Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

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. Madam Chair, I do oppose this amendment. In this bill, we have created a competitive grant program for nonmotorized users. In this program, it stood up for the first time. We should let NHTSA stand this program up before we judge the success and before we award it more funding. This amendment would cut funding for critical safety programs that keep drunk drivers off our highways, encourage seat belt use, and improve State safety data programs. The funds would be reallocated in a new program created in this bill, as I mentioned, to focus on bike and pedestrian safety. I commend the gentleman for his passion and commitment to cyclists and their safety, but this is a new program that has been set up. So I would just urge that we should let NHTSA stand the program up and then judge its success and whether we should allocate more money or not. I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy).

Mr. SHUSTER. I think the gentleman from Oregon has a reasonable argument. I think those things do occur, and that would be something I would continue to work with him and work in the future on as we move forward on this. As the amendment stands right now, I would have to oppose it. But I am fully willing to accept what the gentleman from Oregon says and work with him, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from northern Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).

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

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.

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

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. I thank the gentleman, and I support this bipartisan amendment. It presents a simple sense of Congress on the value of utilizing private sector engineering and design services for enhanced project delivery, so I commend Mr. Hanna and Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney from New York. There was identical language in WRRDA last year, so I urge all Members to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. It is a thoughtful amendment. 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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is unnecessary. Special requirements and protections are already in place for any project costing more than $500 million, a much lower threshold than proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Each project must have a project management plan that documents procedures to manage the scope, costs, schedules, and Federal requirements applicable to the project. The plan must also document the role of the agency's leadership and the project management team in delivering the project. Each major project must have in place an annual financial plan that provides detailed estimates of the cost to complete the project, including future increases in the cost of the project. Again, it is already in the bill. It is at a much lower threshold than the gentleman's amendment. I urge all Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I continue to oppose, and I urge all Members to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to this amendment by my good friend from Vermont. I know there are a lot of health benefits and other benefits to this. The main reason that I rise in opposition is that, with the gentleman's amendment, there will be less money being invested in transit. The higher Federal share means that a bike project can eat up the funds the transit agencies need to address their needs. In addition, this amendment would mean that a bicycle project gets a higher Federal share than the acquisition of an ADA-compliant vehicle, which will support mobility for disabled individuals. Almost every other type of project we authorize in this bill--roads, bridges, bus stations--requires a partnership of up to 80 percent Federal, 20 percent non-Federal. These bike projects shouldn't be the exception; so I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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