Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory and life of Edward A. Hill, a loving husband, son, brother, uncle, friend and colleague. Ed was a member of my staff from 2007 to 2011. His wife, Jessica Zufolo, also served on my staff in the late 1990s. They have been a part of the DeFazio family for many years, and it is with a heavy heart that we mourn Ed's passing. Ed didn't start out working in politics, but after volunteering to help elect Chris Murphy in 2006 he decided to leave his insurance industry job in Connecticut and move to Washington, D.C. He quickly fell in love with Congress and with Jessica, whom he had met on the campaign trail. I don't think he ever looked back. Ed was the type of guy everyone liked to be around. He was always smiling and quick with a joke or words of support. His love of craft beer and the home brew he shared made him very popular in the DeFazio office. About nine months ago Ed was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. He fought it hard until the end. Unfortunately he was diagnosed too late, which is not uncommon with this type of cancer. April was Esophageal Cancer Awareness month, and I'm sure in his honor Ed would encourage us all to get tested. Ed passed away on May 1st at Georgetown Hospital. At only 45 years of age, he was way too young to die. But, he lived those years he had to the fullest. He will be remembered and missed by all whose lives he touched.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on April 29, 2016, due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: On The Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``yea.'' On Passage of H.R. 4901, I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, so-called flags of convenience have decimated the U.S. maritime industry to a tiny fraction of its former size. It is a system where owners chase the cheapest, most exploitable labor, and the least regulation around the world. Now the Department of Transportation under the Obama administration, in its infinite wisdom, wants to bring that system to aviation. Won't that be great when we are all flying in planes with crews coming out of Indonesia or India or somewhere else where they can be exploited, paid less, and maybe have kind of questionable credentials. Actually, they are issuing pilot certificates in India to people who have never ever flown a plane. That will just be dandy. But, hey, the tickets will be cheap. You might not get there, but you paid less to get on. This is absolutely absurd. We have the safest and best system of aviation in the world with our proud domestic airlines. Their employees get decent wages, we fly safe, and we want to now go to flags of convenience? They are ignoring the clear language of the Open Skies Agreement in making this decision. No to the Obama administration.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 223, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2016. This bill extends the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program which has had bipartisan support among the Great Lakes delegation for 5 years. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives David Joyce, Dan Lipinski, and Rick Nolan, for their hard work and effort to extend the authorization of appropriations for this program through fiscal year 2021. These and other members of the Midwest delegation worked diligently to get this legislation to the floor for consideration. I want to thank them all for a job well done. It accelerates efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, the largest system of surface freshwater in the world. Through unprecedented Federal agency coordination and the development of partnerships with the Great Lakes States and local communities, the initiative has already funded more than 2,000 projects to improve water quality, protect and restore native habitats, and prevent and control invasive species in the Great Lakes. Mr. Speaker, legislation similar to this bill was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. However, that authorization was only for 1 fiscal year. This legislation provides for a full 5-year reauthorization. That timeline is necessary to allow many longer term projects to be planned, capitalized, and completed. Further, this bill will allow States and local communities to coordinate their efforts to combat harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes for the first time. The harmful algal blooms that shut down the drinking water system in Toledo, Ohio, for 3 days in 2014 and that re-emerged in 2015 are still fresh in our memories. For this reason, I am pleased that this legislation includes the text of H.R. 1923, sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), to require EPA to appoint a Federal coordinator to work with the Federal agencies, the States, the tribes, and other stakeholders to address the recurring challenges of algal blooms in the Great Lakes. This coordinator will ensure that GLRI funds are utilized in the most efficient and effective way to reduce nutrients finding their way into the lakes. Lastly, this bill includes a savings clause to clarify that the GLRI authorization does not expand the regulatory authority of EPA related to restoration of the Great Lakes. I did not advocate for this provision. However, let's make it clear here today on the floor that this language should not be interpreted as preventing EPA or other Federal agencies from continuing to utilize their existing authorities to address ongoing water quality challenges facing the lakes. Accordingly, this bill should help ensure that the Federal departments are able to fund work using all the existing tools in the toolbox that cause harmful algal blooms and other pollution and prevent Asian carp from invading the lakes, which would be a disaster, and clean up areas of concern and other high-priority threats. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 223. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this noncontroversial legislation that will clarify existing Federal authority regarding the liability for and enforcement of offshore oil spills originating from a foreign source outside the U.S. exclusive economic zone. H.R. 1684, the Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2016, clarifies that owners and operators of oil production facilities located offshore and outside the United States are liable for cleanup costs and damages from oil spills. These foreign entities are responsible for oil spills that originate outside U.S. waters if they threaten or cause damage in the United States. The foreign entities would be subject to criminal and civil penalties, Federal removal authority, and any State-authorized remedy currently allowed under Federal and State law. I would like to commend the cooperation shown by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Shuster, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Hunter, and Ranking Member Garamendi in working out the final details of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon disaster painfully reminded us of how catastrophic an offshore oil spill can be, both in its geographic reach and in its environmental and economic costs. The settled liability and enforcement regimes authorized under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act have proven themselves to be comprehensive, durable, and effective. In the event of a spill, this response regime has ensured time and time again that the Federal Government has clear, unequivocal authority to respond to a spill, restore the environment and communities harmed, and recover damages for the harm caused. This legislation will in no way impede or change those indispensable authorities. In closing, it is a helpful enhancement to clarify that spills originating from foreign sources fall under this well-established legal regime. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy), who is vitally interested and concerned about this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 1523. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is again considering legislation to reauthorize EPA's National Estuary Program. Last summer the House approved by voice vote a similar bill championed by my colleagues, the gentlemen from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and Florida (Mr. Murphy). I thank them for their hard work and dedication to produce this important piece of legislation. Estuaries are integral to the health and vibrancy of our national economy and environment. They are formed, as we all know, when fresh water drained from land mixes with salty seawater, and they serve as a nesting and feeding grounds for many plants and animals that form the basis of the aquatic food chain. Estuaries also help to maintain healthy ocean and coastal environments by filtering out sediments and pollutants that flow through our rivers and streams before they reach the ocean. Moreover, during storm and flood events, estuaries help defend our shores by softening the blow of storm surge. More than one-half of our population lives in coastal areas, and countless Americans depend on estuaries for storm and flood protection, and for the cultivation of their livelihoods. Estuarine habitats provide for millions of jobs in our country and contribute trillions to our national economy every year. These jobs are created by commercial and recreational fishing and boating, as well as tourism and other forms of recreation taking place just off our shores. As one of my colleagues noted during previous consideration of this legislation, restoring our estuaries can create more than 30 jobs for every $1 million invested. Regrettably, before we understood--fully understood--the extraordinary and irreplaceable value of estuaries, numerous activities were undertaken that have led to the decline in the health of our estuaries, leaving these coastal areas of our country vulnerable to pollution and more frequent and severe storm events. It is also undeniable that the population growth near estuaries has led to increased storm water runoff and sewage discharges fed into these fragile environments. Simply put, estuaries are too ecologically important to leave their fate to chance. With that in mind, today we consider S. 1523, desperately needed legislation that will reauthorize EPA's National Estuary Program. Since 1987, the National Estuary Program has operated at EPA in partnership with State and local partners and has developed innovative solutions to local water quality problems in estuarine environments. This nonregulatory program currently works to improve the health of 28 estuaries across the country, including three estuaries in Northwest: Puget Sound, Tillamook, and Columbia River estuaries. These estuaries are of great support to my home State, Oregon, and our regional and national economies. Restoring and protecting these areas should be one of our highest concerns. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill would ensure that logical organizations across the country in partnership with the EPA can protect and restore estuaries for the benefit of future generations. I support passage of this legislation and hope that this is the last time this House must act to send this important bill to the President. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1523. