Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman misstated. It is 10 percent per year for 5 years. It is a 50 percent reduction in fleet. So that seems, without much more granular data, pretty radical. And I wouldn't want to see that the next time I have got a major fire, the Forest Service doesn't have adequate vehicles in the Willamette Forest or in any other forest in my State to dispatch all the people they need to command and control and to deal with that fire. So I think the idea of the study has merit. I think it is an arbitrary cut of 50 percent, particularly with two land management agencies that manage millions of acres of land. I know of Forest Service and BLM employees that, on a given day, their duty may require them to drive 4 hours to a remote spot to do a particular function, spend an hour there, and drive back; and there is no way around it because they had to do something at that particular point. So saying, ``Gee, you are going to have to ride share or thumb or call Uber and see if they will take you out there for a couple hundred miles in the mountains,'' it just doesn't work for me. I think a study is a good idea, and we may find, indeed, there are efficiencies. But to arbitrarily reduce the fleets of the two largest land management agencies in the Federal Government, the Forest Service and the BLM, by 50 percent, I think could cause very unanticipated and potentially disastrous problems. I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I guess we are putting in perennials, not annuals. Okay. In any case, the bill itself does establish a pilot program that would establish that five States would be allowed not just to do logo flowers, but to do other innovative projects that could generate revenues for use in the maintenance of the rights-of-way, and this would be five States. There would be guidelines published by the Secretary. They would terminate after 6 years, and then we would see if there was wisdom in expanding it. One problem that is raised is we have gone through, as I said, many controversies over billboards, particularly when they went to billboards that would change as you were driving. There was heavy regulation of that because of the period of the change so as not to distract drivers and cause potential traffic accidents. I can imagine you are driving along and you are really wanting to read that logo as you are going by, and this could contribute to distracted driving. So we must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we would all like to prevent future disruptive shutdowns like this. I think a full survey of all the causes would be interesting. It would be an interesting thing to have the GAO conduct. Unfortunately, this is directed only at one factor, which is the union itself. In fact, in here, finding 7 says: Suggest any legislation that might ensure better regulation of the operations of the ports in the United States with respect to such labor negotiations. I think that that is very focused just on the labor side and not a balanced look at what might have gone on on the management side of this issue. Secondly, there are many other ongoing, enduring, and very costly port congestion factors out there that should be comprehensively looked at in order to more efficiently move freight in and out of our ports, absent any sort of labor dispute or shutdown or lockout or any of those certain things that relate to labor that also merit a comprehensive look and, I think, merit a potential action by Congress. But this report would not enlighten us in those areas either. I would like to see the GAO conduct an analysis of the myriad of factors that point to port congestion, provide Congress with a wide range of policy recommendations, including options for financing intermodal efficiency to enhance the trade of goods in and out of the United States. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, first, I would ask the gentleman very quickly the question: Why these particular agencies? I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Sir, it is my time. They have not gone bankrupt. They are still operating. The Federal Government has not had, that I am aware of, any major TIFIA loans or anything go into default. This is a bizarre amendment in search of a problem that doesn't exist. We have no transit agencies that are making money. I don't anticipate we ever will have a transit agency that makes money. No one in the world operates transit agencies that make money. It is a public service to mitigate congestion and provide for our major urban areas to move people more efficiently with a partnership between the Federal Government and local authorities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Although the gentleman does reside in Arizona, I know he certainly is aware that both the BLM and the Forest Service must cover huge amounts of territory with their employees, including many forested and remote areas. In my district, just doing my rounds on paved roads, I can be out of cell service 20 to 25 percent of the time. There is no Uber, Lyft, or any alternative available to me, let alone my Forest Service and BLM employees who are up in the forest. I don't think Uber is lurking around the forest waiting to pick them up. Plus, they don't have cell service. I guess they could use a sat phone, but I don't think they will come. The agency choices are peculiar. They may have a large fleet, and they have a large fleet for a particular reason. Obviously, you can have one Forest Service employee and one vehicle going to a very remote work location for one work duty. They don't have an opportunity to ride share or do anything else. I find that to be particularly problematic. I think the intent of having the government reduce the number of light vehicles, particularly for agencies that are based in urban areas or more urban environments, is very intriguing and interesting. I would be happy to support his next amendment, which would have us study this issue. The GAO, working with GSA, I think could point to appropriate ways to reduce the fleet and to more efficiently reduce costs and yet still have employees be able to use their time very efficiently. I would oppose this amendment, but in order to save time, I will say now that I will support the next amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow commercialization within the Federal right-of-way, and that causes concern as to the potential for proliferation. We have had many debates over the years that I have been on the committee over advertising proximate to interstates. We have come to a pretty good stasis on that issue. This amendment is not new. It is not widely supported. We did not hear from California that they were in support. We were in touch with them numerous times. Perhaps they are, but we didn't hear that. