testing one two testing testing one t one two three testing testing one two three testing one two three four five strain testing testing one two three thank you apparently we're anticipating a procedural votes on the floor so this may be kind of choppy but we're going to move forward we're going to move forward with opening statements which i expect will take some time i'm going to encourage members to be as brief as possible but this is very important legislation something that has a great importance for the future of transportation the united states of america and i ever in any and every member who wishes to make an opening statement will be it's not there when we get to amendments we would hope at this point to consider this to be a discussion draft a work in progress have people raise concerns today that we would attempt to address before told committee and then have a full amendment process on any remaining people could shut off their pagers and cell phones and everything else the staff will let us know and i'll inform you from here about votes we have another vote in fourteen minutes sixteen seconds pending on yet another motion to adjourn so i'll begin with my opening statement and we'll see how far we can get there is a consensus i believe bipartisan consensus and national consensus that america has a failed and failing transportation system slid in from a point where we were the envy of the world with our national highway system and our infrastructure in the last century to a point where many third world countries are investing a greater percentage of their gross domestic product and transportation and improving the conditions for their people a much more then we are we are not even investing enough to maintain our legacy infrastructure let alone to begin to build a twenty first century system a twenty first century system that gives people more transportation options that gets people out of standing in traffic eileen wasting four billion gallons of fuel year wasting their lives sitting in traffic companies who are losing money because they can't move their product around our overnight areas or out of our ports this is a national crisis it's not only the fact that we have one hundred sixty thousand bridges that are load limited or functionally obsolete and that forty percent of our national highway system has services that are deteriorated to the point where they're causing billions of dollars of damage every year to cars and trucks the we are losing ground and we need a new approach unfortunately recently and unexpectedly the administration has said let's just wait eighteen months that's not acceptable eighteen months of status quo means that we will not begin to address the backlog of maintenance for the legacy system and we certainly won't begin to build out a new twenty first century infrastructure eighteen months of funding means no state will start a project that takes more than eighteen months they can so immediately major projects are off the table that's not acceptable to this committee it also means we would forego millions of jobs which i think is the last thing that this administration would want as i mentioned earlier this would also lock in the failed policies of the past we need new objectives a twenty first century transportation system we've been living off the legacy of the past we need to redirect those investments and we need to build a twenty first century system and then finally if we continue the status quo we will know not have any opportunity to overhaul the more abundant unbelievably complicated process that is our product bureaucracy at the department of transportation could i just have the t sub slide please  who's doing the five things no no and there we go this is the process at the department of transportation for someone who wants to build a new start or small start project it is indecipherable to mere humans and nearly impossible even for scientists and particularly impossible for anybody who wants to meaningfully improve their transit system in their congested urban area with a small start or a new style start project it hates fixed investment is the bottom line it was constructed by the bush administration  to attempt to preclude fixed investment in transit with this bill that's gone if the obama administration has their way we will continue to suffer with this for years to come eighteen month delay is not acceptable what i would suggest is that when the economic team talks about this again and we hope to engender that discussion with them that they think about it now we have financial institutions that provide no meaningful product no jobs for average americans no increase in productivity don't help us move our freight increase our it in international competitiveness if they are too big to fail how come we have a transfer transportation system that they don't think i big to fail because failing us it is unless we make the needed changes incorporated in this bill with that i look forward to further discussion and what ok to thank mr oberstar mr oberstar has worked not just during this session of congress but tirelessly a whole host of initiatives over the past decade to move transportation infrastructure forward in this country and this bill is something he has devoted credible amount of time energy effort toward and i believe working with him we should move forward he and i were both stunned by the administration's suggestion that we tabled this for eighteen months which i don't think she's anything but agreed they have accepted in discussions and negotiations that with our side of the house and we hope that they'll be an opportunity for more and for an open full discussion of this by all members on both sides of the aisle and that's why we've agreed to go forward today we called on members of our side not to call for any votes and to offer amendments but to withdraw them so that we could hopefully work manager's amendment it somes point or reach agree as we go forward on a united basis because this is this is important it's important for two reasons one is i don't know if you've been home lately folks but there are a lot of people out of work a lot of people that need jobs they sold infrastructure in it but i'm telling you there's very little in it we're going to get a report on friday to see how little money is actually gotten out there but this is our jobs bill this is our true stimulus bill and this is an opportunity for people to go to work in this country so putting it off for eighteen months to me is a very bad idea and i'll work with the with the majority side to do everything we can to move this bill forward let me say a couple of general things about the bill we tried also to move the process forward most of the reason that we can't get projects underway now they're caught up in red tape bureaucracy all the hoops th federal government sets forth and we have some provisions in here we've agreed on i hope we have even more but that's very important to getting people to work into getting these projects not just shovel ready but actually  shovel work being done on them so i think that it's a bad idea at at the wrong this is the wrong idea from the administration at the wrong time to to delay this  and i had again mr oberstar and i agreed to some of the terms of this legislation before the crash ever happened this week to metro and our hearts go out to the people who lost loved ones there we had agreed to double the money to go to ninety nine point  billion dollars for transit but