Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chair, I offered a narrow fix for this in what was true interstate commerce because of the potential confusion between Federal hours of service and State hours of service, and that was rejected. This is an incredibly broad preemption. It is not as stated. For instance, we just heard you have to pull over, no matter where you are. No. If you don't take your rest break, you have to be paid, but you don't have to stop and pull over. Beyond that, this would preempt paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks, paid sick leave, paid family leave, payment for time detained at a loading dock, payment for anything other than a flat rate by the load. This is an extraordinary preemption that we have here. The drivers are already exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. So they can't get overtime. If we wipe out the State laws and there is no existing Federal law, truck drivers are really getting it stuck to them here. In fact, this amendment would expand Federal preemption over trucking operations to include, for the first time, wages and working conditions, something Congress never contemplated in 1994. It is opposed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the largest trucking organization; the Teamsters; American Association for Justice; and numerous safety groups. This is not as it is being presented. This is overly broad, and it should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. These amendments, en bloc, have been reviewed, both by the majority and the minority, and there is consensus on their merit. I urge my colleagues to support them. Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), I would say first that I strongly support his amendment and tried to work with the former FAA Administrator to rectify this issue that led to this extraordinary and unnecessary loss of life. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If you simply pick up a load in the Port of Los Angeles and drive 10 miles, that is deemed interstate commerce. The problem I was trying to solve with a narrow amendment version was to say if someone is coming in from Nevada, crosses the State line, there would be confusion. That is truly interstate commerce. What would apply? The Federal hours of service, State hours of service, et cetera. There could be a narrow fix to this issue. This is a preemption. If you read the law, basically, from working to the full extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under such section. So this would be a preemption in all 50 States of whatever additional conditions they have put in place. Many truck drivers are horribly abused already. We have done away with detention time, and we have put time limits on when they can drive, for safety reasons. They are sitting at some warehouse facility for hours, earning nothing, unless we can have States with additional laws. If we aren't going to have Federal detention time, perhaps States can help with these problems. We do not want abused, tired truck drivers out on the road. We want them to be able to earn a living wage. I have met with drivers out of the port numerous times who are in these endless deals to theoretically buy their truck that they never get to buy, and some of them are not even taking home $100 a week and working many, many hours. We need to stop these abuses. This is only going to make things worse. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, look around the country. There are many States that have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. That is pretty pathetic. My State is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum wage, but if we do away with--this says that federally funded contracts must receive the local prevailing wage for their work. In Oregon, we have recognized that with a higher minimum wage, so our prevailing wages are going to be higher than some State that only follows the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. So what might some contractor do? Oh, I can go over here and hire people who are used to earning $7.50 an hour. I am going to import them into Oregon. Of course, you are going to still have a problem with our minimum wage law, but this is what this is about is to find less expensive labor and move it around the country, and that, I believe, is a disservice to the working people of the United States. I would urge Congress, as it has done every other time this amendment has been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I rose in opposition, my principal concern is this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation as we adopted the FAST Act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot projects. We gave the task, as we normally do, to the Department of Transportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the pilot program, but DOT has not yet acted to establish those rules. So I have concerns about putting strictures on the Department of Transportation before they have had an opportunity to implement the rule, which, hopefully, will be soon forthcoming. I assume it is not one of these rules that the President has held up from being issued, since it would be something beneficial, if properly done. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time. We have already heard a lot today about noise complaints, and State 2 are very noisy aircraft. They were phased out of revenue service about 15 years ago. They are noisy. They consume more fuel. And I am not quite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what this pilot program would look like. So I have a number of concerns about the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a perpetual debate here on the floor whenever it comes to the expenditure of Federal tax dollars on projects that are covered by Davis-Bacon, as would be projects under the Airport Improvement Program and other related activities by the FAA. The bottom line here is we can chase the lowest common denominator around the United States, or around the world sometimes, in terms of trade, and undermine the capability of Americans to make a decent living, to have a home and have a family, and live the American Dream. The savings are illusory at best. In many cases, they would go to profits for nonunion shops and others, and we would return to the old days of basically exploiting those who work in construction and related activities. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This seems very commonsense to me. Earlier in the en bloc, my amendment was adopted, which would give the FAA authority to begin regulation of the small drones, which currently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by Congress. If this passes, that will allow the FAA, if my amendment stands in conference, to adopt this commonsense rule. Should my amendment not be adopted in conference with the Senate, and we pass this, the FAA would not have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they are prohibited from regulating them. Hopefully, both things will occur. Mr. Chairman, I recommend adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many of us here on the floor today who were here in 1996, when I supported a balanced budget amendment. It did pass the House. It failed by one vote in the Senate. Had it become law, George Bush could not have invaded Iraq and simultaneously cut taxes and blown the projected surplus into a huge deficit and debt. But here we are today. Now, this debate was actually scheduled for April 1. You know, April Fools' Day. But the House was on its Easter recess, so this is as soon as they could bring it up on the floor. But it is an April fool. This is an April fool. Now, we had one colleague call it chutzpah. I was trying to think of ways to describe it: dissimulation, insincerity, false piousness, hypocrisy. Not this balanced budget amendment; not at this time. They have just cut revenues by $3 trillion. We are projecting a deficit of $1 trillion in 2 years, and they are saying they want to cut taxes more. Well, then that means something else has got to go. And Speaker Ryan has already talked about what the something else is. It is Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Those are the things that have got to go. Well, there is a dirty, little secret about Social Security. I was actually using this on 9/11. I will have to get an updated version. But there actually is a Social Security trust fund, and this is a depository instrument for the Social Security trust fund, and it is here backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the United States of America to be paid to the Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance Fund. There are $3 trillion that have been collected from every working American in the Social Security trust fund. Now, we have an aging population. There is a problem, but it could be fixed. But the point is, under this amendment, if it was law today, Social Security benefits would be cut today because, under this amendment, Social Security could only spend its income, which this year was $40 billion less than its outlays. What did it do? It cashed in some of its $3 trillion of assets and they paid full Social Security benefits. So if this little dream that they have here going passed, every American would have seen their Social Security reduced by $643 this year, and every year that number would grow, while the $3 trillion already collected from the American people to pay benefits would never be paid out. Talk about false promises to the American people. That is one heck of a false promise. I have introduced a balanced budget amendment that makes a little more sense. It can't have these OCO, overseas contingency operation, funds where we shower $50 billion, $100 billion on the Pentagon, and it doesn't count. We are borrowing the money. It is creating debt, but it doesn't count. It is off budget. Don't worry about it. Under my amendment, unless you had a declared war, unless Congress had the guts to declare a war when we have to fight someone overseas, you couldn't have that kind of overseas contingency operation fund and do money off the books. My balanced budget amendment also would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds from those who would rob from that trust fund and begin to immediately reduce benefits for Social Security and Medicare. This is a ruse. Talk about the most drunken sailor spending money and then, whoa, I have got a wicked headache. Let's pass a balanced budget amendment. Maybe that will cure it. It ain't going to cure it. We need fiscal responsibility around here, and it has got to be a balance of rescinding some of their obscene tax cuts--$3 trillion worth--which would go a long way toward helping move us toward a balanced budget, and imposing a little fiscal discipline on the Pentagon. The Pentagon has yet to be audited. The only agency of the Federal Government that cannot be audited happens to get the largest, single discretionary grant of money every year. Once, I did manage to pass an amendment on the floor with Representative Frelinghuysen to require an audit. Guess what? That disappeared in the conference committee because the Pentagon can't be audited, doesn't want to be audited, and they just need more money. Don't worry, they will spend it wisely. So let's talk about real fiscal discipline around here, real balance, and a real balanced budget amendment that protects the assets of the Social Security trust fund and Medicare. The people don't care about that. They want to kill it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ward W. McCarragher, who has served in many capacities with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the last quarter century, including the last 20 years as the Chief Democratic Counsel to the Committee. As a Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have had the privilege of working with Ward for the last 25 years, and most closely since 2015 when I took over as Ranking Member of the Committee. As Ranking Member, I have come to rely on his expertise in both transportation policy and Congressional process in advancing important policy measures to improve the lives of American families. Hailing from Kenosha, Wisconsin, and a proud Wisconsin Badgers and Green Bay Packers fan, Ward started his Congressional service back in 1989 as a foreign policy analyst for the Congressional Research Service. After subsequently attending law school and serving as a legal intern to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ward returned to Washington, D.C. in 1993 as an intern for Chairman Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA) and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. That