tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 4, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
senator portman and senator mccaskill support this as well. this amendment will bridge the gap between these vital pieces of legislation. these bills have been companions for multiple terms in our effort to streamline the process by which federal agencies review and decide upon applications for federally funded and federally permitted objects. this reform is essential to create new, high paying jobs and strengthen our economy. it is a priority of the house, senate, and the president. 280 was incorporated into the amendment. it is so, included into the base threen two of
respects it achieves the house goals. to shorten the time it takes to conclude education over federal we requiredecisions, litigants to present the substance of claims during their administrative reviews. the senate text 12 short in the third key respect. the senate language includes many important steps towards this goal, but multiple loopholes open the door for agencies to extend administrative deadlines without and and without standards. byoffer to fix this problem establishing firm checks and balances through which the prevente director of owe can extensions. bipartisan and has
worked very closely with the white house. we would all like this to move a forward. the house version has already passed through the house and has been carefully negotiated with all parties and is ready to go. the other amendment i would like to call to your attention is this. into deals with language to simply give states that are included in the interstate 73 and thent avenue i opportunity to band together to advance the planning and construction of this interstate highway. as we speak for the six states affected, we are working on getting the other two. this is a voluntary arrangement.
choose to join. we think it would be appropriate to offer this amendment and to make it in order, i don't know any controversy that surrounds it. nothing speaks more loudly to work together to get more common goals accomplished. that is what this amendment is about. i look forward to see how these states work together to build this interstate highway. it starts in michigan and ends in south carolina. >> what was the second number of the amendment that you referenced? 88 >> 88? >> yes. >> sir, it is good to see you and i am glad that you are here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am here to talk about four amendments.
i will make this as quick as i can. amendments are cosponsored by my friends from virginia. of the science, space, and technology committee that i serve as ranking member on. the marked up amendment similar to this. act was designed to be part of the research title of this bill, along with another bill. unfortunately, because of timing, first of all, chairman referral asked for a of the bill we are considering from the science committee, which should be done according to the rules. i understand that we are limited on time and are not able to have that occur. the rulesg that
committee could make an order for these two amendments that are part of that bill. the first of these amendments is rules committee number 38. it will provide congressional direction to ongoing research in automated vehicle technologies as the department of transportation. the language in thes research agenda was done by transportation for america, as well as numerous local and state transportation agencies. think we are all aware that we are at the major turning point. enormous cars show promise for decreasing commute times, increasing efficiency, and decreasing fatalities.
we could see as many as four t cars on the road that we see today. the research we have today could become the technology of tomorrow. we can move past the dedicated short-range communication technologies that have been a focused of the research in this area to date. requires dot to analyze the effects from vehicle to vehicle. onwell as other technologies things like traffic congestion and fuel economy. guidance for these technologies in conjunction with state and local transportation agencies. this language is the project of three transportation agencies. we had a hearing in the science committee on this as well. the second amendment is
amendment number 62, which would permit dot to carry out free research and development activities to increase the safety and efficiency of freight transportation. this amendment is supported by the coalition for american gateways. according to the federal highway administration, over $17 trillion were transported in the u.s. in 2012. with the majority of that coming via truck. that number will double by 2040. we need to develop better ways to transfer freight across the country. this amendment would help in that regard, allowing dot to do research on new technology that could improve efficiency, as well as ways to share freight data to states and local policy makers. this would go well with a title newthe bill, which is a
one. i commend the transportation committee, which i am also a part of, on freight movement. amendments that i ask you make in order -- first is number 106. it will alleviate the burden on well there's the drive pickup trucks that work in the pipeline industry. i would like to thank my colleague, mr. hastings, for cosponsoring his support on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to do the same. ders,will help well there' instead of a biting by fmsca regulations, they are more suited to intercity bus companies. the last amendment is number 110.
another bipartisan amendment withwill fix an issue transportation projects. this is a compromised measure between the majority and minority in terms of what funding can be used for projects. , it is ahing compromised and is not perfect. but it reflects that democrats and republicans can work together. i hope the committee can make these amendments in order. with bipartisan support. the two from the science, space, and technology committee also have support. i thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. mr. garamendi, i am glad you are back. could you borrow the microphone from the young chairman.
please make sure the green light is on. the gentleman is recognized. i thank you for the opportunity to be here. i have three amendments. the first is amendment 138. amendment really deals with the extraordinary good in the bill and the extraordinary that in the bill. we have a six year bill before us and according to the congressional research service, this bill provides only those spending increases that the office has determined is necessary to cover the cost of existing service transportation. it doeshe senate bill, not increase spending beyond the baseline. what we have done with this bill in its current form is to lock in a woefully inadequate funding level.
the amendment i have before us to thelus up the funding grill america funding. i will not go through all of the ouldils, but it wa substantially increase the funding to highways. -- ncreases the funding >> could you go over that again for the stock of her? -- for the stenographer? >> $139 billion. it more than doubles the funding from $55 billion to $140 billion. these are numbers that are necessary today. present levels of funding are leading to the dk of the road. -- to the decay of the road.
many bridges are in bad shape and are destined to fall very since. we are all familiar with the shortcomings in the funding levels. this amendment takes the funding levels in the grill america act, deemed by the department of transportation to be the minimum necessary to meet the ongoing needs from freight movement to transit and highways. that is the first amendment. and the second amendment, pays for number 35, it. it pays for the increase. we will not increase the gasoline, or the diesel tax. repatriate foreign revenues. this would repatriate foreign tax rate and 14%
bring it back to the united states. actually, more money than necessary to fund the transportation increases i described to you. the 14% rate is less than half of the current federal tax rate. familiarll of us are with the various american corporations. some of the biggest and best-known, apple from my own estate of california will skip out on their american taxes by taking out their intellectual property to places offshore like ireland, where they enjoy a substantially lower tax rate. the profits are there and they need is here. that is what the repatriation would do and is amendment number 35. first of all, the increase in amendment 138 and the pay for that increase in amendment 35. i know the argument will be made that this is the work of the ways and means committee and
indeed it is, and it should have been. but it is not. we are going to the floor this week, or sometime in the next two weeks, with a bill that does have tax increases. for example, the recent amendments to the bill bringing in the senate will pay for the highways by taxing housing. maybe that makes sense to some, but it does not make sense to me. amendment 138 provides enough our transportation --tem to be adequate and where did this come from? my apologies. and amendment 35 is how it is paid for. the final amendment is amendment number 183. this deals with the problem that exists in i guess, maybe all of
our districts. this is the crude oil by rail problem, the volatility of the balkan crude oil. the congresswoman and i would set a specific volatility factor for the crude oil. that it cannot be shipped if the volatility factor was above a 7.8%. we seem to have an epidemic of phones here. i am not sure what that is all about. case, that is what this is. it measures the volatility of the psi. i have five cities in which the willn crude has come, and continue to come into california. i think we are all familiar with the accidents and explosions that have occurred.
