testing testing testing testing testing transportation and infrastructure will come to order today we consider again h r four zero one six the hazardous material transportation safety act of two thousand and nine the recognize mr i now call on the chairwoman brown to explain the bill but before i do that i just want to say that we have we had a hearing in the subcommittee on railroads pipelines and hazardous materials under the chairmanship of ms brown a very extensive thorough hearing we consider the bill for markup in subcommittee hearing was in we consider the markup in june i called at that time upon those who had after we reported the bill to full committee to bring forth any amendments they had or any concerns or considerations and nothing happened until september and once again i called on all those who had interest in the legislation come forward nothing happened and then when we set a date for a markup then suddenly like mushrooms after rain technology take testimony again from witnesses that was done i brought the committee transcript and then that i with brown began re crafting our original proposal improve communication between has met transports and local communities and improved data collection and reporting on monday commuter had an opportunity to visit a cargo train repair station and see atrial purging equipment i think it helped us to understand what is involved with retrofitting these vehicles at a hearing that pilot we heard grave concerns from the truck at industry relating to the economic impact those changes would have on their industry i don't believe anyone on our committee wants to compromise the safety of the traveling public or american workers but we need to implement legislation in a commonsense that doesn't harm the same businesses that we are reliant own to improve the current economic climate currently there is only one company in the united states they have the purging system necessary to make tractor trailers conflict with the new law we are creating and there are four patent pending on similar technology but i believe we need to ensure that the equipment is available and there is a robust in competition manufacturing for shop must be given a chance with their products and procedures which in turn will bring down the cost of doing these hard economic times the provision of this bill will expand to twenty twenty five and give a waiver authorities for the regulation allow for me to address the wetlands safety issue and i'm also pleased that this bill will address cargo truck rollovers which i feel is a great safety risk in the trucking a very very very good inclusive and thoughtful discussion and i thank the chairman and as i said i don't think i'll ever have a conference call like that again because i could only hear about every third word so i was trying to be supportive and helpful  to miss brown in our arguments but she she did she did a great job and thank you the process has been open and we were able to make some some changes that i think has improved the bill do have some concerns on this bill though and as i've said many times we need to strike a balance and has my transportation and make sure the appropriate safeguards are in place all the same time being careful not to contain a power regulation and red tape on our work force industries  in this country and again i have some still some concerns with some of the language in there particularly let the battery question but it's absolutely essential to our way of life that we are able to safely and quickly deliver a wide range of potentially dangerous materials without unnecessary bureaucratic interference hazmat carriers have a remarkable safety record and i've said it over and over again that the percentage of fatalities  in the industry is evan astonishing safety record and in fact four times as many deaths are caused by lightning strikes than by hazardous materials transportation accidents and that says a  lot we need to make careful choices about we about where we can best use our resources to minimize the small risk while maintaining an effective functioning system as i said if we regulate too much we risk knotting the system up and causing damage to the economy as i said i have concerns about parts of this this bill creating new regulations which will have serious unintended consequences with the movements of goods the bill requires a rule making flexibility utilize their expertise in this area or to include the many legitimate concerns that have been raised by industry these rigid regulations will ensure that u s standards are different and international standards for the shipments which will damage our battery and air transportation battery fires so our concerns go far beyond the simple requirements to mark and label these packages this type of law making such a bad president i strongly support removing this provision from the bill in its entirety allowing the regulatory process to proceed without an inflexible congressional mandate mandate so as i said there's been improvement to the bill but still large portions of it i think are going to go in the wrong direct but again i want to thank chairman for making some several provisions in this legislation that enhance safety but i want to mention that yesterday i heard from a major constituent who share deep concerns over provisions in section two or one of the bill which requires that regulations be issues for the ad transportation of lithium sales and batteries i understand that in the past eighteen years at least forty air transport related accidents involving lithium batteries devices  has been identified by the department of transportation and i'm pleased that the bill before us today will require reporting of all accidents and incidents involving libyan sales and batteries and that the manages amendment of this issue i have i'm concerned about imposing for the regulations on afghanistan chill a fragile airline industry without a clear overall picture of the threat posed in the transportability on batteries and sails i to also mention that there are several sections