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one who served from the creation of the Homeland Security Committee until just a couple of years ago. I am concerned about what I am hearing here today on the floor, and I am surprised. Perhaps we should insert the word ``some,'' combating some terrorist recruitment in 2016. Now, the chairman said that DHS certainly has the flexibility to address domestic terrorism. Well, that is true. But why leave out explicit mention of domestic terrorism? Are you afraid of offending some rightwing nuts out there? What is the deal? Seriously, I just went through this in Oregon. I have been on the Department of Justice and the FBI for about 2 years: Go get Cliven Bundy, get his cattle off the land, put the guy in jail. They didn't do it. And what happened? He taught his kids the way it was done. You show the government a gun, and they will run away, and you keep doing what you want, and you can deny that the Federal Government has the right to own any public lands in this country and try and take them over for private individuals. Now, this is a serious threat. The Murrah building, there were no foreign terrorists involved, 168 dead, hundreds injured, and we can't explicitly put into this bill all terrorism, including domestic terrorism. I really fear that some are worried that some of these rightwing extremist groups out there might be offended if we were to say that they are a threat to our Nation. Well, they are very much a threat, and this bill omitting that should have this bill denied passage on this floor and bring it back in a comprehensive way next week.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I spent last weekend struggling through my taxes, and I would like to know, like other Americans, that that money is going to be used in a responsible way and that we are going to move toward fiscal stability around here. I am the lead Democratic sponsor of Mr. Goodlatte's constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. In my opinion, the only way you are going to get Congress to get serious is to have a constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced and that the President submit to Congress a balanced budget. You can't pretend you are going to do it just by cutting the heck out of everything. It has to include revenues, has to close tax loopholes and overseas tax havens and a whole bunch of other things that are leading to revenue losses. So I am introducing an improved amendment over and above that from Representative Goodlatte which deals with a few concerns I have about that one. This one clearly protects Social Security and Medicare. This one clearly closes a loophole that we can't have off-budget spending for military operations. We must have a declaration of war if you are going to exceed a balanced budget. It would require the budget be balanced within 5 fiscal years of passing this. We have been kicking this can down the road. It is not a can anymore. It is a mountain of debt that we are giving to our kids. We have got to get serious about solving this.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on April 12, 2016 and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted: On Roll Call Vote 139, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1567, the Global Food Security Act of 2016, I would have voted Yes. On Roll Call Vote 140, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 4676, the Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act of 2016, I would have voted Yes.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the House floor to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Collegiate Honors Council. The NCHC, which is dedicated to achieving excellence in education in diverse subject and curriculum areas, represents over 800 colleges and universities around the country and over 800,000 honors students. I would also like to honor Lane Community College, in my district, on their membership in the National Collegiate Honors Council. After joining the Council in 2011, the college was able to establish multiple honors classes in various disciplines in order to promote a liberal education approach. Striving to implement an honorary program displays the motivation to up the academic standards of Lane Community College and compete with other institutions. Members of this honor program conduct undergraduate research, which is later shared with the campus community and public in an academic symposium each spring. Several findings from these research studies have been used by both the college and community. As graduates of this prestigious honor program, students from Lane Community College often receive scholarships and transfer to various institutions in order to complete their degree at a higher level of competency. These same students go on to become the future leaders of America. Congratulations to the National Collegiate Honors Council on its 50th anniversary and to Lane Community College on their continued success in providing exceptional education opportunities for their students.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time and for his support of the bill. I thank the majority side also. I don't represent the area where this airport is located, but Greg Walden and I represent two of the largest districts, geographically speaking, in Congress. The problems that are created by the lack of air service to Klamath Falls, the gentleman has already well documented. It is about a 4-hour drive to Portland, which is the nearest place where you can get a variety of hubbed destinations out of there. Flying a plane into the Portland metropolitan area, twin-engine, fairly heavy plane with no screening and no security, defies common sense. Now, unfortunately, I was principal, after 9/11, with John Mica in creating TSA, and there are days when we have concerns and regrets, and this is certainly one of them. It was not our intent to create an agency that could dictate who could and couldn't have air service. That is not within TSA's scope of jurisdiction. This is outrageous that they would try to deny this. Remember, TSA, you can't lobby Congress. But I hear they have been lobbying in some phone calls, saying: this will cost $50 million; it will take away service from your airport, which is why the committee said they can't take it away. No, these are going to be part-time screeners. Klamath