there. and i hope the committee will include these comments in its amendment in your rule for the service transportation reauthorization and reform act.
i thank you very much for your time. i yield my time back. >> thank you for your testimony. next up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking members slaughter and members of the committee. i have a number of amendments i have offered today. the first two amendments pertain to the service transportation portion of the legislation, the latter three amendments offer important reforms to the export/import bank. my first amendment rules committee number 17 seeks to level the playing field between natural gas and diesel long-haul trucks. natural gas is clean, affordable, and abundantly available right here in the united states. many american trucking firms are eager to add natural gas vehicles to their fleets especially in gas-producing regions like pennsylvania's 12th congressional district. unfortunately natural gas fueling systems can be up to 2,000 pounds heavier than diesel systems. with current federal weight regulations, they can carry less cargo than comparable diesel trucks. my amendment which mirrors the language takes accounts of this discrepancy and diesel and gas
which brings me to the three amendments regarding import/export. last week i spoke on behalf of the person i considered to be the forgotten man at this debate, the forgotten woman in the debate, and that's the every day tax payer whose been asked to carry a risk that the private sector will not. unfortunately the export/import reauthorization legislation came to the floor without an opportunity for an amendment. so this is our chance. as you know, the federal government today is the guarantor of more than $3 trillion in loans backed by numerous agencies. this level of tax payer leverage is not sustainable. and we must begin to identify parts of this loan portfolio that can be transitioned away from the tax payers. we as a society have to make hard calls on where we're going to ask the tax payer to step up and be responsible. given that 98% are made without the export/import bank, i
suggest it's one agency to suitable for transition over time to the private sector. in the immediate future, however, congress should act to better protect tax payers. two of the amendments would do just that. the first amendment, rules committee number 12 is simple, it prohibits the bank from guaranteeing or extending credit to a foreign borrower, unless the borrower pledges collateral or a foreign government guarantees full repayment. currently less than 80% of bank's portfolio is backed by an asset or collateral security. we should demand better. some may argue that requiring collateral or guarantees from foreign purchases and feasible and severely restrict the bank's activities, for them, i offer a second option. rules committee number eight, this amendment prohibits the export/import bank from providing a guaranteed or extending credit unless the u.s. exporter who directly profits from the bank's lending, guarantees repayment of a
percentage of the amount provided to the bank. this requirement sl phased in gradually over the next decade start agent 10% for any fy 2016. 20% in 2017 and so on. the amendment also provides it would not need to apply for these amendments. they can be described as a tax payer bailout presengs amendment. over time, this reform would mitigate the potential for the type of $3 billion bailout at that xm sought in 1987. it would also incentivize our trade representatives to initiate negotiations with our trading partners to eliminate all government export subsidies and protect the tax payer from potential losses. without these common sense reforms, it is the tax payer, the forgotten man or woman and not the entities that made the profit is on the hook for the potential loss. finally the last amendment would prohibit the bank from conducting business in countries
whose governments do not comply with the trafficking victims protection act and are not making efforts stood or have committed systemic or egregious violations of religious freedom. these countries includele central african republic, iran, north korea, sudan, syria, and venezuela. but they also include some of the trading partners, china, and vietnam. if we are serious about advancing human rights around the world, we need to reject human slavery and persecution for once beliefs, wherever they occur. regardless of the potential for trade and export. this is particularly so when it involves a federal entity like the export/import bank which is backed by the tax payer. i would respectfully request that these be ruled in order for consideration by the whole house. thank you again for the opportunity to address you and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i need to gabegin with you, full disclosure, i've been contacted by tribes that had
concerns about the amendment so i want you to respond and clarify the issue for me a little bit. it's my understand iing and makg determinations on some of these matters that they first determine whether or not treaty rights have been violated without necessarily committing to go through all the rest. they have been violated, why would you go through all the rest? doesn't that effectively spare you the long and expensive process? >> several other tribes too. in full disclosure. >> that would be in our argument, but it has to do with why segregate out goal from anything else? you have an eis process, and let's go through the process of which treaty rights are part of it. the matter included in this one, and the reason why it was brought up because it's time
sensitive. it's that one position of one tribe says that the fishing rights are a part of it. another position from another tribe, the crow in this case, says that the u.s. government's sovereign promise to them is not to impede their self-determination. and so, the way to get through the process is let it go through the eis process. don't make a determination before the process is done. and that's what we're asking is that i don't really have a dog in the fight about the end of the process because i'm confident the process will take its place, and i'm confident that a decision will be made based on the facts. but to arbitrarily give a ruling before the process eis, is there an impact? is there not an impact? as a treaty violation, does it affect the fish? does it affect the area of historic and traditional fishing ground? can those affects be mitigated?
and i personally went out to the pier and looked at the proposed site, on one side you have a pier that's developed bay larger company on the left you have a pier that's developed by another company in the middle of the proposed site. i think you have to go through the process to determine or not whether or not it impacts any tribe or the environment. that's why we have a process. and so, so i do find objectionalable that a branch of the government would give a determination before the end of a traditionally mandated process that goes through. i mean, what if this is a precedent where all the sudden, any agency can arbitrarily go in and there are water compacts, there are treaty, i can tell you at least seven of them within montana and determination before it's properly vetted i think is premature.