of title one of the veil that will go a long ways toward ensuring strongly emergency response capabilities and information i'm pleased that this bill prescribes minimum standards for those providing hazardous materials transportation emergency response information services raises a stand this much of training to the operations level of states and indian tribes that use grants on for training emergency responders and establishes a national hazardous material fusion center to serve as a data and information network for the government emerges response provide us so in addition as support to section four one which codify the existing regulations with regard to the issuance of special permits and approvals for the transport of hazardous materials and requires a pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration to coordinate the revenue motor agencies within the department of heard at the outset i addressed the process aspect of this bill but i want to address the substance greater likes we didn't the inspector general of the department of transportation conducted extensive review of the hazardous materials responsibilities of the pipeline hazardous materials agency which was established by act of congress in two thousand and four from this committee during the time mr young was chair we have seen since then over  sixty to ninety percent of all incidents involving hazmat transportation over the next two years of the existence of this agency where not report it has done little to address the underreporting this agency has failed at every step the law specifically states the agency shal l consider the assignment and maintenance of safety as the highest priority the highest priority not just an afterthought and establishing safety but the highest priority that language was taken from the first paragraph of the f a a act of one nine hundred fifty eight that requires airlines to maintain that safety and aviation shall be maintained at the highest possible level not what the airlines can afford not what government wants but the highest possible level has failed in its safety mission our investigative staff conducted several months inquiry into films as management of their safety program we released those findings during a september tenth hearing we found serious problems with their special permits program regulated agencies entities rather to get exemptions without process just request comes and the exemption went out there were no process there was no process of fitness determinations as intended by the basic law its own enforcement personnel have said we're not doing the right thing and yet the agency leadership failed the inspector general the national the bill mandates implementation of n t s b safety recommendations on lithium cells lithium batteries and on their recommendation on wet lines we also make significant safety in answers to the special permits and approval process and we also increased the number of inspectors only thirty five inspectors in the pipeline as materials agency office we provide authorization to nearly double that number they have to have the ability to carry out their responsibility and by putting this new framework around this agency we're going to make them a more safety conscious and active agency we won't have to revisit these issues in the future so now  to all members just just recently been passed out and when i want to summarize what's in the manager's amendment  we want to be sure that that research focuses on the fire behavior of lithium cells and batteries great deal of new work being done on this subject matter on to the type of  the research must also include performance reviewing the availability of and establish recommended performance standards for fire resistant containers for fire subcommittee worked to ensure that this research program was included in our current transportation bill we go beyond that there is more that needs to be done and the research program will be continued with the authorization this language the issue the dividing issue here has been on wet lines on hazmat trucks flammable materials other two requires secretary prohibit the transportation of class flammable liquids beginning two years after date of an act of this act and it authorizes the secretary to manager's amendment language with respect to the existing fleet the most contentious most difficult issue after what i described earlier process great deal of discussion the manager's amendment extends the deadline for compliance transportation sector of labor required to review and update existing safety standards for to address those issues raised by welding equipment onto existing trucks that have wetlands we require the secretary transmit a report to congress on cargo tank truck rollover and issue of ms brown uncovered in the course of that are very serious matters that require stability control so we include that we require the secretary guidance to applicants for special permits with criteria and procedures that the secretary will use to determine the fit willing and able standard that we fly and so many other provisions of lot of the jurisdiction of this committee final guidance must be issued within ninety days interim guidance within thirty days fees these will be for the sole purpose of processing applications no fees used for in force and special permits and approval section issued within one hundred eighty days of a request for approval unless the secretary determines for reasons that they have to publish they cannot meet that deadline and must publish the reason and the federal register we provide in this matter has amendment process for incorporating certain activities authorized by special permit based on a departmental review and and then again we i think that summarizes the manager's amendment  damage to companies that use airplanes to ship those batteries and i would as industry we've spoken to them we would like to just see the rule making process go forward and that's that they're in the midst of now  be dry thank you first of all i want to thank you for working with this member