those are the three amendments i request be made in order. mr. chairman: thank you very much. i have had a whole bunch of people on both sides talk to me about you during the week. >> what are they talking about? is amendment number 40. this keeps our american roadways safe and our economy growing by reinforcing federal standards for motor carriers. this came up in 1984. just recently, after more than 20 years, it is being undermined. it has created a lot of issues across the entire country. one of the questions that comes up. clear.to be very this amendment does not prevent drivers from taking breaks when they think it is appropriate. the drivers across the country are professional drivers. this amendment does the exact
opposite. it allows the professional driver to take rest breaks when they think it is appropriate and not worry that they are violating the law. sois good for the employers the employer is not attacking the employee, nor does it put the employee in the position where they are violating the law in the process. this has bipartisan support. did a number of letters through the tni committee with huge bipartisan report. this will keep our country moving, our trucks moving across the country. i would ask your favorable support in moving this to the floor. mr. chairman: thank you very much. mr. davis, welcome to the rules committee. the gentleman is recognized. you mr. chairman. welcome to the members of this committee. i will address amendment 131. i appreciate the opportunity to
testify. this issue has been my top service transportation priority. it is increased local control of transportation dollars. some of the most flexible transportation funding may be used by states and localities for the projects that preserve .r improve our federal highways they comes from the service transportation program, or the sdp. l, states were bil required to sub allocate 62.5% use withinp for localities. localities our communities under 200,000 people. ofonsolidated a number programs and made several changes that were detrimental to local jurisdictions. the percentage of stp funds was
reduced from 62.5% to 50%. this reduced the local control of transportation dollars. map21 put the vast majority of money into the highway performance program. all bridges across the united states, those not part of the national highway system, are now only eligible for stp funding, of which a smaller percentage is allocated to localities. local governments owned 52% of the highway miles. amendmenttroduce this along with my colleague, --gress one deana tigris
congresswoman deana tigris. this would fix the policy changes made under map 21 by modestly and gradually increasing the share of existing 2021.nds to 60% by it will increase 1% each year until fy 21. this is not new money. the amendment simply adjusts the share of existing stp funds states must spend in coordination with local jurisdictions. it would also increase transparency in the selection process. ensure states make public the procedures by which local governments must use to request project specific funding. it also would make sure states publicly make available list of
proposals for stp funds. i will leave the list for the q&a. with that, i will urge the inmittee to please make order, amendment 131. i will also mention amendment 132. ohaules, or automobile transporters, are the truck-tractor rigs. this industry includes 12,000 tractor trailer configurations. transporters are five axle rigs that can carry many trucks and suvs.
they are deemed by statute to specialize equipment. they may legally carry finished vehicles and truck camper units on top of the power unit. milesypically travel 500 or less and make multiple stops, unloading vehicles at dealerships. under current policy, truck drivers have to do a turn and burn. they have the vehicles on their truck to deliver, but then they have to come back without anything. and return trip is costly nonproductive as auto hauler companies are only pay for the goods they deliver. the drivers are not pay for their empty miles. my commitment clarifies the laws and helps to reduce and eliminate empty miles by allowing general freight to be carried on back haul only.
it keeps a level playing field within the trucking industry by reiterating that auto haulers must comply with the same weight limitations for cargoe on to the back hauls. i would urge the committee to please make amendment 132 ruled in order. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman: thank you very much. was the last one you spoke on, number 132 the back haul? >> yes, sir. mr. chairman: thank you. of,e has been a good amount what i would call exercise in congress that we are really less than happy with the many pools thisegulations that administration in particular has placed upon the american people about industry. all sorts of rules and regulations across the board. -- are you inay any way in your amendments,
empowering that process? two amendments from the science committee are specifically on research. beerwise, they would not under the jurisdiction of the science, space, and technology committee. on regulation is easing regulation on wlelders. mr. chairman: you are supporting what would be processes for them to go study and learn and provide information. not for them to go right rules and regulations? ando, it is to do research not develop. it has nothing to do with developing any kind of regulations on this. mr. chairman: if this survives, it is my hope that we really do understand that. i have a problem with us goowering the bureaucracy to
learn more. we told them to do that and then they turn around and tell us what it is going to be. >> i understand you. mr. chairman: i think you do. i think you get that. it is my overall concern. >> we worked with republicans on this committee. we want to make sure that we cleared up any concerns on that. mr. chairman: awesome. thank you for your service to the united states armed services. we appreciate your service to the country. anytime i get a vet up here, and i know we have several others i will recognize, i thank you for your service. the gentleman from florida, judge hastings. questionsnt to direct
preemption that was passed by the then speaker of the house tom fully. this gets us back to that firm footing, nationally. [inaudible] modify?it in any way the issue with the determination that the ninth is the increase and inability to follow current law. in california, a driver would have to pull over after a certain time period. in california, there might not be a rest area that would have a place to take a break. 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. up to thehis
professional driver to make the determination. they still receive all of the breaks that they are due, but we leave it up to them to pick and choose the most appropriate and pullt time to be able to over. we don't want them to pull over on the side of the road when 10 miles down the road there is a rest area that would provide them a better opportunity for a break. mr. chairman: thank you very much, judge hastings. does and republican seek time? i want to thank this panel carry much for being here. ourse remember that stenographer, we use in the thank you brought in writing. each of youank for your time and attention. excused. our next panel would please come
up. mr. klos from florida. the gentlewoman mrs. waters from california. mr. palmer from alabama. and the gentleman from texas. thank you, mr. davis. i want to welcome this next panel and i hope you know we are trying to go through several hundred amendments. this includes a discussion of your amendments. the number you are in reference helpful.be i am delighted that you are
here. i will air on the side of telling you that we are delighted that mrs. waters is here. i will go to you first for testimony. the gentlewoman is recognized. i am glad you are here with us, maxine. >> how should i proceed? i have financial services amendments. mr. chairman: it would be good for you to note those as you work through the issue. , i would through those put them in groups together. match. a mix and >> thank you very much. amendment number 22. 1309, offered by the representative as a built we are marking up and committee today. thes hopeful that
legislation would not proceed. we would still be working on it in committee. the bill has a $50 billion threshold for standards imposed by the federal reserve. that is in section 65. globallyas that only banks would be subject to enhanced regulations from the fed. 1309 huge global banks, hr has that enhanced regulation. this is all about whether or not
by thegoing to abide says we will have enhanced supervision. there are those of course, that field that should not happen and this is an attempt to modify that in ways that i think would be very harmful. i am not going to go through all of this. mr. chairman: that is well received by this committee. >> amendment 36. on thenserting the text committee structure.
