Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) to describe her amendments which are included.

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

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

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 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. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

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. 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. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) to discuss her amendment.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are not quite at the end of this epic, but I would like to take a moment. First, I want to reflect on the chairman's brief eulogy for Howard Coble, who was a wonderful member of the committee; and Howard's embarked on his last great voyage. We all remember him warmly. I would like to thank the chairman and the chair of the subcommittee for the way in which we moved forward. This bill was a product of many, many months of negotiation between Members and staff. I think we have a good policy-based product here, so I want to thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank my ranking member of the subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I want to thank my committee staff on my side: Helena Zyblikewycz, Auke Mahar-Piersma--we are blessed with interesting names on our side-- Andrew Okuyiga, Ben Lockshin, Jennifer Homendy, Ryan Seiger, Alexa Old Crow. Of course, my chief of staff Kathy Dedrick. We have had much mention of the last time we did one of these bills. Kathy staffed me when we did the last time long-term bill, which was quite a few years ago. Jen Gilbreath, Jaime Harrell, and Luke Strimer. On the Republican side, I particularly want to thank Chris Bertram and Murphie Barrett and all the other Republican staff for their fabulous work. I won't say all the meetings were warm and fuzzy, but we worked stuff out in the end. I think we got a good product. I think going through this legislative process was a demonstration that House Members can individually be relevant, offer their ideas. They might be rejected, they might be accepted, but I think this was a very good process. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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 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. 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 don't know what and who is running that thing. Mr. CULBERSON: They are going to go bankrupt.

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

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

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 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. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. 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. 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?