Falls has even offered to hire private screeners. TSA says no. TSA is giving away equipment, surplusing equipment that is still perfectly functional for an airport like Klamath Falls, so there is no cost involved there. At worst, they are going to have a few part-time screeners and they are going to have to move the surplus equipment there and plug it back in. This isn't going to cost millions of dollars. This is, plain and simple, a commonsense approach to how we will make our entire system safer and also provide what small cities need. Airports are a critical, critical factor in economic development and recruitment for small cities across the western United States. When you have a willing partner, a growing airline, PenAir, that has signed a commitment to come back in and provide service, as they do for some communities in my district, then it is not the place of the TSA to say, oh, no, hold it up, sorry, can't do that. PenAir probably wouldn't even be willing to provide the service without screening because what would their liability be if they are flying unscreened passengers on a commercial airline? I am not even sure what the FAA would have to say about that. This is absolutely outrageous, and it is just absurd that Congress has to step in and act to rectify this misguided step by the TSA, but by passing this bill, we will. I recommend this bill to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her work, and thank the subcommittee chair and chair regarding this issue. Mr. Speaker, I might be the only Member of Congress who has ever worked under the Older Americans Act. Another young man and I-- obviously, many years ago--started the first Senior Companion Program in region 6, the Pacific Northwest. These employment programs are fabulous. There are two things that we need to keep in mind for seniors. The first is the vulnerability of many: the economic vulnerability, the nutritional vulnerability, their medical vulnerability, and the needs that have to be served there. The other is that a lot of people are retired--over the age of 60--who still have a tremendous amount to contribute to this country. Through the Older Americans Act and these Senior Community Service Employment Programs, we are, actually, utilizing their talents. The particular program I ran employed 60 low-income seniors to go out and work in the community with other even more vulnerable seniors, who were in their homes, in order to try and keep them in their homes, to keep them independent--a better quality of life for them and a heck of a savings for the taxpayer--because nobody can afford nursing homes in America except the richest among us. Inevitably, when seniors have to go into nursing homes, they are going to end up on Medicaid at some point, which is very expensive. So, if we can keep them at home, they are happier, and we save money. On the other vulnerabilities, nutritional vulnerability is the largest bulk. The single largest category under the Older Americans Act goes to the nutrition programs, which are the senior Congregate Meal sites and the Meals on Wheels. I would urge anybody who is not particularly familiar with these programs to go to one or the other and see how important this is to so many millions of older Americans every year. Often, the only time they will see other people in a day is if they are at the senior Congregate Meal sites or if they are at home and someone shows up with Meals on Wheels. I have delivered Meals on Wheels and have seen seniors, basically, just cry to be getting a little bit of attention at home and getting a meal that will get them through the day.

Mr. DeFAZIO. It is wonderful that we are reauthorizing this, but the funding levels are inadequate. If you look at it over time, the senior population has grown dramatically, and those in need have grown dramatically; yet the funding, if you look back 10 years or so, in adjusted dollars, is actually less today. It is great we are reauthorizing it, but we do need to look for more funding.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a clean extension of aviation programs through July 15, 2016. While I have no objection to H.R. 4721, I do have serious concerns with H.R. 4441, the ``Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016'' (AIRR Act), the controversial Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. My remarks focus on one provision in H.R. 4441, Section 611. Section 611 of H.R. 4441 pre-empts intrastate laws related to meal breaks, rest breaks, and hourly tracking of wages for truck drivers. Specifically, Section 611(a)(3) states: (A) A State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by the Secretary under section 31502 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, including any related activities regulated under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. (B) A State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law that requires a motor carrier that compensates employees on a piece-rate basis to pay those employees separate or additional compensation, provided that the motor carrier pays the employee a total sum that when divided by the total number of hours worked during the corresponding work period is equal to or greater than the applicable hourly minimum wage of the State, political subdivision of the State, or political authority of 2 or more States. Section 611 pre-empts State laws in two parts. Part (A) is specific to meal and rest breaks, which are in effect in 21 States. Part (B) allows companies to continue to pay by the load or on a piece-rate basis, and to disregard State laws that require hourly tracking of wages. Additional language in Section 611 makes these legislative changes retroactive to 1994. This retroactivity language will wipe out at least 50 pending lawsuits regarding wage and hour laws. part a: preempting state meal and rest break laws Section 611 is being pursued by a coalition