we are not going through all of this. this is a hotly contested issue. was one director. there are those who would rather see a commission. the consumer financial protection bill, was constructed. i am opposed to this. frank who is the chair at what time, is adamantly opposed to this. we feel this is another way to undermine the sale of pb. ask that not be made in order. the next bill is amendment 86. this is the chairman's bill.
each of the bells have previously passed the house. i am supportive of some of these. wise to adds not the changes to a bill like these. each of these have been sent to the senate for their consideration. and the senate, under the leadership, could it choose to take up these bills if they would like. i would ask that these financial services amendments not be put in order. there are almost two dozen amendments found. i would caution against these bills, these amendments being made in order. we have come a long way in the struggle to reauthorize the export-import bank.
we had to take some extraordinary measures. if you take a look at the bill that was on the floor, the .uthorization measure passed b that indicates strong support on both sides of the aisle. any attempts to remove it is an attempt to stop the bill in its tracks. the bill we took up was synonymous to the bill taken up in the senate. i would ask that these amendments on xm not be made in order. these amendments are meant to stop the reauthorization of xm. that takes care of the financial services amendments. wondering, mr. chairman, if the transportation amendments i have should be presented at this
time? mr. chairman: yes, ma'am. >> i submit it a total of three amendments, is that correct? transportation title of the senate amendment to hr 22, amendment number 122. that is for the city of inglewood. it was previously, this amendment will clarify that the city of inglewood, california can use previously authorized highway funds to make street t improvements. i am told there are a number of amendments and issues that are similar to this where they were allotted and for not used for whatever reason.
whether or not the money should be used specifically for one street or whether two could have been included, i would ask is that this amendment be made in order. it is about the street improvement project, which i will not go through. cityt to say in a small where they have been very in improving jobs and community development, they are on to a big projects that will include an indoor entertainment venue, retail shops, rooms 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 was submitted as an alternative. permitnt number 122 will states with congressionally designated projects that are ld to use two years o 10% of the funds. aboutrst amendment is inglewood and the second will cover a number of concerns throughout the country about funds that were obligated but have not been spent. it will allow them to go to the same city within that state. amendment 123. it is about an emergency supplementation over the next six years from the successful
tiger program, which creates jobs in transportation. supplementncy will now be subject. for not only calling on me to take up my panel, is in this thank you for considering my amendments and a request that the rules for the transportation bill allow me to offer these amendments on the house floor and provide waivers where necessary. thank you, mr. chairman. i tried to not bog you down with all that i had developed, in terms of presentation, but i know how terribly busy this day is. i thank you for your consideration. mr. chairman: yes ma'am, what i would ask you provide the
terrible burden for the stenographer. that will enable her later to put this all together. please feel free to leave that. >> may i be excused? mr. chairman: if you hold on one moment. did you have any questions for the gentlewoman? i have previously known she had had some problems. i told her i would be nice to her. nobody else, but i would be nice to her. [applause] question had one knowing that we are trying to define what regular order means in a new management style. you mentioned that there were 17 bills that have moved through
the financial services committee , past the floor of this house by a majority, but for stuck in the senate. -- but were stuck in the senate. from a financial services perspective, you are asking that 17 bills thatse passed the house by a super majority it an effort to get them across the finish line? >> but me just say this. the financial services bills are the most complicated. they should be taken up. they should be debated. they should be discussed. members should know what they are voting on. there are a lot of differences about the implementation of the act. that act was put in to existence weause of the crisis that
were confronting within this country that caused so many homes to be foreclosed on, communities to be devastated, people to lose their 401(k)s. we have to be careful with how we deal with modifications. people should understand what they are doing. they should be able to explain to their constituents why they all of theange. fran members should know what is in these bills. that is why i oppose. >> i yield back. mr. chairman: does any other republican seek a time? you did ask miss waters, and i will allow you to leave now. thank you for taking time to be with us today. aware of that. i was told about that and i told him i would get you out as soon
as i could. we have done our very best. for allowingy much miss waters a chance to finish her piece of the pie. the gentleman is recognized. i would like to begin with a question. i have received conflicting information. if this was included in the amendments or not? mr. chairman: if the gentleman will give me one second. i will find out here. he needs to check. we will have an answer. >> i will start with my other amendment. limits on new designated, i will argue that what next.
this amendment basically prohibits reclassification under air quality standards and sanctions for failure to retain the 2008 standards. in 2008, the epa strengthened air-quality standards. is 75 partsndard per billion. is more stringent standard 70 parts per billion. without this amendment, the 2008 standard progress in the current format overlaps and conflicts planning requirements. this will ramp down the 2008 requirements to allow the epa and aides to focus their resources on the more stringent
2015 standard. it removes duplicative state planning performance. the stateretch resources. the 2008 ozone standards will continue for areas based on their current classification. the epa as said without any action at all, most of the nation would be entertainment. we are basically with this amendment, trying to hold the epa to what they say. everybody will be at the 70 parts per billion, but if they are above 75, they could be put under non-attainment. that is what this amendment does.
i offer it for the committee's consideration and ask it be ruled in order. mr. chairman: thank you very much. i have been advised that 76 was included with the provisions made in order today. >> my work here has been done. if anybody has any questions? mr. chairman: i would ask the gentleman to stick around. >> thank you, chairman and all of the members in the rules committee to allow me to testify for the bipartisan common sense amendment to hr 22. i am pleased so many of my colleagues support this amendment with me. this amendment is important because it will provide for a long-term solution to finance our roads and bridges within the parameters of the current bill. it will also provide long-term
certainty and predictability to the underlying the distillation. it assumes the underlying bill provides for three years of funding. years, congress should consider all options for highway funding. this amendment requires a long-term solution. threeing longer than years. our amendment creates a bipartisan task force within congress to develop a longer-term funding solution. again, assuming the conference committee adopts the three here. if the bipartisan super majority 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 31, 2018, the secretary treasurer will be authorized to raise the various excise taxes on motor feels to fund the
highway trust fund through 2025, making this a 10 year paid for. andst every republican democrat has acknowledged that our system is crumbling and we need to invest long-term. we need to face the difficult decision on how to pay for it long-term. this amendment actually lays a path for that solution. given the initial pay for. , congress will have the opportunity to tackle reform andal tax find alternative ways to pay for our roads. we need to seize this opportunity. solution toperfect fully fund our transportation infrastructure of long-term is members ofut as congress we have a responsibility to our constituents to make tough decisions. we have put this off for too long, and this amendment will in short we finally fund our roads
over 10 years. those individuals who have to hirequipment, who have to employees, this will bring that long-term certainty. i think the chairman and members of the committee for allowing us to testify today. i asked the committee to allow the amendment to proceed in a regular order to the floor consideration. i would also ask if i could yield some time to my colleagues. >> i was just advised by the staff that he was here and does want to testify. we have an extra chair there. i would ask you both testify at the same time if it is on the same amendment. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. consideration, the authorization is an important accomplishment.