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America does not support the amendment. I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say that a great former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said that ``all politics is local.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an unusual amendment, to say the least. There is no measure of assets done regularly for our transit systems in America. In fact, the only measurement that is done is that we have an $84 billion--B, billion--backlog to bring our existing transit systems up to a state of good repair. That means, basically, I am sure everybody would fail this test. So if you want to do away with transit in America and get them out of the trust fund--something that Ronald Reagan made a high priority, and he put transit into the trust fund. He was the first Republican to support that, and they have been in ever since. He said: We cannot ignore our urban centers. They are the engines of economic growth in this country, and we can't ignore them. We need to be able to move people efficiently in those urban areas. So, since then, we have had a modest proportion of the trust fund-- about 20 percent, generally--going into transit. That is not adequate, as it is not adequate for bridges; 140,000 need replacement or repair. It is not adequate for highways; 40 percent of the system is failing and it needs total rebuilding. But an $84 billion backlog in transit--they are killing people right here in the Nation's Capital because of the state of disrepair. It is an embarrassment. There is no transit district in the United States of America who makes money. So what is this about? I don't get it. We are not lending money for them to make a profit and pay off loans. They all receive Federal support, and they need more Federal support. In fact, in my travels, I have only been one place where they claim the transit district made money, which is Hong Kong. I urge you to go ride there at rush hour and see if you enjoy that experience. It is not very good here either. But, in any case, no one else claims to make money. And I don't know if they really do. That is a Communist-dominated state. So it is probably not true. I don't understand the amendment, to tell the truth. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that 90 percent of the trucking industry is represented--not necessarily in terms of volume, but in terms of value--by OOIDA, and they are opposed to this. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Actually, the amendment is to take money from New York City, Washington, D.C., probably Baltimore, Boston--I don't know--anyone who has a legacy transportation system that actually, until Ronald Reagan was President, pretty much was built without Federal dollars and run without Federal support and they have huge backlogs in terms of bringing them up to a state of good repair, 120-, 130-year-old tunnels. This would just basically say: Let's put the money in the places which have the most modern transportation systems, built most recently, and probably built since Federal support was put in place by Ronald Reagan and stick it to the ones who did it on their own 130, 140 years ago and have been struggling to keep up and only had a partnership with the Federal Government since Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. This does not go to the efficiency of an operation anytime anybody applies for a TIFIA loan or anything else. They are evaluated in terms of how they are going to be able to repay those loans at the fare box, out of the fare box, out of operating costs, not what their assets to liabilities are. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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, may I inquire if I have 1 minute remaining?

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Generally, the gentleman from California and I have worked together on a number of things, and this is one time when I reluctantly rise in opposition to his proposal. I have spent a good deal of time on aggregate issues in my own district that relate to those which are located in the marine environment, and I understand some of the frustrations and concerns that go on there. The language in this, though, is so broad that we are preempting both the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Truman-Hobbs Act, which relate to impediments to navigation. At this point, that sort of amendment would, for instance, overturn an easement that has been entered into between the joint Naval Base Kitsap and the owners of this aggregate. There is a concern that, if a dock were built in that area, it would interfere with the navigation that is a prime route for our strategic submarine forces in the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific region. So we think it has unintended consequences that go far beyond any idea of streamlining access to maritime aggregate resources. So I would have to recommend Members oppose the amendment. I reserve 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?