and other members on the wetlands provision of the bill appreciate your you know i was sent to changing  other legislation out of this committee which would say that such alternative means is likely to provide a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety yeah i that this is this is language that lawyers are familiar with and have been no problem with it in the passed it would make it a little less it would leave one less area for possible litigation or concern as people move and that is the fact that there are a variety of different cargo tanks carrying a variety of different products specifically there's been concern about how these requirements would impact d o t four zero seven cargo  different situation where there was a worry that they would all be but it's my understanding that that both the staff and d o t have indicated that four seventh's would be covered by alternative language in the manager's amendment because they have damage protection guards they would be covered and not subject to the requirements and i think it's important to have that improvement in the record again thank you very much for working the general supply those additional piece of share one little brown in this your shoes for trying to work something that strikes the balance between the need to industry in the public interest i am concerned with the extending both extending  r guidance and deadlines to twenty twenty five fifteen years in addition to a process for waivers i do believe that it's consistent with existing policy that under the existing authority the administration in a rule making process always has the capacity to provide for ways in which their rules can be exempted  the process nonetheless i think it's important for us to consider as secretary of state both two times before this committee on the record that there's nothing that's really inconsistent in terms of the direction that we're proceeding and even in the underlying legislation and the process in which the department is engaged right now in perfecting rules both for lithium batteries and also for the lines the agency that actually has operated under exemptions and waivers and exceptions and that that we need to get to the bottom of that and so i'm pleased with that addition to the manager's amendment and i hope that in the future we will continue and even in the agent the department for word and its rulemaking pay attention not just to obviously the public interest but to the ongoing safety of workers so that the process becomes one of limited exemptions and not a process by which the industry operates with the standard operating procedure being an exemption process thank you very much and  business one point three million of additional tossing good economic times is difficult in today's economic climate it's an insurmountable number and that's the kind that was typical of the concerns that we expressed and i don't know i always root for the and they're very concerned about the original text of section four hundred one in forty sixteen their worries about the standard operating procedures which would be issued by the secretary of the apartment transportation without notice of the opportunity to provide comment you know would basically would deny them the basic due process protections with respect to the standards that will be used to determine if they're fit or unfit to file applications and i'm encouraged very much i know in the manager's amendment you take steps towards restoring these due process as i do think we can do a little bit more the first thing the manager's amendment does provide for the publication interim guidance to the federal register to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment and it's my understanding that the notice and comment is in vision in section four one subsection j paragraph three and i know it's very technical that would be provided by the administrative procedure act and section criteria and procedures established in the bill that that be made available to the public on the department of transportation's website that's the way it's spelled out but i also and i applaud that effort very much and believe in our modern ways obviously getting information out but i do believe that any modification should be published in the federal register to provide notice and an opportunity for comment and again if that if that's the intent then this is just strictly technical and it basically just spells that out but the last thing is is the guidance which which is replace the standard operating procedures that the secretary is going to issue it over it only covers criteria and procedures to determine a person's fitness to apply for special permit and i support this but there's a what's missing is the standard part of it which the secretary is going to use to determine whether a person is fit around fit i think it's i think it's far too subjective and you know just let me make myself clear on this the forth procedures or how the applicant is going to be moved from one decision point to the next to determine if they are fit or unfit but standards there's no standards and i believe that that's a key missing component to determine if they're fit or unfit in the way that it's it's it's set up the regulated community in this case which what i'm worried about small businesses farmers many others but they want some certainty and they want to know what standards  are going to be out there that they can at least strive to perform and without establishing standards i think it's only going to harm those impacted industries which are trying to do their best to to achieve safety and worsening vigil company or  an individual under the current language i think they can be classified as either fit or unfit just basically on arbitrary whims of the agency doing that and i think it's very very subjective at this point i try to i would like to move in the direction of making it much more objective so we can give them some of that certainty and i hope again i know the first couple of things i think the intent was there and i think i think