on this legislation, i am concerned that congress moves farther away from a system. when the highway user pays for the highway trust fund. user revenue raises on related to transportation, continuing to transfer general funds to the highway trust fund is not the right way to fund the system. in my opinion. opinion. my friend's i am glad to be joining my colleague along with the transportation committee friends. several other members have submitted a modified version of our bipartisan bill. this legislation, when we put it out there mr. chairman, our bill efforts have the support across the line.
conservative, progressive, liberal, whatever you want to call them. the people who do the work, the contractors. amendment does not change the underlying concept. that only funds six years. our amendment will not change the current financing, but fund the remaining three years of the bill, and the remainder of the 10 year budget window. when this plan expires, congress can enact another bill without reliving the embarrassing cycle of last-minute short-term passing. the amendment allows all ideas to be considered, while simultaneously keeping the trust fund solvent. this ensures that construction projects don't come to a grinding halt when congress fails to act. the three years of funding
provided by the senate allows time for the creation of a bipartisan task force. if the task force is able to itsh an agreement, recommendations can receive up or down vote. out, youtner pointed know what happens if it is not done right. who support sustainable funding for highway trust funds, using the conservative principle that those who use the highways are the ones who should pay for them, this amendment is for you. our amendment lays out a path for repatriation to happen.
we have colleagues who will sponsor the amendment. body has beesn't made the tub choices. acrossot point fingers the side of the aisle. republicans should work in a bipartisan manner. regularek to return to order, please give our bipartisan bill a chance. i plead with the committee to take a look at this amendment. i think it is good for all of us. it is mainly good for the nation. mr. chairman: thank you, sir. the gentleman took a few minutes before we got here and rationally explained why he is
here. i am delighted that you are here. the gentleman is now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. inamendment is amendment 4 the nontransportation section of hr-22. whenreplacing two words speaking about the xm bank. 25%, which is the money that goes to small exporters and i put in its place, 100%. i it knowledge that our exporters have a competitive situation versus firms in europe who have government backup to their financing. if we did not have xm anks, this would be competitive disadvantage for our exporters. moreover, if i was a ceo of a company getting backup from the do exactly what
the ceos are doing now. i would represent my shareholders. i would represent my board of directors and employees and try to hold onto this benefit. i don't see them doing anything wrong. i would do the same. in this representative house, i have a broader constituent base and broader stakeholders. with respect to large firms, i think not having this backup by bank will lead to a marginally higher financing rate for their customer sales, particularly in difficult parts of the world. the private market however, would step in and supply this backup, this guarantee. indeed, some of these firms that use the xm bank have their own
financial arm as part of their corporation. with the marginal delta in , will it be a game changer? i am not so sure. i know a little bit about manufacturing cross structures. i don't think the point or two of extra interest on customer financing will be a game changer. they have great balance sheets. has plenty of advantages, versus their competitors in the european market. moreover, middle-class wages are down 7% since this president took office. that wehink it is right should take money or guarantees from the middle-class taxpayer to assist large multinationals who can find financing in their
any market.n market.n the finally, i think the accounting in the xm bank is not real world. used to theanks banksting that the x m use, they would not be allowed to do so. smaller companies have more of a k becausethe x m ban smaller companies cannot get the financing. they are too small. therefore, my amendment aims to help the small guy. bank, the away the xm big guys will fund more so on the customer contracts. small guys will be heard because
they might not even get financing. let's ship the money from the big guys to the small guys and let's not take money out of the middle-class taxpayer to backup loans from big companies that are doing very well. i healed back. mr. chairman: thank you very much. i appreciate you being here. esther palmer. -- mr. palmer. gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i come before you today to be very brief and to discuss my amendment 52. my amendment would appropriate to the highway trust fund 20% of the royalties received from the gases produced on federal lands. this builds upon the fact that the house has passed legislation and we already have the ability
to export natural gas. in 2013, the u.s. federal government received $42 billion in gas production. in addition to revenues projected to be $1.3 trillion and more than double that, $2.8 trillion by using 20% of the royalties to fund the highway trust fund. i think it helps us address the funding issues to make up the shortfall we have experienced over the past 10 years from trying to find fuel tactics. i respectfully request that the committee find my amendment in order and i am willing to answer any questions. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. chairman:
thank you very much. it is a conundrum of how we will fund the remaining years. mr. cole. question on the amendment, i might be incorrectly advised, but if you know better, perhaps you could clarify. over seascontracts that you have to have xm financing to compete for. if that is the case, with that put american companies at a disadvantage, or would that , to move parts of their operations overseas?