same year, he was appointed by Chairman Mineta as Associate Counsel of the Committee's Economic Development Subcommittee and, in 1995, he was appointed Counsel to the Public Buildings and Economic Development Subcommittee and the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. In 1998, Ranking Member James L. Oberstar (D-MN) appointed Ward to be the Chief Democratic Counsel to the Committe, where he has served with distinction ever since, including under Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) prior to me. Ward has helped guide virtually every transportation law enacted over the last two decades through the legislative process and the last four major reauthorizations of surface transportation programs, including the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. He also worked tirelessly over the last two decades to combat efforts to eliminate funding for, and privatize, Amtrak, our Nation's passenger railroad. Ward was also integral in negotiating Federal policy following the 9/ 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., including the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and enhanced aviation security overall, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Ward is the consummate public servant who possesses the rare combination of vision and grit. He has spent his career working vigorously to ensure that government works for the greater benefit of hard-working American families, while still attending to the minor, but certainly necessary, details. He has been a tireless internal advocate for Congressional oversight of Federal agencies, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, ensuring that Federal resources are utilized consistent with Congressional intent and for the betterment of the Nation. He is also a rare master on the internal workings of the Committee structure and the Congress, meticulously ensuring that established processes are followed, and that the views of elected officials, whether in the majority or minority, are respected. And he does this all while ensuring that no Committee document is missing a comma. As the longest currently serving staffer on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ward's dedication to the Committee, his institutional memory and his constant professionalism will be greatly missed by Members on both sides of the aisle. While Ward is leaving the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, he will remain a strong advocate for smart, effective public transportation policy through his positon with the American Public Transportation Association. His expertise and counsel will be missed by all who follow transportation policy on Capitol Hill, but will greatly benefit all those who rely on public transportation. I want to thank Ward for his years of service and his dedication to public service. I wish him, his wife, Marie, and his children, Ryan, Colin, and Megan all the best in the years to come.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 2018, I was unavoidably delayed and not present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: on Roll Call Vote 120, on Motion to Recommit With Instructions to H.R. 5247, I would have voted Aye, and on Roll Call Vote 121, on Passage of H.R. 5247, I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on March 13, 2018, I was not present for votes due to flight delays. If I had been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call vote 102, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5247, I would have voted No. On Roll Call vote 103, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4465, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2018, I was not present for votes due to a medical procedure in my District. If I had been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call vote 92, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3183, I would have voted Aye; and On Roll Call vote 93, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 4406, I would have voted Aye. On March 6, 2018, I was not present for votes due to flight delays. If I had been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call vote 94, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 4607, I would have voted Aye; and On Roll Call vote 95, on Passage of H.R. 4607, I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays, I was unable to vote on H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. I would have voted against this legislation. Changing the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) review process timeline from every ten years to every seven will drive up the deficit, and gives financial regulators little time to implement recommendations. I was especially appalled with the Rules Committee's adoption of an amendment to allow Congress to raid the Federal Reserve to pay for this legislation. I also disagreed with the provision that includes the CFPB in the EGRPRA review. This is unnecessary and duplicative, as the CFPB is already subject to a review of its rules every five years. Most importantly, I have serious concerns with shifting the mandate that regulators identify ``outdated and unnecessary'' regulations to a mandate that regulators limit regulatory burdens. Directing regulators to prioritize limiting ``cost, liability risk, and other burdens,'' would further reduce regulations for large banks, payday lenders, and thousands of other financial services companies without consideration for how these rules safeguard consumers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I voted Yes on final passage of H.R. 1917, when I intended to vote No. The bill would delay compliance with an EPA regulation which would reduce toxic emissions produced in the manufacturing of brick and clay ceramic tiles until all judicial review has been completed. The manufacturing of brick and clay tiles can emit toxics such as mercury and arsenic, both of which cause severe harm to human health. There is no need for this legislation; the law already allows judges to postpone regulations from taking effect. Under the bill, companies that make brick and clay tiles could continually file law suits, regardless of the merits, in effect killing the regulation. Further delaying the regulations means continuing to expose Americans to deadly toxic air pollution.