the intent is there to establish in those need further deliberation i think we need to fully understand the administrative or administrating consequences of the language the gentleman is offering so if he is willing to with hold voting on it we can continue our discussion and hopefully reach an acceptable wording of the gentlemen's amendment i would love to work with and return afterward we will conclude action on this bill and i and there may mr chairman ospel there may be a recorded vote mr chairman did you forget about my amendment but we could talk about when we get back i'm sure committee on transportation infrastructure will come to order to resume its setting a gentleman from wisconsin is mike of the ongoing concerns that i have with section two or one of h r forty sixteen i am offering amendments today that will strike that language from the bill however it will allow the rulemaking process to move forward i work with a committee staff on this language as well as receiving input from stakeholders for this matter in the legislation finally high ten of the field hearing that was held on the bill on monday in baltimore to further work with the  legislation and hear testimony from department agency and industrial leaders the pipeline of hazardous material safety administration business and f a a are already working on rule making regarding the lithium batt transportation or regulation furthermore that rulemaking will address concerns that committee members have raised in addition to allowing for public input into the matter it is my understanding that o m b currently has the role and will be announced in the next several weeks to begin the rulemaking process we are concerned about the safety issues surrounding this matter however i believe that the additional regulations can be accomplished through appropriate rulemaking without legislation this process will allow the public to come out on the matter as well as love and f a a to offer their expertise that they have in the area on transparent reporting look and battery at this time and clear about the benefits including section two in the legislation especially when these requirements are going to be another detriment to our manufacturing industry imposing requirements could have enormous consequences both for consumers and for american companies this language contains very restrictive requirements that will lead to unnecessary loss of business of revenue in addition to negative impacts on u s battery manufacturers at this time when the unemployment rate is over twelve percent and many of my counties and over to ten percent in the united states congress cannot pass yet another bill that will negatively impact business the specific language of the bill restricts placement of batteries and aircraft to crucible location lest the batteries are in fire resistant containers or the aircraft has a fire suppression system in place i believe  major problem for the practical impact of this language will do to ban lithium batteries and devices that use less than batteries i e computers and cell phones from aviation earlier there are no fire resistant containers in existence and it's not possible to place all batteries and cr assessable locations on planes during a hearing in baltimore on monday that when this is did verify that at this time these containers do not exist finally this legislation does not allow for harmonization with the international civil aviation organization i c a standard the bill mandates a rule inconsistent with i c a o rules for air transport of hazmat in short is it is very important that cargo regulations requirements be harmonized internationally arman is a sion best guarantee safety in the provision of commerce especially in aviation i c a o has been extensive time and energy creating agreed to international standards that have been widely adopted the flights carrying these items will goes into effect will go to mexico or canada which will drive up costs because these goods are being diverted from the united states inconsistent rules in the us will drive jobs to canada or  facilities and greatly disrupt the transport of goods in and out of country when i raised this issue at the field hearing in baltimore this past monday the department transportation deputy secretary for our port kerry agreed in summary i believe this language would be extremely disruptive to battery manufacturers could have negative effects on battery production i am offering this and them to strike the section two a one language that the rule making process can be completed and that congress is not unduly impeded i ask for your support this could jeopardize manufacturing jobs asheboro and elsewhere jobs that we got hard for to lose given the present climate furthermore the underlying language provides noticed station in the various types of batteries action and i disagree and i believe it would actually tie the hands of the agency bonniest important to know that the current regulations domestically and internationally more than adequate additional regulation beyond the scope of these parameters would be overly burdensome to us manufacturers finally mr chairman mr lott as a member is critical of these jobs that i mentioned previously in my district in my state and throughout the country and i strongly support let me just say for our side of the this program and i have tried to work our way through some of the issues that raise controversy and this is one of them that we have not been able to that could be resolved that does not appear to be possible so i guess we're letting it all hang out here mr latta does make a good point that currently there is it other than just up or down vote but that appears our only option at this point so with that i'll submit for the record those organise national organizations that are opposed to th international standards for transportation of the batteries that has been established by the international civil aviation organization and it's not about opposing labeling of the team batteries harmonizing international standards are vitally important to  