Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, let me say first to the gentlewoman from California thank you for your valuable contribution in putting this bill together and your hard work in committee. We thank you for that. You played an important role in developing this bill. Once again, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highways Projects program in the bill was carefully crafted. We do have a 10 percent set- aside, as you mentioned, for some of these smaller programs and projects, but the idea is to really have these large projects. Let's focus on them. Once again, in southern California and that region, you have numerous projects there that are going to far exceed $100 million. Around the country, whether it is in Texas or in New Jersey or in New York, we have got these projects. We believe that we have crafted this to be able to really get those dollars to those projects to be able to move them forward. Again, just like the last amendment, if you cobble together a couple of smaller ones, then you take away money for smaller projects. Then we are not going to get the impact that we need. So, again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's passion, and I appreciate her work on the committee. But at this time, I have to oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, again, I continue to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Myrtle Beach, the gentlewoman from Las Vegas, and the gentlewoman from central Florida. I understand completely their concern with tourism. As I pointed out earlier, this is already in the bill. I believe Ms. Titus and Mr. Webster got it into the bill in markup. So, again, this is redundant. This is not necessary. Section 1201 and section 1202 specifically add travel and tourism, so I believe it is in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today is an exciting day for me because when I became chairman almost 3 years ago of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, one of my highest priorities was passing a multiyear bill to improve our Nation's road, bridges, and transit systems. So I am very pleased that today the House is considering the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, the STRR Act. I want to thank Chairman Sam Graves and our Democratic counterparts, Ranking Members DeFazio and Norton, for helping to develop this bipartisan bill. Thanks in part to their hard work and willingness to work together, our committee unanimously approved the STRR Act 2 weeks ago. This bill is absolutely critical to America and our economy. Transportation, in particular our surface transportation system, has a direct impact on our day-to-day quality of life. It affects how we get to work, how we get our kids home from school, and how much time we can spend with our families and friends instead of sitting in traffic. Transportation allows our country and our businesses to be competitive. Transportation is about supply chain, raw materials getting to the factories, products getting to markets, and what we pay for goods; and it is fundamentally what the STRR Act is all about. To help put this legislation together, Mr. Chairman, our committee traveled to communities across this country and talked to transportation and business leaders about the need for this bill. What we heard is that our States and communities all have a variety of needs and that certainty over multiple years is necessary to address those needs. The STRR Act is a multiyear bill that provides that certainty for States and local governments. This bill helps improve our Nation's infrastructure and maintains a strong commitment to safety, but it also provides important reforms that will help us continue to do the job more effectively. Key provisions in this bill will refocus--and that is important--our transportation programs on national priorities, promote innovation to make our surface transportation system and programs work better, provide greater flexibility for State and local governments to address their needs, streamline the Federal bureaucracy, accelerate the project approval process, and facilitate the flow of freight and commerce. The STRR Act continues the Federal role in providing a strong national transportation system, enables our country to remain economically competitive, and helps ensure our quality of life. This bill has widespread support. We have received nearly 300 letters of support from throughout the stakeholder community, including Governors, mayors, cities, counties, AASHTO, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, agriculture, construction industry, shippers, and many, many others. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with the Senate to get a final measure to the President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 22.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I would be glad to continue to work with the gentlewoman on this. The issue is important. Again, I think we have reforms in here. We would love to work with the gentlewoman and move this forward to make sure that these reforms get into place when we have a final bill on the floor.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), the subcommittee chairman on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I certainly understand where the gentleman from Massachusetts is coming from. I don't know all the details, but it sounds troubling. His amendment, as it is written, would go far beyond the mandate by inserting PHMSA into the approval process to construct a pipeline at the request of a State or tribe. This could significantly slow down construction to complete some of these pipelines around the country or even to start them. Pipelines are extremely safe. Again, I understand and empathize with the gentleman and the situation he is talking about, but pipelines carry 99.997 percent of all hazardous material safely to their destination. Again, we need to make sure PHMSA's scarce resources are focused on its mission to ensure pipelines are operated and maintained safely. This is a time where the country desperately needs to get more pipeline. The gentleman's amendment is just too broadly written, and the unintended consequences would go far beyond what he is talking about. So I would have to vote in opposition to his amendment, but I certainly would like to help the gentleman, if I can, if it is a situation where we can be of any help to him. But this amendment is too broadly written. So I would oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the vice chairman of the full committee and the chair of two critical panels, the P3 panel and the freight movement panel, that developed a lot of what is in this bill. I appreciate his work on that.

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

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, this amendment would actually gut the reforms in this bill that ensures more States with graduated driver's license programs can qualify for these important safety grant funding programs. MAP-21 established an incentive grant program to improve teen driver safety by encouraging States to adopt graduated driver's license programs. Unfortunately, the Federal requirements for the program were too prescriptive, which happens so many times we put out something. As a result, over 40 States have graduated driver's license programs in place today. None of them qualified for grant funds in 2014. The STRR Act reforms the Federal requirements and ensures more States will qualify for funding. This amendment does little to reform the Federal requirements. Few, if any, States will qualify for funds if this amendment passes. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the subcommittee chairman on Highways and Transit.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, this amendment makes an important change to the distracted driver incentive grant program that will ensure more States can qualify for funding. It is a good amendment. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Alabama offers a sound safety provision, and I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's work on the amendment, and I support her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The prohibition on installing noise barriers on existing roads is put in place for a reason. Residents and businesses that have coexisted with highways for years, or even decades, should not be entitled to noise barriers. People built their houses, built their businesses. I understand there is increased traffic, certainly here in the Washington, D.C., area; but these noise barriers should be reserved for new highways or a significant highway expansion as a result of changing conditions in the neighborhoods. Again, if a homebuilder is willing to build his house next to a highway or an airport, they know what the consequences are; and to have to put this burden on the taxpayers just is something that I don't believe is fair. Given that we have limited resources, funding should be reserved for highway and bridge construction, and not used for noise barriers on existing roads. Again, if people have been there, then it is up to the local folks, it is up to the developer if they are building a development along that road to pay that bill, and again, not the taxpayer. So I oppose this amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. SHUSTER. I am ready to close. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Texas has been a long-term member of the committee, and she has thought this through well. We appreciate her bringing this amendment to the floor, and we support it. I yield back the balance of my time.