of large trucking companies following a recent Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that upheld the State of California's meal and rest break laws for all workers, including truck drivers. See Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2049 (2015). The trucking companies supporting Section 611 claim that the language in part (A) is needed to prevent a patchwork of State hours of service laws. In reality, Section 611 goes far beyond this stated purpose. dilts v. penske logistics decision Section 611 pre-empts existing State meal or rest break laws, many of which have been on the books for decades, in 21 States. If enacted, Section 611 will prevent truck drivers who work exclusively within a single State from being protected by that State's wage and hour laws. I agree that if a truck driver is operating long haul, through several States, having to comply with new rest or meal break requirements every time the driver crosses a State line is confusing and impedes interstate commerce. The Dilts case was not a case that affected drivers moving goods from coast to coast--it was a case involving local appliance delivery drivers who never left California. The trucking companies supporting Section 611 argue that a driver would have to pull off the road at inconvenient times or in potentially unsafe situations to take a break. That is simply not true. In fact, case law has specifically established that employers do not have to require employees to take a break--they simply must permit it by relieving employees of duties or pay employees for the time. Moreover, it is disingenuous for some in the trucking industry to imply that the need for this legislative fix was caused by one ``rogue'' Ninth Circuit court decision. California changed its meal and rest break law in 2000--16 years ago--to provide a monetary remedy of an additional hour of pay to an employee if an employer does not allow for a meal or a rest break. The 2014 Dilts decision regarding meal and rest breaks cites multiple cases setting the precedent for the decision. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) filed an amicus brief in this case in support of the drivers, marking the first time the Federal Government has taken a position on intrastate pre-emption. DOT argues that there is a presumption against preemption in areas of traditional State ``police power'' or control, and that labor laws are a clear area of traditional State control. DOT also notes that Federal rules requiring a 30-minute rest break do not apply to short-haul drivers. Therefore, if Section 611 were enacted, short-haul intrastate drivers would not receive any rest break protection under Federal or State law. DOT's brief also cites a finding from a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, well known for its pro-business decisions, in a trucking case that found that any changes to economic inputs may raise the cost of doing business, but that does not rise to the level of challenging pre-emption. In S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Transport Corp. of America, Inc., 697 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit found: [L]abor inputs are affected by a network of labor laws, including minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, anti- discrimination laws and pension regulations. Capital is regulated by banking laws, securities rules, and tax laws, among others. Technology is heavily influenced by intellectual property laws. Changes to these background laws will ultimately affect the cost of these inputs, and thus, in turn, the price . . . or service of the outputs. Yet no one thinks that the ADA or the FAAAA preempts these and the many comparable State laws. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 697 F.3d at 558. The Ninth Circuit's Dilts decision very clearly spells out that California's labor laws, particularly related to intrastate truck drivers in this case, are not be preempted under the 1994 F4A pre- emption provision: Although we have in the past confronted close cases that have required us to struggle with the ``related to'' test, and refine our principles of FAAAA preemption, we do not think that this is one of them. In light of the FAAAA preemption principles outlined above, California's meal and rest break laws plainly are not the sorts of laws `related to' prices, routes, or services that Congress intended to preempt. They do not set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly . . . They are normal background rules for almost all employers doing business in the state of California. Dilts, 769 F.3d at 647. Therefore, Part (A) of Section 611 goes far beyond addressing the concern that drivers may face different rules in different States in interstate commerce. If enacted, it would deny drivers who operate under one set of rules, in one State, coverage under laws designed to ensure adequate rest on the job. The language also legislatively overturns a body of case law that has consistently upheld labor protections for truck drivers. part b: preempting fair pay for truckers Part (B) of Section 611 restricts the ability of States to improve truck driver working conditions and pay. The language dictates that the ``piece rate'' (or pay-by-the-load) a trucking company offers as compensation to a driver supersedes State laws that require compensation for time a driver spends doing tasks such as loading or unloading or being detained--in other words, any time a truck's wheels are not turning. california piece-rate pay Several Federal district court and California State appellate court decisions between 2011 and 2013 have redefined piece-rate pay in California. Piece-rate or per-trip pay is common in many industries, such as trucking, agriculture, automotive repair shops, and others. Prior to 2011, employers who paid by the trip or piece were considered to be in compliance with Federal and State minimum