>> i believe that the private market would absorb that any buying customer would take that into consideration. in other words, for big contracts, there is a market for money like every thing else. there is a market for loan guarantees like everything else. companyay, our big exporters have good talents sheets, and they are well run. these folks know what they're doing. i have the utmost respect for .hem i think of the guarantee went away, they could find it in asia or london. i think the customer would accept that. mr. cole: that second part is the one that is the concern. companies, are well but if that is a condition of and these aren -- common, 59 other countries have them in other countries compete
with this, that would cause me concern. >> 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 printsince trillions -- trillions of dollars . i might trust the hedge fund more. these men and women really know they're doing. they have factories here in the u.s., a great place to build angst. -- build things. i think they would do what is necessary to protect those contracts. moreover, i think there is a small part of their income statement. you make a relevant point. yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think all of the presenters. outpecially want to point
of the amendment and my colleague from florida, i certainly hope those the minutes are made in order. >> thank you ray much. -- thank you very much. >> is there any republican that takes time -- seeks time? to thank this panel, not only for the intellectual capital they have provided today. but really be thoughtful ideas of trying to address real problems that we have. i will be honest, i do not know what we are going to do in your amendments. i know it is a recommendation. i think this committee will have under light, we will have to evaluate. everyone of you have presented
us with an answer, not just a new direction, but really an answer. will have to challenge ourselves. i want to thank all of you for taking time, and i thank you very much. if you would please leave anything became with writing with. thank you very much, gentlemen. >> next we will go to panel number three. i will have a meeting in my office. i will have you sent on -- sit in. i will let you call it this panel. >> ok, if i can call up the next
panel. steve also from oklahoma. ryan zinke e from alabama. --.sandlin from and keith rothfus from pennsylvania. welcome. if you could, mr. russell, we will go to each of you in the order. you are first. russell: thank you mr. chairman and members, this amendment is number 26 to the highway trust rotation bill. it is in an amendment to prohibit federal financial assistance for any project or maintain,o establish, or otherwise support streetcar service. it is not apply to existing contract. 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. trolleys, our mass transit vehicles, often drawing electoral power from overhead structures. of --009 two 2014, the the department transferred to -- transportation awarded money to streetcar projects. they are highly impractical for my public transit standpoint. like a bus, unlike a train, the speed is constrained by the beat of the traffic around them. unlike a bus, they are bound on the tracks. if anything blocks the tracks such as a construction project or accident, the entire line is shut down. costly to build and operate, and they require extensive infrastructure. including tracks and overhead power not required for buses. per passenger per mile, they are
significantly, consistently more costly to operate and buses. -- been buses. that is according to a study. yet the congressional research institute can find no clear evidence that streetcars increase transit ridership. it is unclear if streetcars contributed to growth. the main argument is there psychological appeal, which is understandable. but it is subjective and it depends on the sentiments of tourists and the local community. they are more comparable to ferris wheels or water taxis. the department of transportation is not in a good position to judge how tourist or locals will feel about a streetcar project in a particular city. the agency therefore lacks the insight to predict the success of a project. most of the funding has become from the transportation investment economic recovery
program. it is an extremely competitive program. werempetitive that there 627 eligible applicants requesting a total of $10 billion. funding -- available that is 20 times the available funding. a recent rule change made it easier for streetcars to receive money from the new starts and small starts programs. administration's requested 3.2 billion in 2016, including $75 million for streetcar projects. at least six more projects are underdevelopment. grant will keep funding from other high traffic -- high priority projects. most rapid transit projects attract riders, traffic lanes, and more reliable and frequent service. streetcars have evidence that
the bus rapid transit tends to increase ridership and did -- decreased trip time. projects come a while may be some emotional appeal, are expensive. uncertain gambles that depend on subjective local interest in seventh for the facts. -- sentiments more than facts. unless someone thinks my group is anti-streetcar, oklahoma city is not. they just approved a major project for downtown streetcars. in true oklahoma tradition, it was not funded with federal assistance. chairman and members is the way that we need to approach streetcars. we have way too many projects and made -- way too many things that would take the transportation dollars, this would be a good way to save $.5 billion. i yield back. >> thank you. we will go through each of you.
e: i offer hr 22 for consideration to be made in order. mr. chairman, what the bill does is -- we have a process. we have an environmental process and it is unfair to skirt the process because of a particular project. , there is, a facility a process. if you are an investor, it is important to have the certainty that the process will be carried out, regardless of the conclusion. that is what the bill is. it is not between the state of washington and montana. it is certainly not between tribes. i have in my home, ate great strides. --8 great tribes. i am honored to be a member of one. i hear in opposition this is between two tribes.
it is not. it simply has to do with fall to process. the background -- the army corps of interest just engineers is in a position to make a ruling before the a eis, and the process is completed. i don't pretend to know what that ruling is. in this particular, the ruling probably will be favorable. you have to let the process play out. when a government agency, any government agency decides to skirt the process and give a judgment before the facts are in, it is inappropriate. it breaks tradition. that is why we have the environmental rules we do. let the process play out. let a facility or project be deemed on the basis of that study. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. moulton, we will go to
you. mr. moulton: thank you, mr. chairman. addresses the ongoing controversy with positive train control in america. it tries to bring some basic business sense to the problem. the amendment i am offering would require the gao to conduct a study of the implantation and efficacy of the european train totrol system, or e tcs determine the feasibility of having a similar system throughout the u.s. networks meet requirements of ptc. version of ptc has replaced more than 20 incompatible national signaling systems with a single, standard proven to increase efficiency, save energy, and lower ownership costs. there is a clear parallel between america's rail network and that of europe before the
adoption of the tcs. i believe the country would benefit from this technology that harmonizes technical standards. from china to mexico, nations with the largest economies in the world have seen the value for the tcs has efficient reliable, and safe transport of goods and people. as for the railroad industry, the administration and congress continue to move forward with the into -- if limitation of it. admin -- amendment is ptc, itt relitigating is simply saying if there is a technology that has been around for 20 years, and doesn't just does what we are trying to achieve me a lot of united states, why do we keep trying to develop our own multiple proprietary systems that then have to be made compatible. the process has of course been
so inefficient that the railroads continue to ask for delays from congress every year. i just want to have the gao take a look at the european system. asked folks, i have in the railroad administration, including the administrator and members of congress about this. thisrgument i hear about -- against this amendment is a one-time cost. we have already invested money in ptc. anyone that knows how to run a basic business knows that you do not make decisions based on cost. we have to make the best decision we can going forward. i think this amendment will help the country make that decision. thank you. and, yourmr. sable next up. >> thank you very much. thank you for the opportunity to
testify to the surface transportation reauthorization and reform act. the amendment as a simple technical correction that allows variable form program. public ferries can be used between points in the in-state. it could be used between territories and a state. ferryboat runs are limited -- funds are limited. they may be used with in any state or territory. for example, funding would be used for service between seattle, washington and another city. all of the funding would be used for service between the islands of saint johns and saint thomas. also, currently ferryboat will be used for fairies that operate between two states.
from washington state to alaska, or vice versa. the funding can be used for ferries between a u.s. state in a foreign country. that is ok. that's according to the law. here's the problem -- those same funds cannot be used for public ferries between a u.s. state and territory. florida to puerto rico, not an option. the funding cannot be used for various between two territories. , we though in my district could use federal ferry boat , we would an island have to stop on the water. we could not use the same go thely funded ferry to last 25 miles to go on. -- to guam.
that does notlicy support transportation? do we really want a national transportation policy that dustrts fairies to the from the united states to canada, but does not support them from point-to-point in the u.s.? that does not make sense. my amendment makes the necessary technical corrections to allow for travel between a state and territory, or between two territories. to be exactly clear, my imminent does not increase the amount of money authorized for the program come or the territorial highway program. my imminent does not require any state or territory to operate a ferry service. my amendment fixes a hand -- head scratching anomaly that says you cannot get from here to there. i hope the committee will include this commonsense amendment in your room -- rule. thank you.