>> let me -- and if i was just looking on the basis of the project, i have no problem with the project. i think it's probably a pretty smart thing for us to be exporting coal, and recognizing it takes that. what i want to be sure of here, and maybe i misunderstood, i want to make that clear, is that, you know, at the end of the day, whether it's convenient for me or not, if there's a treaty, that vest the tribe with the certain rights, that's enough for me. i mean, they don't have to go further, if they make that decision that this is in violation of treaty and that's determined to be true, you know, i failed to see why you would go much further and look through the rest of it, i'm not sure i see the value of going all the way through if up front it's determined now there's a treaty interest here and that's there. on the other hand, i want to make sure i understand, you know, i know you're very good on these issues, and i know senator danes is exceptionally good on
these issues as well. i want to make sure where, you know, again, if you knew treaty rights have been violated or you thought they had or the core determined that they had, why would you do the other steps? >> mr. chairman, the treaty rights are interesting. and let's take this. it's 50% are native, 50% are not. so determining whether or not a treaty right has been violated -- and it is about fish. really have to do an environmental impact statement to determine whether there's an impact or a violation. i mean, that's what the process does. and a premature, in this case, does affect the fishing rights and does it affect this project? does it affect any of the fish? is there any environmental harm? is there any impact on the tribe, is there any impact on the adjacent lands.
that's what the eis process determines. and so to jump ahead and say, well, we're going to give this ruling on the basis of what? what scientific data do they have? >> let me make my point clear, and go to my friend, you may be well right, you may be perfectly right on the environment, perfectly correct, i don't know that. and i can understand the point of saying, but if let's say -- and i'll give you an example that i was asked, but i'm very strong proponent of the keystone pipeline. wonderful project, should have been approved a long time ago. on the other hand, if it's crossing reservation land, whether i think it's environmentally sound or not, and the tribe decided they didn't want to do it, whether i thought that was economically in their interest or not, or in anybody else's, i would say that's a right that they have. that's their land.
so they get to make that call. they don't have to be subject necessarily to that, and that's what i'm concerned here. and i want to make sure i understand, i want to make sure whether i agree with what the tribe does or not that it's right to make its own decision and exercise its interest as it sees turned the treaty. that to me is always the paramount issue here. not whether or not they made the right decision because sometimes they won't. >> thank you. to be clear, this is not on the area of reservation. and it's not as though we're talking about a crow reservation vice different reservation area. so the area is off the reservation. it is -- you can see --
>> is it covered by the treaty? >> the fishing rights is will the, will the pier adversely affect the traditional treaty rights? there are rights. if half of it is non-reservation and half of the rights are reservation, it is the key is, does that terminal adversity affect their rights and access to fish? >> do you want that changed? >> well, that's what the process does. the process looks at it, and this is not the first, you know, again there's a pier to the left, pier to the right, and this is a pier in the middle. so it's bounded by an all three piers are not on the reservation. and so, from a -- from a project level, is that when you develop these things, you have to make, you have to have some assure i did that the process is not arbitrary. and this process was first put
in, i think when i was in high school. so this has been a long, long process. and every milestone it seems like it goes through a different process. and so, what i'm asking in this amendment is, let's let the process that has been tried and proven and consistent, let's follow it through. that process will determine whether or not there's an impact to the treaty. >> well, and to my friend's point, and i want to make this very clear too. and you mentioned this in your testimony. there are often competing triable interests in situations like this. and we have certain tribes that have coal resources and reserves that they would like to develop. they would be a way out of navajo are amongst them, and so being able to get that market is something to think about as well here. just to me, just -- the discussion's been helpful the
treaty rights remain paramount and within the context of that treaty, their full rights. and again, whether or not somebody else thinks this is an environmentally sound, if they -- if it's in their territory. if they have a different opinion or economically -- that's what i would want to protect and preserve this is their ability to exercise their sovereignty. >> and i agree with you. obviously i'm sensitive to travel law. and these things are very, very complicated. and that's why it was carefully written so it didn't pit one tribe against another. it didn't pit washington, the state of washington versus montana. it was very carefully written to say simply this, it is go through the process. the process has been known, its been laid out, its been consistent, and go through that process and let the results speak for themselves. if there is a violation in the treaty, then it will be determined in the eis, that is