accessible location predetermines a location on the aircraft which has not been proven as the safest most effective location for lithium batteries we transported not to mention some cargo planes don't have places that on the plane that  can get to the provision could also result in the commingling of different hazardous materials that could lead to other unintended safety risks in the air and further it's not clear that there would be appropriate amount of space available that can extend sting wish let the a metal fires and the technology for fire suppression is not certified is and is in the development and testing for phase as well as the containers currently to my knowledge don't don't exist and designated as a priority for the economic recovery in the future of our future growth in this country so i think there's a anough here that the this should be taken out allow the rulemaking to move forward as i said when i opened i altitude and through battle damage or whatever is this dang thing going to hold together or not and get you to ground is certain to happen to me and i would guess happens to mothers of the pilots like this of an airplane like the pilots of a ship they got that responsibility to protect their people are you sure we want to put them in a position where they may have lithium batteries on board and wait for somebody to make a rule i'd almost wish i would you want to join me in a little a i like to support and business everybody here does but we have an unbelievable responsibility and we got to realize what that pilot in command has to deal with and something he distantly even know about and we have an example or two but i can personally think of some of my own  have the responsibility of safe transportation of all cargo not only the human cargo but also the transportation of any cargo that goes into the compartment it gave me no consolation as a member of the united states air force flying a c one thirty that was built by the lowest bidder but that's a subject for another day but this with respect to this i don't think that this is over is overreaching in terms of allowing the department establish limits on the number of packages containing within batteries that do cause a fire hazard and the worst emergency in my opinion after nearly thirty five hundred hours of flying is to have smoke and fumes in the cockpit that could result in a very dangerous situation lead to  decision we're going to go into a terribly hostile situation or try to make it i think we want to think about this folks we've got people's lives involved in this and we have the opportunity to hold up a little bit and do this right i'm going to have to not support committee has a responsibility here and our first responsibility when it comes to aviation must always be safety mr chairman i support the legislation on oppose the amendment to improve the transportation requirements in metal batteries to provide strict requirements to protect the crew and passengers on board let the m batteries are highly flammable as everyone on this committee knows and present a hazard for aviation workers who are flying overheating of the battery once that occurs it takes less than a second for a chemical reaction to cause substantial fire that burns at high which is extremely difficult to extinguish as we have heard the only fire extinguisher certified for aviation have not proven effective in extinguishing lithium battery fires mr chairman we have a video here that i would like to ask the staff in a second to show it will demonstrate for members of the committ of two thousand and six where the cargo smoke indicator in the cockpit indicated that there was smoke the first officer and the captain first engineer evacuated the airplane after landing the crew members sustained minor injuries in the airplane and most of the cargo were destroyed by the fire after landing it is pretty clear what a lithium battery has done in this incident the accident prompted the n t s b to warn government government regulators and the public that lithium batteries presented an unacceptable risk to aircraft and passengers and it requires immediate attention after this video you will see two still photos one were significant fire damage to the exterior fuselage including two complete burned through holes and several partial burn through hose do we have that the next still photo you will see significant fire damage to the main cargo compartment container and its contents which you see there there is also a video that i would ask the staff to show that shows a laptop exploding in a terminal at los angeles international airport when the let the i'm battery contained in the laptop overheated if we would show that monday that it is consistent with the language in the n p r m and currently the passage of this legislation will assure that the final rule proceeds quickly through the regulatory process closing matches the intensive and or m and is not will not be delayed because of legal challenges mr chairman i think it's clear to anyone seeing these videos along with the documentation and recommendations of the from pennsylvania is recognized thank you mr chairman a couple things that i wanted to point out the during this debate first this bill does more than just labeling there's some very prescriptive things in there as i mentioned earlier about determining predetermine locations on the plane and that con cause other problems the co mingling of other hazardous materials that's what i'm concerned about but and also if that was the philadelphia fire there the n t s b said it was probable that the lithium batteries cause i testified at a committee hearing on may fourteenth of this year that the n t s b believes the fire began with lithium batteries the reason that they cannot conclude with absolute certainty is because of the extent of the far what you have the the video was a laptop anyone can everybody almost everybody here has carried a laptop on this legislation does nothing about that whether it was in a passenger carried on laptop batteries can do exactly what you saw there