you.man: thank >> thank you. i have a number of amendments i have offered today. the first ones pertain to the transportation portion. the latter offer important reforms to the import bank. my first 60 level the playing field between diesel long-haul trucks and natural gas. natural gas is clean, portable, and abundantly available in the united states. many trucking firms are eager to add natural gas vehicles to their fleet. gasrtunately natural fueling systems can be heavier than diesel. this means with current weight regulations, long-haul trucks running on natural gas can carry less cargo than diesel. the language takes account to
this discrepancy as levels the playing field, by exempting the marginal difference in weight, up to a maximum of 2000 pounds. in other words, my amendment provides a 2.5% margin to allow natural gas to remain competitive for long-haul truckers and a viable component of an all of the above energy strategy. this proposal is supported by the american trucking federation, the american gas association. is myairman, it understanding because this amendment has already been included in the senate bill, and it has the support of our tni chairman, this matter will be addressed in a conference. consequently i will withdraw a minute number 17. my second amendment, rules committee 42 is another widely supported commonsense proposal. it pertains to the
reconstruction of disaster damaged infrastructure. i want to thank the committee for their support which will be debated tonight. which brings me to the three amendments regarding export, import. last week i took to the house floor to speak on the half of the person i considered to be be forgotten man, the woman in the debate, that is the everyday taxpayer who is being asked to carry a risk the private sector will not. unfortunately the export, import decision came to the floor without an opportunity for an amendment. this is the chance. as you know, the federal government today is the era tour of more than three chilean dollars in loans backed by a different agencies. this level of taxpayer leverage is not sustainable. partst begin to identify of this loan portfolio that can be transitioned away from the taxpayers. we have a society -- we as a society have to make hard calls on where we will ask the taxpayer to step up. given that 90% of our exports
are made without the export, import bank, i suggest the bank is one agency suitable for transition over time to the private sector. in the immediate future, congress should act to better protect taxpayers. the amendment i offered to they would do that. the first amendment, rules committee number 12 is simple -- it prohibits the export import rank from guaranteeing or extending credit to a foreign borrower unless they pledged collateral or a foreign come -- government guarantees full repayment. currently less than 80% of the bank for polio is backed by a a foreign asset or security. we should demand better. some may argue that requiring collateral from foreign purchases is not feasible and would restrict bank activities. for them i offer a second option, rules committee number eight, this prohibits the export import bank from extending credit to a foreign exporter. unless before an expert or
guarantees repayment of a percentage. this requirement is phase at -- in gradually over the next decade. starting at 10% for any lending in 2016, 20% in fy 2017, and so on. the amendment also provides an important exception for small businesses. small businesses is would not need to comply with these guarantee requirements. rightlyndment can be described as a taxpayer bailout prevention amendment. over time this reform would mitigate the potential for the kind of billion dollar bailout the xm saw in 1987. it would also incentivize the traitor presented as to negotiate with partners to illuminate all government subsidies and protects taxpayers from potential of -- potential losses. it is the taxpayer, the forgotten man or woman and not the entities that may be profit on the hook. offer wouldndment i
prohibit the expert import bank from conducting business in countries whose governments do not comply with the trafficking victims protection act, and are not making efforts to do so. for they have made violations of religious freedom. his countries include iran, north korea, sudan, syria, and venezuela. they also include some trading partners such as china and vietnam. if we are serious about advancing human rights around the world, we need to reject human slavery and for secretion wherever -- persecution wherever they occur. this is particularly so when it involves a federal entity. like the bank which is ultimately backed by the american taxpayer. respect that these be put in order by the whole house. chairman: think all of you for your testimony. -- thank all of you for your testimony.
i have beenlosure, contacted by a number of tribes that had concern about imminent. i want to give you an opportunity to respond to clarify. -- and clarifying. it is my understanding because of engineers is making determinations on some of these matters that they first determine whether or not treaty rights have been violated. without sincerely going to the rest. rights have not been violated, why would you go to the rest? doesn't that spare you the long and in terms of -- and extensive projcess. with why to do segregate out cold from anything else? have an eis process. let's go to the process. that is which treaty rights are part of.
reason why it was brought up, it is time sensitive. one position of one tribe says that fishing rights are a part of it. another position from another tribe, the crow in this case says the united state government sovereign promise to them has been not to impede their self-determination. the way to get through the process is let it go through the eis process. do not make a determination before the process is done. that is what we are asking. i don't really have a dog in the fight about the end of the process. i am confident the process will take its place. i am confident a decision will be made on the facts. but to arbitrarily give a ruling before the process -- is there an impact? as a treaty violation, does it affect the fish? does it affect the area of historic and traditional fishing grounds? can those affects the mitigated?
i personally went out there. ierone side you have a p developed by a large compa, another one is developed by another company. i think you have to go to the process to determine whether or not it impacts the tribe or the environment. that is why we have a process. find objectionable that a branch of the government would give a determination before the end of a traditionally mandated process they go through. what is this was a precedent where all of a sudden any agency can arbitrarily go in. there are water compacts, treaties, there are at least seven within montana in determination before it is properly vetted is premature.
chairman: if i were looking at the case of the project, i have no problem -- i think it is a pretty smart thing to export coal. i want to be sure of here -- maybe i understand -- i want to make that clear, the end of the not,hether convenient or that gives a treaty a tribe certain rights, they do not have to go further. if they make a decision that this is in violation of the treaty, and that is determined to be true, i feel this see why you would go further. i am not sure i see the value of going all away through his upfront it is determined there is a treaty interest. on the other hand, i want to make sure you understand, i know you're very good on these issues.
