Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a member of the committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the ranking member on the subcommittee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have already thanked the committee staff. They did do a fabulous job. I also want to recognize others who were involved: the Senate staff of the Committee on Environment and Public Works; the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and the Committee on Finance. Over here, we are a little more consolidated when we deal with these issues. The Senate is a little more spread out, but that is the Senate. They were all involved and all a critical part of this product. I also want to thank some others, beyond committee staff. The House Legislative Counsel, led by Curt Haensel, has provided a tremendous assistance in the drafting of this very extensive legislation, as well as the staff of the U.S. Department of Transportation, particularly the Federal Highway Administration. Curt Haensel and Carolyn Edwards of FHWA have been involved in every surface transportation bill since the nineties, and their expertise was invaluable. We come up with policy ideas, but they have to figure out a way to lay down the legislative language so that we accomplish those goals. So they did great work. Mr. Speaker, this is, as many have said, historic for this Congress and recent Congresses in terms of the bipartisan nature of it and the fact that we are putting in place long-term assurances for major investments that our country needs for our transportation infrastructure. But it is a starting point. This is not the end. It provides certainty and modest funding increases for the next 5 years, but it does not even rise to the level of assuring that our transportation infrastructure 5 years from today will be in a better state of repair than it is now. There are tremendous unmet needs out there. This will help, but it is not the overall solution. Numerous times we have moved money from the general fund into the highway trust fund. We are again engaging in that activity here. The total, at this point, is $145 billion. I don't resent moving general fund money, but I think there are better ways and more certain ways and more robust ways to finance the future of our investments in infrastructure. So we can say today we are celebrating, as we should, but there is more work to do. Next week, we should begin anew and recognize that we have to work together--Democrats and Republicans, truckers, transit agency, builders, and shippers--to find a way to restore the user fee mechanism to finance these investments. President Eisenhower is often credited with establishing the Interstate Highway System, which now bears his name. Actually, Congress designated the system in the forties, but it was not until 1956 that Congress, with then-President Eisenhower, developed a user fee system to actually construct our incredible interstate system. So we need to work together to renew the mandate and find a path forward for long-term, sustainable funding for these critical investments. Celebrate today, but it is back to work tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I want to thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee for their tremendous cooperation and hard work. I certainly want to thank the staff, who spent the whole Thanksgiving break pulling this together and negotiating with the Senate, and I want to thank our colleagues in the Senate. We have something that is very rare in Washington, D.C., these days here on the floor of the House: a truly bipartisan approach to very real problems confronting our Nation. I have been to the floor many dozens of times to talk about our country falling apart, and I won't reiterate all those statistics again today. They are in the Record. But this is now 10 years and 3 months since Congress last passed a long-term bill. This 5-year bill will give States and local jurisdictions, cities, and counties the capability of dealing with bigger problems that confront our system of transportation. The series of short-term fixes we have had over the last 5 years and 3 months, or the MAP-21 bill, did not give them the long-term certainty they needed. There is predictability in this bill. They know how much money they will be receiving, and the levels are higher than current expenditures. Sure, I think we should invest more, but the bill also contains a provision I championed that says, should a future Congress allocate more funds to Transportation and Infrastructure, that money will flow through the policies and the formulas in this bill with no further action required and no tampering by this or future Congress; i.e., it would be expedited and it would go right into the investments we need to put more people back to work. This will be the biggest jobs bill passed by this Congress. There is no way we can do more for the American economy than making these long- term investments, putting hundreds of thousands of people to work rebuilding our critical infrastructure. It also doesn't just go to construction, design, engineering, and small business, as do highway contracts. It also has a major investment in transit. We increase the Buy America percent for transit vehicles to 70 percent. So that will create more American jobs. There are many other critical things. We create for the first time--amazingly, for the first time, given the importance of our country--a major Federal freight program, an intermodal Federal freight program, that will help us be more competitive in the world economy and make major investments in more efficiently moving goods into our country and out of our country in accessing ports. It invests in workers with reforms of the workforce retraining program. It promotes local control. We are increasing the share that flows through to local jurisdictions. The chairman already addressed that. It invests in all modes. It preserves the existing split between transit and highways and includes alternate modes. It includes a new safety grant program to prevent bicycle and pedestrian deaths, which would go to local or State jurisdictions that put forward comprehensive plans that deal with that growing problem. It provides grants to States that come up with innovative future ways to fund transportation for them to experiment, laboratories around the country experimenting with vehicle miles traveled or other programs that could pave the way for future bills in terms of spending and investing in our infrastructure. It improves hazmat safety very significantly in this bill. It also invests in rail--Amtrak--and will help local communities who are dealing with passenger commuter rail implement positive train control. This is a true bipartisan product. I recommend a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on November 16, 2015, due to recovery from eye surgery, and missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 308, I would have voted ``present.'' On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1338, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1384, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on November 4th and 5th, I missed the following votes due to a medical emergency. If I would have been present, I would have voted: On vote No. 607, on agreeing to the Perry Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 608, on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment Part B Number 2, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 609, on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment Part B Number 3, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 610, on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment Part B Number 4, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 611, on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment Part B Number 5, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 612, on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment Part B Number 6, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 613, on agreeing to the Rothfus Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 614, on agreeing to the Royce Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 615, on agreeing to the Schweikert Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 616, on agreeing to the Westmoreland Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 617, on agreeing to the Young of Iowa Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 618, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 1365 as Amended, I would voted ``no.'' On vote No. 619, on agreeing to the Schakowsky Amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' On vote No. 620, on agreeing to the Mullin Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 621, on agreeing to the Burgess Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' On vote No. 622, on agreeing to the Neugebauer Amendment I would have voted ``aye.'' On vote No. 623, on Agreeing to Amendments En Gros, I would have voted ``aye.'' On vote No. 624, on Motion to go to Conference, I would have voted ``aye.'' On vote No. 625, on Motion to Instruct Conferees, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself establishes this. The gentleman has proposed an up-to-20-year pilot program. That seems pretty permanent in terms of most people's life spans.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, this amendment waives all laws for construction of these transportation-related facilities, i.e., piers, wharfs, and load-out structures. Now, the problem is that, if you waive all the laws, someone may want to build a pier that interferes with everybody else who navigates that narrow channel, including the United States Navy with their boomer subs. That is not really, I think, a very good way to go forward; and that was recognized by Congress as a problem in 1899, impediments to commercial navigation, in this case, strategic national defense navigation. So I think there may be another way to get at more easily utilizing these resources. But preempting the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Truman-Hobbs Act, which means structures could be built which would impede others' navigation, is really incredibly problematic. I really think that this should be considered in a more deliberate way as part of future legislation, perhaps the Water Resources Development Act or something along those lines. Again, I would strongly oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would suggest that, in reading the language, I think it could be more balanced and I think it also should include those other factors which are day-to-day congestion, which do cost our economy hundreds of millions or billions of dollars a year. So I am opposed to this, as worded. I urge people to oppose it, and I would hope that we can work through the conference committee on something that will give us a more comprehensive analysis of what we need to do to increase the viability of all American ports. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would dictate to communities across America what form of transit they could put into their urban areas to solve problems of congestion and the efficient movement of people from place to place. The gentleman mentioned tourist destinations. Yes, some may relate to tourist destinations; others may relate to medical facilities, as in Portland, Oregon, where the streetcar terminates at the Oregon Health & Science University. It also then utilizes a tram, which is at both the bottom and the top of the hill. It is used by many patients and others who have to get there. So these are not just toy things or things that are used for tourists. They are used to solve congestion problems in major urban areas. They are also incredible tools for economic development. As for the fixed streetcar line in Portland, they revitalized a whole section of the city, which generated $3.5 billion in private economic development because the line was there. They didn't get any Federal money, but they built their projects adjacent to that line, which also provided a built-in ridership. Many people who reside in those pretty high-end apartments actually don't own cars, and they utilize the streetcar. Salt Lake has already attracted $400 million in investment. Atlanta, Georgia, has a very successful program. Tucson, Arizona, has seen an incredible initial ridership, far exceeding projections. Cities across America are finding great success with streetcars; so to deny them this tool on some sort of arbitrary basis, I think, is unwarranted. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the gentleman from Georgia just said, I do appreciate the fact that we are debating many policy amendments. That is the way the process should work, both sides of the aisle contribute. That is great. Some were excluded that I think should have been included. I don't know why they weren't allowed. I was willing to stay here later last night and stay later tonight so everybody who wanted an amendment could have a chance. But the biggest and most glaring omission by the Rules Committee is of not allowing any attempt by this House to fund the bill. That is pretty extraordinary. Actually, we probably don't even have 3 years of pretend funding in the bill because some of those offsets were spent last week in the big budget deal, so I don't know what we have left. But it sure as heck isn't anywhere near 6 years of funding; and it is not 6 years of funding at a more robust level, which is necessary. Even if we funded this bill for 6 years, at the end of 6 years, our infrastructure will be more deteriorated than it is today. It is deteriorating more quickly than we are investing. That is a problem. We need to increase the investment. We haven't raised the Federal gas tax since 1993. That is a user fee, a user fee created by President Dwight David Eisenhower, raised again by Ronald Reagan, and then finally by Bill Clinton the last time it was increased. A bipartisan idea: user fee. Fund infrastructure for transportation with a user fee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports an increase in the user fee. The American Trucking Association supports an increase in the user fee. We are virtually being begged by interest groups out there representing consumers and commercial users of the system to do something, vote on something. I offered a really simple little amendment. Let's just index the existing gas tax so we don't lose more ground. If we did that, gas would go up 1.7 cents a gallon next year. I think consumers would be outraged. No, they wouldn't be outraged. They would be pleased we started filling in the potholes and doing away with the detours around the bridges that are closed. If you indexed and you project that, you could borrow money against the future income following the budget rules of PAYGO. We could borrow $100 billion and fill in the huge hole in this bill and then use some of those so-called pay-fors to increase spending under this bill. Why can't we have a simple vote on revenues, a vote by the House of Representatives?