this legislation does nothing about that the second thing is on the first photo first there is a question about  about the origin of the fire but if you look at the prescriptive measures in this bill why don't they do not have a suppression system for cargo aircraft and there's even questions about the suppression which which actually could do more harm because it's so prescriptive the way it's crafted that you're much better off with the agency dealing with the rule that can deal with the technical finding so that they can address the real hazards that we find and then require the type of installation of equipment that will deal with the exact origin and cause of the fire finding a solution here and putting it into law that does not in fact deal with the problem and at the same time we're hurting a lot of people who are in business we're putting a lot of people out of business we're in danger in jobs and then also there are consequences there are consequences to what we do when we do this bout i looked we took this apart we tried to find a way to address this but as you see as you see as you start really looking in depth that this where we're overly prescribing a solution for which there is not a problem the second thing is has there ever been an incident of any fatality in this in these kinds of situations like the aircraft you saw on the ground the answer is no they've always been able to bring them down safely and deal with the fire even though they dealt with this fire on the ground so again you can do this but i'm telling you you keep doing this and you keep killing the goose that's laying the egg and i'm not here just to prescribe or advocate for business you couldn't do more harm in this particular industry and i gave a list of the forty associations that are telling you it's go jobs opportunities and adversely affect the economy in your district what more can i say thank you gentlemen and if i could just finish up i think it's extremely important that all members are aware of  rulemaking is going forward i believe we're going to have a rule making before this bill would ever become law so they're in the process of doing that as as we speak so i think that's important for us all to realize that as we move forward if without objection if i could comments and mr schuster as well one there is a rule making process we know that to we also know that the assistant secretary has reviewed this language and does not object believes that it's consistent with what the department is attempting to do the department of transportation is not opposing this provision in the bill and i would just suggest and i would suggest mr mike that was saying that someone should die before we act but i would just say that we've held in this very room when we've had victims family members who died in accidents and they have said to us does it take people dying for you people appear to act to enact safety regulations and rules to protect passengers to protect the crew does it always take someone to die before you act and i would suggest mr mike is right to my knowledge i don't know of any deaths that have happened but there a ninety eight incidents that have been documented five serious incidents this year and i believe that that is enough that this committee should wake up and take action thank you i think the j mister thank you mr chairman i appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle finding finding the new new found safe and promised in our regulators and the regulation system however if you look page sixteen of the bill on page sixteen the bill lives three through ten it talks about the stowage of lithium bass batteries to crew accessible positions on the aircraft that is it important distinction that we have got to make here because if there is no fire restraint container or there is no fire restraint device that is in the cargo hall of this aircraft aircrew needs to have accessibility to this and there is nothing wrong with legislators for scribing that so that our regulatory agency clearly knows that this is the definition that we want in the system rather in the role i understand the requirements that may be in place to have an extra packaging or or an extra designation but i don't think that that is an overreach in fact i think that's appropriate especially when seven fifty seven zur flying over people's homes and these aircraft are flying within the neighborhoods of  were who leapt into the breach back when we were told that the clean air act or the clean water act or the sewage treatment upgrades would cost jobs and in fact they created jobs because somebody had to invent the scrubbers somebody had to install the scrubbers to make the emissions i keep coming back to safety first and then believe that in the process of making these shipments safer we will actually be able to create more jobs if we approach it from that point of view  states safety in aviation shall be maintained at the highest possible level not the level the airlines can afford not what some regulator says but the aviation over by twenty five years of legislation on this subject matter every time a new issue has been raised a new proposal for safety this industry has come in to complain it's going to be the end of the world financially for them when we when we enacted the noise regulation to go from stage to  stage three it's going to bankrupt this industry is going to cost around us millions and billions of dollars and in the industry met those standards in ten years in less time than the ten year provided in the bill no extensions of time in fact were necessary a whole new industry grew up to hush kit older model aircraft reengineering was developed for older model aircraft at a lower cost than anticipated by the industry for several years we had reports of near midair aircraft coming too close to each other we didn't f a a we didn't have a term didn't have a standard to determine how close was too close i suggested when it's ready to close and you can read the newspaper in the other aircraft but they resisted and then two aircraft collided