i know that senator daines is exceptionally good as well. treaty rights have been violated, or you thought they had come or the court decided they had come up i would you do the other steps -- why would you go to the other steps? native, 50% ore not. are not so determining whether or not a treaty right has been violated -- you have to do an environmental impact statement to determine whether there is impact or a violation. that is what the process does. -- a premature -- in this case -- does it affect the fishing rights? does it affect any of the fish? is there any environment harm? is there any impact on the tribe? is there impact on adjacent
land? that is what the process determines. to jump ahead and say, we will give this ruling on the basis of what? what scientific data today have? -- do they have? chairman: let me make my point clear. you may well be right on the environment. perfectly correct, i don't know. i can understand the point of let's say -- here is an example that i was asked. i am a strong proponent of the keystone pipeline. wonderful project, should've been approved a long time ago. on the other hand, if it is crossing reservation land, whether or not it is environmentally sound. if the tribe decided they did not want to do it, whether i thought i was economically and their interest come or not -- or not, i would say that is their
land. that is a right they have. they get to make that call. that is what i am concerned here. that is what i want to understand. i want to make sure whether i agree with what the tribe does or not, that it is right to make its own decision and exercise its interest as it sees him to the treaty. that to me is paramount. made ther not they right decision, sometimes they will make it on a different basis than economic. sometimes it is sacred, or something else. that to me is a major concern. i want to address that and give you your opportunity to reply. >> thank you. thee clear, this is not on area reservation. it is not as though we're talking about a crow reservation. the area is off of the reservation. you can see --
>> is a covered by the treaty? is -- willing rights pier adversely affects treaty rights? half of it is reservation, half of it is not. -- key is, does that turn terminal adversely affect their rights and access to the fish? >> do you want that checked? >> that is what the process does. process looks at it. on the left,er right, and middle. all three are not on the reservation. level, when you develop these things, you have to have some maturity that the process is not -- a surety that
the process is not arbitrary. i think this process was put in when i was in high school. it is a long, long process. every milestone it seems like it goes through different process. what i am asking in this let thet, is let's process that has been tried and proven and consistent, let's follow that through. met process will determine whether or not there is an impact to the treaty -- let the process determine whether or not there is an impact to the treaty. tribesn: there are often like this. there are certain tribes that have certain resources they would like to develop. being able to get that products to the market is something to think about as well. me, the discussion has been helpful, but making sure the
,reaty right remain paramount and strives are free to exercise within the context of that treaty, the full right. whether or not someone else thinks this is environment only sound, if it is in their territory, if they have a different opinion -- that is what i would want to protect and preserve. their ability to exercise sovereignty. >> i agree with you. i am sensitive to tribal law. these things are very complicated. that is why it was carefully written. it is not fit one tribe against another. it is not fit washington versus montana. ,t was carefully written to say go for the process. -- through the process. it is known and laid out. go through that process and let the results speak for themselves. if there is a violation in the
treaty, it will be determined in the eis. it will determine it is damaging the right of the tribe's opportunity to fish. s in thather two puer case did not. pit onet want to tribe from another. i go to a basketball tournament in billings, montana, where all of the tribe get together, there is old rivalry. it is wonderful. in this case, the words were very carefully chosen to make sure it is not arbitrary. chairman: i appreciate my friend's explanation. >> gentlemen, thank you for your good work. thertainly understand ferry. i wish you well.
many of us are greatly concerned about a new trade agreement being negotiated. one of the countries is brunei. malaysia has the worst human rights record on the face of the. -- earth. i think the prime minister was hauled off to weeks ago. obviously to compete with slave labor on wages is an awful thing -- it is the worst thing. heart, someone reminded me -- when i first got here and took a trip to europe, i was so taken with the escalators. mainly in ireland and britain. rt until yousta step on a pad.
then you get off and it stops. i said, what a wonderful idea. you save all of that wear and tear and power. why don't we try that? i spent 1.5 years with every agency in the federal government asking if we could content -- consider that. no way. me to improve in what we are trying to do. the fact that they have three years to put something in any part of the country i live -- the awful accidents. you live there as well. thank you all for being here. -- i will have to talk to about streetcars. thank you all very much. we do believe very strongly for tribal rights. as a matter of fact there is a rumor going around that the new
football team -- stadium may have been built on burial ground. ever since then, they are constantly hurt and wounded, and cannot win. there are 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 bowl's. >> the whole crowd is wounded and hurt. i am not sure they can put 11 on the field anymore. that should be a lesson. i am back. -- yields back. --irman: tillman from texas gentleman from texas. gentleman from florida. the sunday they play the buffalo bills. i am hoping tradition continues.
i am a miami dolphins fan. i die hard in october. i don't even get to die hard and november -- in november. i thank you all for the amendments. they are very thoughtful. i would argue about streetcars. as a person, not so much in the congressional district i represent, there is a move in toan areas for people increase the numbers. everywhere we go we see condos. the argument is that helps those people. i don't see it as a revenue issue. i just admit, having worked in atlantic city, i wrote a street -- rode a street
car everyday. maybe i just have a love affair with them. , in oklahoma city >> you are to be commended. >> the difference between oklahoma and -- is they paid for it without using tax dollars. if they want to do that, it is up to them, but we should not make someone in montana pay for streetcars in obama city -- oklahoma city. when we have bridges or highways or all of those things that could obviously save more. it is a matter of prioritization. in terms of practicality, the best dollars for limited resources, we could certainly put those other uses. -- itll makes it possible does not prohibit streetcars, we just voted a measure as i said in oklahoma city, but we did not use federal dollars.
>> i commend oklahoma city. i was recently there and had an opportunity to see some of the new development toward that end -- i understand where you're coming from. , i don't see any reason why his amendment should not be made and 435 of us should vote for it. i wish it could be 436 if they so chose. i was going to get to him. i was giving you your vote. the amendment certainly should be made. i fully support it. where mr. to take up cole left off. with a little bit of indian blood in me as well, i take
these issues with reference to treaty in addition to representing the seminoles and being the great, great grandson of a creek indian, i too have concerns. affiliated tribes of northwest indians oppose your amendment. askchairman, i would unanimous consent to insert the letter from the affiliated tribes of northwest indians into the record. >> objection. what you said about no real rivalry concerns. they call out in their letter the coal company concerned. that is not my concern. my question to you is do you not agree that the corps of engineers has a process.
you used the word process several times. that is what you are calling for. that would change the administrative process that the corps of engineers has. , because with seminoles and the everglades issues ongoing, the core makes a lot of decisions and do not have to wait for the process as you put it. , and the tribes who are opposed to your amendment. >> it would be unprecedented for a decision to be made without any process. in every case we have found there is a process which the army corps of engineer does which involves the eis. that is how you determine whether or not the treaty obligations are impacted.
the eis to go through to determine whether or not it has an impact on the fish. then you have to determine whether or not the the treaty itself stands, or is in violation. there is no way from everyone i have talked to that you can go from the determination without going to eis. the eis will be completed. it is in process now. the amendment is just the where consistent with policies of the army corps of engineers to do the eis before determination. it is only in this one case where all of a sudden the process was reversed. they would give a determination before the eis is complete. i think once the eis is complete, then you will have enough data to determine whether or not the fishing rights of any
tribe -- certainly i am the last person that once -- 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 these treaties. we have walked away from our obligations. i think this allows the process to go forward. it gives a surety, one way or the another -- or another whether it is in violation. >> he certainly articulate your position clearly. -- you certainly articulate your position clearly. each member of the house of representatives shall have an opportunity if he or she sees fit to weigh in. i yield back.
chairman: my friend from ohio, do you have questions? my friend from washington? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of my colleagues presenting. a couple of questions and i will be brief. i know what it -- it will be a long day and evening probably. we get serious here, i have a question, hasn't that train already left the station? we have already invested a lot in ptc. a lot of work has been done and we are getting close. question, not that i am against getting information from other sources, is it too late? >> it is a great question. the answer is no. most have not implemented ptc.
many have not developed standards they will use to implement. your argument, with all due respect is a classic argument, we have already invested in this, therefore we should not try something new or different, even if it makes more sense. -- it does not compute with economic decision-making. we should do the thing that makes the most sense going forward. right now the railroad requested three more years. three more years to start lamenting a technology that have not -- implementing a technology they have not finished developing. we could go tomorrow to any railroad provider in the world and buy it off of the shelf. it is a proven technology that has been around for many years. it is called the european train control system because it was developed their. it is actually use across the globe. and has become a global standard. >> are there significant differences?