damaging the right of the tribes opportunity to fish. as the other two piers, you know, in that case did not. so, but that's what i'm asking for, but i don't want to pit the tribe from the crows, the northern cheyenne and i go to a basketball tournament in billings, montana, and there's a lot of old rivalries between, it's wonderful, but in this case, the words were very, very carefully chosen to make sure that it isn't arbitrary and we go through the process. >> appreciate my friend's explanation. >> yes, please. >> gentle lady from new york. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for your good work, and i would certainly understand the ferry issue. we've been trying to get one between rochester and toronto as long as aye been alive, i think, and i wish you well on that. and i really want to congratulate you for what you said about treaties -- not
treaties, but trade. i was greatly concerned about the new trade agreement that's been negotiated now that one of the countries is denied, which is slave labor, malaysia has the worst human rights record on the face of the earth. slave labor again, i think the prime minister was hauled off about two weeks ago for trouble. and obviously to compete with slave labor on wages is really an awful thing, but the worst thing is that they have slave labor and whether or not we should be dealing with that. and mr. molten, bless your heart aif been pushing it forever, so reminded me when you said that when i first got here and took a trip to europe, i was so taken with the escalators and parts mainly ireland and britain that don't start until you step on this pad, and then you walk about three feets, then it's going, and when you get off, it
stops. and i said, is this great, what a wonderful idea. you save all the wear and tear on the escalator, save all that power, there's no great accidents here. why don't we try it? i spent a year and a half with every agency of the federal government, asking if we could consider that. absolutely no way. so you've got a pal in me if you want to try to do something to improve what we're trying to do. the fact that they give them three more years to try to even put something in and part of the country i live in, you know, the awful accidents we've had, you live there as well, loss of life. so, but these are very interesting amendments, and thank you all for being here. i appreciate it. i'm not too sure i'd have to talk about that streetcar. i got lost in there a little. okay. but thank you all very much for coming. we do believe very strongly in new york on triable rights. as a matter of fact, there's a rumor going around that the new
buffalo bills football stadium may have been built on a burial ground. and ever since then, they are constantly hurt and wounded and can't win a thing to save their life. and there are actually people in rochester who are questioning whether or not that might have something to do with it. >> i never could understand why they lost four straight super bowls. that may be it. >> four straight super bowls, now they're all -- >> quarterback issue. >> the whole crowd is wounding hurt. i'm not sure they can put 11 on the field anymore. >> yield back? >> that should be a lesson, right? i yield back. >>
i would argue about streetcars. as a person, not so much in the congressional district that i represent, but there is a mover in the nation, particularly in urban areas for people, residentially to increase the numbers. everywhere we go, we see these condos rising. and the argument is that that helps those people as well. i don't see it as a revenue on the issue, i just admit having worked in atlantic city and rode a streetcar every day and visited san francisco that had an opportunity -- maybe i just have a love affair with
streetcars. yeah. >> in oklahoma city -- >> you are to be commended. >> ballot measure was passed. the difference between oklahoma is they paid for it without using tax dollars. if atlantic city or oklahoma city wants to do this, that's up to those people. but we shouldn't make someone in montana pay for streetcars in oklahoma city. when we have bridges on our highways and all of those other things that obviously can save so much more. it's a matter of prioritization. there's a lot of nice to-haves, but in terms of practicality, in terms of ridership, in terms of best dollars for limited resources, we can certainly put those towards other uses, and it still makes it possible, it doesn't prohibit streetcars, we just voted a measure as i said in oklahoma city, but we did not use any federal dollars to
pass -- >> i commend oklahoma city. i was recently out in that area and had an opportunity to see some of the new development. and toward that end, i understand where you are coming from. with reference to the fix, i don't see any reason his amendment shouldn't be made in order and that 435 of us should vote for it. i i wish it could be 436 if they so chose or other territorial interests as well. i was going to get to them. i was giving you your vote for your amendment. but the amendment certainly should be made in order. i fully support it. i'm going to take up where mr. cole left off. with a little bit of indian blood in me as well, i take these issues with reference to
treaties in addition to representing the seminoles and mikasukis and being the great-great-grandson of a creek indian, i have concerns. i would ask to insert the letters of the affiliated tribes of northwest indians into the record. >> without objection. >> i recognize what you said in terms of there not being real rivalry concerns. they call out in their letter, the cole company that is a concern and that's not my concern. my question to you is do you not agree that the corps of engineers has a process -- you
use the word process several times. and what you are calling for would change the administrative process that the corps of engineers has. many times, particularly with mikasuki and seminoles and the issues, the corps make as lot of decisions and and do have wait. respond to me and to the tribes who are opposed to your amendment. >> it would be unprecedented to make the decision without the ies process. the army corps of engineer does a process which involves ies. that's how you determine whether or not the treaty is impacted.