wage laws provided that an employee's average hourly wage (total compensation over a work period divided by total hours worked) was at the minimum wage level or higher. The problem, however, was that ``non-productive'' work hours--such as a truck driver waiting at a loading dock, or a strawberry picker waiting to be transported to and from the field, or an auto repair shop employee waiting in between jobs--was untracked and unpaid. A series of class action cases brought against employers for unpaid time all were found in favor of employees. In each decision, employers were found to be in violation of California's minimum wage law if they calculated average hours worked through piece rate because, if non-productive time is not separately compensated, the employees were not compensated at all. Two cases involved truck drivers--one for Safeway and one for Con- way Freight--and the courts specifically found that pay by the load (as calculated in the trucking industry) did not provide compensation for activities such as loading and unloading because they were not included in the piece-rate. In response to these decisions, California passed a new law (effective January 1, 2016) requiring the following for anyone paid on a piece-rate basis: Separate tracking of compensation for the time to take rest and recovery breaks, which must be paid at an hourly rate of the greater of the State minimum wage or the employee's average hourly wage for the week (Importantly, based on a separate 2012 court decision, employers do not have to require employees to take a break--employers must permit it and relieve the employees of duties or pay them for the rest break) Separate compensation for ``non-productive'' time under the employer's control that is not being compensated in the piece-rate formula, at an hourly rate no less than minimum wage. The effect of this new law is employers will have to begin tracking non-productive time, which gets at the heart of the detention time issue in trucking. If part (B) of Section 611 is enacted, interstate and intrastate truck drivers in California will be stripped of these protections that specifically track pay for time detained. Congress should be looking at ways to help the men and women in the trucking industry to earn living wages, not passing laws that further put the squeeze on drivers as they fight gridlock to deliver loads. congressional intent Finally, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Dilts decision undermines Congressional intent. In fact, Section 611 represents a sweeping expansion of Federal pre-emption that Congress enacted in 1994. The Conference Report (H. Rept. 103-677) accompanying the 1994 law (P.L. 103-305) very clearly lays out the background and situation Congress was intending to address--direct economic regulation of intrastate trucking by States, through direct actions such as ``entry controls, tariff filing and price regulation, and types of commodities carried''. The trucking industry was deregulated by Congress in the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. The Conference Report accompanying the 1994 law notes that, in 1994, 41 States continued to regulate intrastate prices, routes, and services of motor carriers and 26 States strictly regulated trucking prices. The Report further states that such regulations were usually designed to ensure that prices ``are kept high enough to cover all costs and are not so low as to be `predatory'. Price regulation also involves filing of tariffs and long intervals for approval to change prices.'' In other words, States were still directly dictating the rates and prices motor carriers could charge for movement of goods through the particular State. The broad pre-emption language was added in Conference. The House bill had no provision, and the Senate bill had a provision narrowly tailored to apply pre-emption to intermodal all-cargo air carriers. The Senate provision was inserted to address an inequity in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a separate decision, determined that Federal Express (FedEx) was not subject to intrastate economic regulations for motor carriers because FedEx could rely on preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 because it was an air carrier. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1991), cert denied, 112 S.Ct. 2956 (1992). UPS, however, remained regulated as a motor carrier, ``putting it at a competitive disadvantage in a number of States.'' H. Rept. 103-677. After the Federal Express Corporation decision, California and other States began to enact laws extending the pre-emption to other carriers affiliated with direct air carriers, but some segments of the motor carrier industry, such as owner-operators, were still subject to regulation. Therefore, Congress was attempting to fix a glaring competition issue that placed certain companies at an advantage. The law in 1994, which still stands today, also enumerated that States could continue to exercise regulatory authority in areas such as safety, vehicle size and weight, insurance requirements, and hazardous materials routing. Almost all of the 21 laws that would be pre-empted by Section 611 were in place in some form in 1994, yet Conferees never mentioned meal or rest break laws as problematic, or part of what was being contemplated under the types of troublesome activity at the State level that was impeding commerce. Therefore, it is disingenuous to imply that Section 611 is simply a restoration of Congressional intent in 1994, because Congress never contemplated meal and rest breaks when enacting the law. conclusion Section 611 has no place in a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. This is a trucking issue. Last year, the Conference Committee on the FAST Act (P.L. 114-94) rejected this identical language. I strongly opposed this provision in the FAST Act and continue to strongly oppose