>> no, they're not. it motivation and developing is competing interests in the u.s. not being willing to agree to a standard. i think they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long-term. there certainly shooting the american taxpayer in the pit -- put. rn by costs will be bo the u.s. taxpayer. to meet the quirky interest of ,he different authorities we are trying to accommodate all of these particular interest. if we all agree on a standard -- it happens to be a very good one already there. i think when we are talking about a multibillion-dollar investment across the united states that will be in place for decades to come and has many costs borne by the american
taxpayer we ought to at least asked question as to whether this existing technology is proven and make sense. my frustration is as i investigate this and talk to other officials, the question has not been asked. >> i appreciate that. i look forward to the further debate. a comment -- not necessarily a question, you make a compelling case. it seems logical. why is it this way to begin with? i don't know if you have an answer. certainly support the idea and look forward to continuing the discussion. zinky, i signed on to this amendment, not necessarily because i support exporting coal all of thoseng it,
things positive and negative, but certainly a decision will be made i think based on a process that we have in this country. whether you support one way or the other, i think it is fair to the process and to all of the interested parties. if we are not going to follow the process, what good is it to begin with? that is why i decided to help support this so we could have consistency and expectations when anyone is involved in this kind of lengthy decision-making process . unless there is something wrong about that, it sounds to me that that is the point you have been making. any comment on that? >> you are exactly right.
it is unprecedented that the sequence would not be what it is going to the eis. that is how you determine if there is a violation. forould be unprecedented the army corps of engineers to not do that. if it happens here, it could happen everywhere. that is why we carefully worded it in this particular case. does not have to follow the process, then all of a sudden you can go outside of coal, you can go to everything we have an skip the process. then it becomes arbitrary. the chance of being political and pairing one group against the other -- i think the risk is too great. i think it is incredibly important that the process is laid out. process, not break the it ensures that the process remains as it is. i think it has been effective.
>> i was going to yield back, mr. chairman. chairman: thank you. i am sorry i interrupted. i think each of you. it has been interesting. i appreciate it very much. please leave any material you have for the stenographer. it will help her. before we dismiss, i want to ask the panel, without objection, i have a statement from mr. riker with respect to amendment 155. ask unanimous consent to insert into the record -- that amendment. >> you are dismissed. thank you for spending time with us. i see the real chairman is about to come back.
german: -- think the men that circle the military. mr. sankey, thank you for your service. panel.ciate the four,l go to panel number suyou california -- california. nebraska, mr.om young from iowa, mr. garrett from new jersey. schweiker, we almost know how to spell it. mr. schweiker from arizona. spelling is a problem.
panel.to welcome the i think everyone has been here before -- for some time. you are aware that we would appreciate and respect if you give us, your speaking, the amendment you are speaking about. there are several members of several amendments. there is a fine line to tell us what you want. we are sitting through hours of testimony. i am sure your panel members appreciate that. i'm delighted you are here. if you will leave anything you have in writing for our awesome stenographer who is doing a great job. you are recognized. >> thank you very much. you have had a full afternoon,
you'll have a full evening, thank you for allowing me to come before you today. the reason i do -- i do not come up all that often. i don't know -- i know i have not frequented the committee. i am here today to asked for your support for something i think is so common sense that you would probabl ask yourself why we have not done this before. my amendment reflects legislation that i have carried since 2009. in this congress it is known as dig once. it is a commonsense policy to bring about greater bronze -- broadband access that would promote competition and save taxpayer dollars. there is a relationship between broadband deployment and still. -- and this bill. sometimes it does not seem obvious, but the two are an
extremely links to each other linked -- inextricably to each other, because each time fiber-optic cable is placed under highways, it brings together highways and broadband. said, my amendment is identical to the bipartisan bill i introduced with congressman walden. we have 35 other bipartisan cosponsors. it was put together since last month. it is simple. inclusionequire the of broadband conduit, the plastic pipes which house fiber-optic medication -- communication during the construction of any road receiving federal funding. if there is a demonstrated need for broadband in the area within
the next 15 years. rural parts ofve their congressional districts. some have congressional districts that are all rural. where we areea failing a lot of the american people. that is why i think this policy will extend broadband to those areas of the country if and when a federal road is constructed. as we work to bring about affordable, robust broadband service access for more americans, this policy would also reduce the costs associated with deploying broadband and up ofthe needless tearing roads and highways. digs affectionately called once.
the cost savings are significant. while conduit is expected to add less than 1% and cost, the federal highway administration estimates it is 10 times more sensitive to dig up and then repair an existing road, lay fiber, then to dig it channel into it. the gao found this policy could save up to 25% in construction cost in urban areas, and 16% and rural -- in rural. i am more than pleased to bring us forward. i hope that you find it worthy of your support. --if you do find it worthy, i something we will do that is going to advance broadband to americans that do
not have it. we will not waste money. we will actually save money. -- the if you think of a coin being put in the slot machine, and there are five cherries across -- this is a winner for our country. be happy to answer any questions that you might have. i thank you for your time and consideration. chairman: thank you. the gentleman from new jersey is now recognized. i want to have you grab that her phone. -- that microphone right there. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i have two amendments. one deals with xm and the other deals with the transportation in general. i will be brief.
on the transportation, we know we have gotten here -- a transportation measure that started in the 50's and has run its course. we find ourselves in a difficult we have worked with outside groups to try to come up with an idea for a pilot program to examine a way to get us out of the situation and go into a new direction. what would that do? statert it would allow a and pilot program to opt out of the federal program. they could raise their own gasoline taxes to a comparable level that the federal gasoline tax is now. it would take money back. they could be in charge of their own destiny. the money would stay in your state without any rules, red tapes by the federal government we have. in short, it would mean york
county commissioner, your mayor, your state transportation director would be in charge of his own destiny, their own right now, under the federal plans we are short on cash. rehe pview. area ofide of the highway transportation. bes will allow your state to in charge of your own transportation needs. we have done this in many different ways and configurations. modest approach we can come up with. this is a pilot row graham for forstate -- pilot program one state. the second one is amendment number 14, dealing with