you have to go through to determine whether there is an impact on the fish. how much in order to determine whether or not the treaties stand or is in violation. there is no way from everyone i talked to you can go through it without ies. it will be completed. it is in process now. this is consistent with the processes of the army corps of engineers to do it before this. the process has been reversed. we give a determination before the ies is completed. so i think once the ies is completed, then you have enough data to determine whether or not the fishing rights of any tribe and certainly i am the last
person that wants -- because i have seen so many violations over the years of treaties. i think we have mistreated our native indians and the nations on many of the treaties. that we have walked away from the obligations. i do think this allows the process to go forward. it gives assurity one way or another whether the treaty is in violation. >> you certainly do articulate your position clearly. i understand it and i support your amendment being made in order for the reason that i think the debate should continue. each member of the house of representatives should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. i support all the amendments being made in order, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, my friend.
do you have any question s? >> sure. >> my friend from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of my colleagues here presenting this afternoon. just a couple of questions. i know it will be a long day and evening probably. getting serious around here. i had a question for mr. moll ton. not twrying to be funny but hasn't that train left the station? we have invested a lot in pcc. we have gone a long way down the road. work has been done and we are getting close on different miles of track. a series side of the question is not that we are getting information from other sources. is it too late? >> it's a great question, congressman. the answer is no. most railroads haven't implemented ptc. many haven't started to develop the standards that they will use
to implement. your argument, with all due respect, is a classic sum cost argument. we have invest ed in this therefore we shouldn't try something new or different even if it makes more sense. we should make a decision based on the facts we have today that makes sense going forward. right now they have requested three more years. three more years to start implementing a technology that they haven't even finished developing. we could go tomorrow to any major railway equipment provider in the world and buy etcs off the shelf. it is a proven technology that's been around for years. it was developed in europe. it's used across the globe and it's a global standard. >> are there significant difference into what they do and what we are looking at doing here or are doing here?
>> there aren't. i think the motivation to developing ptc comes from competing interests in the united states not being willing to agree to a standard. they are really shooting themselves in the foot. they are certainly shooting the american taxpayer in the foot. inevitably many costs will be borne by the american taxpayer. to meet the particular quirky interests of the massachusetts bay transportation authority and the miami dade county, whatever runs the sun rail and the commuter rail system in your neck of the woods and amtrak, we are trying to accommodate these interests. we ought to agree on a standard and there happens to be a good one out there. i think when we are talking about a multi billion dollar investment across the united states that will be in place for decades to come. and has many costs which will be borne by the american taxpayer
we ought to ask the question as to whether the existing technology is proven, makes sense. my frustration is as i investigated this and talked to the federal railroad administration and other officials in the industry the question hasn't been asked. >> i appreciate that. looking forward to the further debate. a comment, not necessarily a question but you make a compelling case that seems very logical. the question comes up, why is it this way to begin with. it doesn't make logical sense. i don't know if you have an answer for that. certainly support the idea and look forward to your issue. you can tell i signed onto this amendment. not necessarily because i support terminals or exporting coal or transporting coal
halfway across positive and negative. a decision will be made based on a process we have in this country. whether you support one way or the other. i think it's fair to the process and to the -- all of the interested parties involved or if we are not going to follow the process what good is it to begin with? that's why i decided to support this so we have consistency and some expectations when anybody gets involved in this lengthy decision-making process that we make people go through. unless i have something wrong about that, but it sounds to me that's the point you have been trying to make. >> the fine gentleman from washington you're right. it is unprecedented that the
sequence would not be what it is going through. that's how you determine whether there is a violation of treaty or whether it can be mitigated. >> it would be unprecedented to leap that process. if it happens here it could happen everywhere. that's why we carefully worded it in this particular case we limit it to coal. if coal doesn't have to follow the process, all of the sudden you can go outside of coal. you can go into everything we have and it becomes arbitrary. and then the chance of being political and pairing one group against the other. it was incredibly important. the process was laid out. this doesn't break the process. it ensures that the process has been this way and it's been effective.