it in this bill. Section 611 is strongly opposed by the Teamsters, safety advocates, and the American Association for Justice. The trucking industry is split on Section 611. Smaller owner operators--which represent more than 90 percent of the companies in the industry--strongly oppose Section 611. If the intent is really to solve an interstate commerce problem, this language completely--and purposefully--misses the mark. It is an expansive hacking away at the ability of a State to promote healthy working conditions for truck drivers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we are a week later, and now we are doing another extension, which of course I support. This one will go to July 15, which is truly a drop-dead date. Congress will be out for the longest summer break since probably the 1950s, starting just after July 15, so we must get the long-term bill done by then. There is substantial agreement between the bill that came out of committee in the House and the Senate bill, with the exception of the tombstone rule on lithium batteries, a difference on flight attendants' rest hours, and, of course, the issue of privatization of the air traffic organization. I would hope that we can move ahead and preconference the many other titles and begin working on those, the differences on the flight attendants' rest time, and I will continue to push on lithium batteries. I would hope that this is the last extension. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding to me on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we have spent a number of years overseeing, holding hearings, and working to push for a more modern public alert warning system. So this legislation is somewhat overdue. In fact, we passed similar legislation last year in the House. I do support the legislation. However, I will point out that it is a bit irregular because we passed it a year ago, and suddenly we are passing a version which just happens to have come from a Senator who just happened to be one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection so that he can get a notch on his belt. But that is the way things work around here: we get good things done for sometimes the wrong reasons. It should have been done a year ago. The Senate should have taken up our version. That said, this will modernize the system tremendously. We are well past the days of CONELRAD alerts. Yet, technology has not moved as far as it could for the 21st century. In particular, I was in Japan with a congressional delegation observing what they have done post the dramatic earthquake and tsunami events. They estimated the wave heights and were able to get the message out, to some extent, on public broadcasts and with sirens before further shocks brought down the grid and silenced, for the most part, the sirens. Unfortunately, the first estimates were off. When the waves reached the nearshore monitoring devices, they found that they were considerably higher and a much more vigorous evacuation should have been conducted. Unfortunately, at that point they had no way to get the word out to the people who had gone to high ground, but not high enough, or those who had sheltered in place when they believed the height of the tsunami would be less. So they lost many lives, they feel, unnecessarily, because of a lack of redundancy in the system. This will move us toward a redundant system. They have now moved to a cellular-based system so that individuals can be alerted. I was just at a tsunami event in the town of Florence, Oregon, called the Blue Line, where they have evacuation routes and people say: When do I stop running or driving? And so they are painting lines on those critical routes showing what point where you are safe from the highest predicted tsunami. They did, essentially, a drill while we were there, but you couldn't even hear the siren. These are World War II-era raid sirens. Some work, some don't. So we need a much more robust and redundant system because we know that in the Pacific Northwest and northern California, it is only when--not if--we will have a dramatic earthquake, potentially with a magnitude up to 9, with a subsequent tsunami. We need in place both deep ocean detection to give more warning time, wave detection, and a robust system to inform the people where to go and how far they need to go in these events. This is overdue legislation, and I do urge its adoption.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today Washington, D.C., was a little bit more of a mess than usual. The Metro is shut down. In part, it is a consequence of mismanagement for years; but more importantly, it is a statement about the deteriorated state of transit in America. There is an $80 billion--B, billion--backlog of capital needed to bring existing transit--not new transit options to get people out of their cars and out of traffic and mitigate congestion--just to bring existing transit systems up to a state of good repair. As I have been talking about this around the country for the last couple of years, I have been saying, you know, things are so bad that they are killing people in Washington, D.C., and that is what has been happening. It has deteriorated to the point where we had one accident that killed six people and a fire last year that killed one person. We need to make these repairs. We need them made in America. We have the strongest Buy America requirements for transit of any part of the Federal Government. It will provide American jobs. It will give Americans better commuting opportunities. It will make our people safe on transit. But this body has failed to bring forward or even allow a vote on additional funding for transportation infrastructure in this country. It is a crisis. We are becoming third or maybe fourth world in our infrastructure. Bridges are falling down, potholes, and transit systems that are falling apart; it is time to invest in America.