over serif most california people died a member of this committee republican from california ron packard proposed that we enact legislation requiring traffic collision avoidance systems aboard aircraft i said ron you introduced you want to do so bill will hold a hearing on it and we'll move that bill and we did and one of the airlines that they came in here and whined and complained it's going to cost us millions and billions of when there were fires on aircraft because smokers let their cigarettes drop on seat coverings and they smouldering ignited into a blaze we said there ought to be standards there  smoke in the cabin and the industry resisted well we now have flame retardant materials we have flame retardant plastics on board aircraft so that people don't die of toxic fumes reference to the i k o standards of the international civil aviation organization was established in one thousand nine hundred four in the chicago convention which was called just before the end of world war two to get all the potential post war aviation nations together on a single standard for aviation out of that came the international civil aviation organization to adopt regulations and guidance for  aviation nations but in the chicago convention provision re reserved to each nation the sovereign right to control their own airspace to adopt their own regulations that are equivalent to or more stringent than i care when just recently the european union was proposing to tax the hell out of u s airlines on air emissions and also proposing to tax us to operate in our own airspace at a meeting we held of the committee in brussels with the european aviation safety agency and  the transportation ministry of the european union i said you will leak keep your hands off our sovereign airspace we will regulate that ourselves our aircraft coming to you regulate them comment your aircraft come in ours will regulate them and we have done on oys and on safety and we're now again on safety i k o has no prohibition on lithium metal batteries as cargo on board passenger aircraft we do does not require reporting of incidents involving lithium batteries us regulations do care has very minimal standards on poison inhalation hazard materials to meet stringent pass packaging and hazard communication requirements i calle has no such regulations  the argument is made well that that computer caught on fire nobody died remember value jacked their oxygen cylinders carried abo passenger aircraft they were packaged properly they were loose they were sat in the spare tire on board that aircraft and when they banged around and exploded  only did they have the oxygen burning but they had fuel source of the tire and a hundred ten people died hundred five passengers five crew fire onboard aircraft is terrifying scandinavian airways seven six seven six seven aircraft insulation isn't supposed to burn but it burned because it was sparking of of wires bundled wire bundles that weren't properly protected and they sparked a thousand volt arc and caught the insulation on fire and one hundred eighty six people die our aircraft is terrifying and there's no curb at seven miles in the air to pull over look under the hood and see what's going wrong and he'll be protected before you leave the ground that's why we give mechanics superior authority to stop an aircraft from flying to if it doesn't meet safety standards so i feel this is this is critically important follow the rule making process i've seen real make we did the safety rules in this committee on pan am one hundred three it took the sixty four recommendations when they then administration said they'd acted six weeks gave them two months nothing happened so mr hammerschmidt was the ranking republican on time and i fashioned the bill out of the committee's recommendations we moved that bill through the house through the senate to the president the ink was hardly dr the airlines were out there lobbying all m b not to require ten year background checks for their employees i watch this industry i watch them work out the white house the o m b the house the senate to kill the rule making process we need to move forward deputy sector transportation says well from what we see of this legislation it is not inconsistent with what we are doing in the rule making process and i would point out said he that the roommate the process is often long and with an uncertain outcome uncertain it is long it is protracted it is by the industry lobbyists i've seen them  one final note i worked in the are enormous and worked my way through college i worked in a ready mix plant same person lose a hand saw a man killed because it wasn't constructed properly and how to back up an iron ore dump truck fifteen ton done dump truck rolled right over him like a piece of rock ice cream from fifty yards away noise of the truck he could hear me he had been he had been properly situated person died leaves a lasting impression on me and my father in the underground mine said the most unforgettable sound in the mine was the screams of the men in the cage when the cable broke and there was nothing to stop their fall and they died safety is emblazoned in my spirit in my heart and in my service in the congress we need to pass this bill and we need to defeat this amendment and the question is on the manner of the gentleman from ohio mr gal no mr gal votes no mr carnahan carnahan votes no mr carney mr cob wish to change their  is recognized at this time thank you mr chairman i'm going to be offering an amendment and then withdrawing it has to do with the wet line compliance measures that were instituted in this bill that we're going to be passing and i'm hopeful that the members of this transportation committee in a very bipartisan way will agree with me that we ought to offer a credit to any business entity that's going to be updating in future fitting its equipment and expanding their precious resources and do it in such a way to offer a seventy five percent tax credit whatever the cost of their upgrade to their wet line equipment i believe we ought to offer them a set a five percent tax credit at the end of the year and i do understand that this is not the committee that would offer this tax legislation but i would look forward to everyone being a cosigner of this as a standalone bill in the very near future and i withdraw all the amendment thank you mr chairman for this one minute and i'll  back all of my time unless you want to make a few comments i think java for offering and withdrawing of course it is not within the jurisdiction of this committee it is the matter for the ways and means committee and very likely if that  mister mr chairman i have an amendment at the desk that it be considered as read and have the opportunity to explain it without objection amount will be considered as re seen cell phones that have actually smoldered not caught on fire but i've seen them smolder and burn i had never seen until mr costello brought before committee i had never seen a laptop burn and then catch fire and explode in the manner that did and i think since we have passed in the name of safety provisions that require now the carrying of lithium batteries this cargo a requirement for actually putting them in in containers that we don't have containers actually that will deal with suppressing the fire but we've seen whether they can do with the second video that was shown by mr costello furthermore we have also required the possible installation of suppression systems that don't exist for cargo aircraft to deal with fires that may or may not be able to be put out by those systems we don't know whether we have on aircraft suppression systems that will deal with let the batteries although they are in the cargo hold and we do have that project protection on passenger aircraft but after what i've seen and the compelling argument that mr costello has raised showing to this entire committee and the public the dangers the people that are put at risk every day with people carrying laptops on aircraft that  amendment says the secretary show prohibits the carrying of laptop computers on board aircraft until such time as the fire resistant containers have been developed and are in commercial use onboard aircraft and i think that is incumbent on us having seen the potential for death and mayhem and destruction loss of public life that we have not seen any loss of public life in any commercial aircraft that i'm aware of maybe the but we did see demonstrated here hard evidence that that can happen and we would be remiss if we did not take steps after seeing this play to put some measure in place in law a provision in law and i would want to let this go to a rulemaking process because that could take a long time but i think that this is an amendment that deserves our danger batteries in an operating piece of equipment that he should have been persuaded to vote for our provision of the bill that protects against batteries that could fall over catch on fire as happened  was not solved by the legislation that we're dealing with right now that's why mr diaz balart that i've offered this moment we have seen the danger and it's been very clearly displayed we saw that first we saw th smoldering then we saw the flame and could you imagine that on an aircraft now also have pilots who have asked to keep their laptops in the cockpit and  think we may have to men this to keep the those types of devices out of the cockpit but on the same hand they do pose a danger  addition to the passengers carrying them on board we have now pilots carrying them in cockpits could you imagine what that would look like with a cockpit fire who was in violation of the rules should have been in class and he was hiding behind a tree and the headmaster said sophia but where did i why are you there why are you standing there and the student said but i know said father i'm not here he denied his own existence gentleman from florida night his own amendment making basically when i've as i've stated before i think we should allow the rulemaking to go forward as it is going to as it's going to happen because i think that not that i have a lot of faith in the regulators but i do have faith that is going to be an open process and people are going to make their comments be known and just like in the value jet instance it was a rule making that corrected that situation and we're as i said on the on the cusp of getting a rule making on lithium batteries but i think the point  mica is laptops cell phones i pods cameras hearing aids medical devices the fibula blackberries watches d v d portables there's hundreds of those on planes today there's hundreds of them so while today we offered an amendment that made the point that maybe we shouldn't be moving for this let it go through the process because there may come a time when a laptop does catch on fire on a plane and then what are we going to do we're going to stop people from being able to use those those devices and maybe the waters there but depends on where catches fire i've heard you catch on fire up above in the in the compartment the point is i think made that we need to step back we need to let the process move forward let the best ideas be brought out the solutions so that we can have something that doesn't cause unintended mr oberstar and i as everybody knows on the committee and public we work very well together in a bipartisan fashion we tried to resolve our differences and we don't like to come before our committee which we view as one of the finest the most bipartisan  in congress and a good working relationship there was a disagreement on this we couldn't reach an accord and i want you to now that as that student i went and hid behind the tree i did not serv ranking member i went out into the tree in the field with the rest of the troops to do my mission as the students wouldn't do that to the chairman of the ranking member and promise to behave in the future unless we might have a bay area to our committee and while mr garamendi has been sitting through the markup as you will have noticed he was not called on to vote because while the democratic caucus designated as a sign that the