here's this was also written before for again the crash more than thirty two thousand public transit  transportation vehicles have exceeded their useful life across this country and and we saw we don't know the the cause of the accident but we do know we had old equipment that should have been retired involved in that and then another reason i say this this morning last year nearly five thousand teens die in car crashes safety was our number one issue in the loss of life over forty thousand people died last year in automobile crashes and we hope to have  when we get through good safety components in this legislation so there's a need to move forward look forward to doing it with mr oberstar and other members of the committee and how much then to have the vote here  long before this meeting with members of ways and means both sides of the aisle we're continuing those discussions we're bringing up our options i hope some to have something that we can do that would increase the funds available without  without a tax increase i don't know if again what the other side is going to propose but we do intend to find a way to try to finance this package to again the provisions are good the policy will have to work on together to hone and we do need a way to finance this and the problem isn't going away the trust fund will go bankrupt bust in august we're told and we're going to have to move so  hopefully this crisis well create us an opportunity to create a good federal policy adopt projects that all of you want to see done and finally find a way to pay for them so with that yield back and i guess we're going to go vote but we will go vote but not before i thank mr mica thank you john for that partnership in the participation they hand of friendship and cooperation that has been present in the entire deliberative process where over the past two years of that we've had the majority but in the years before the new chair of the aviation subcommittee and when you started on this committee and on the  veto only the one hundred seventh in the history of this congress and as in the history the congress saying no helmet is ever tested in calm waters the administration's announcement last week stirred the waters royal them up and we are sailing forward we've transformed it with the us legislation transform the department structure the functions the programs to make a more deliverable accountable transparent and a d performance based program there are improvements to be made in this bill but we had to get a bill in draft language we have to have a committee print this is and the market today was to have discussions that everybody expressed their ideas and then we go forward everyone's position is protected all views would be taken into consideration and we will work further as we go on this bill be available for the next three weeks to go to the full committee markup but we intend to move this bill forward this administration notwithstanding thank you stand in recess until after this  to come back to order i just like them for members to give me what we're going to attempt to do subsequent boat to stagger like have some people go early and someone can take the chair so we can just keep the statements going we don't have to interrupt again so let's when the next welcomes up let's attempt to strategize a bit and you know we're continuing with opening statements and i just note for members you know i kept mind if i help everybody can so we can move a lot so thank you but that i recognize the ranking member mr duncan well thank you mr chairman for holding this market today thank you for the honor of working with you on this important legislation and thank you for your many kindnesses to me and in the work we've been doing on the surface transportation authorization act of two thousand and nine this six year authorization bill will transform the state of our federal surface transportation program i want to commend chairman over starr for his work on this bill the chairman has been waiting more than forty years to write this piece of legislation thirty two years as a member of congress and more than ten years as a congressional staffer our service transportation programs are at a real crossroads as everyone knows and this bill represents chairman over stars vision for what these programs should look like in the future and i've said before i don't believe any other member of congress knows these programs as well as chairman over starr and i'm honored to work with him in ranking member mike allen this bill several steps to transform our nation's transportation system so that meets that national ject performance measures have been incorporated into all of the surface transportation programs to ensure that program projects and activities funded through this bill will help us meet that very specific goals grant recipients will now have to show how they will use the funding they receive to reduce congestion improve highway safety and increase access to transfer services new programs are created in this bill to eliminate freight bottlenecks and relieve congestion in urban areas existing highway and transit programs are restructured so the states and transferred agencies are required to keep their highways and transit systems in a state of good repair and we have rewritten highway safety programs to help us address the more than forty thousand deaths that occur on nation's highways every year certainly the main and most serious problem that we deal with in this committee but this bill is not perfect since the bill was released to the public on monday afternoon we have received requests for more than thirty amendments this shows that we still have a lot of work to do before markup this bill and in full committee some members are concerned that we've not done enough to streamline the process by which i went transit projects are approved in construct and this is a main concern of mine because i don't believe the bill has provisions strong enough in certain of to really speed these projects up to the extent that to the extent that we need to do so others are concerned that the bill focuses too much on the very large cities at the expense of medium size small medium sized cities smaller towns and rural areas mr chairman i know we are schedule mark this bill up in full committee at the end of july but it looks like we have a lot of issues to address clean now and then but i know that you will work with us on the minority side in the cordial way that you've done this far and i for the tremendous manner in which you've had years in depth hearings on the reauthorization in which you have listened hours and days and months upon into expert witnesses come before our subcommittee and full committee and deliver their professional advice and in the need to move forward in that regard i'm certainly disappointed as many of our colleagues are in the in the call to move forward and recent events here in the d c area have only pointed to an alarming level that i don't need to move forward on this legislation of keen interest of course to all of us are the apportionment formulas in the funding levels for the various programs are invision by this legislation but the existing programs and the proposed new ones in my view if we are to maintain him or make further progress toward a unified and more efficient transportation system this country it is critically critically important that we also maintain the state don't or don't need formulas that have been in place since one thousand nine hundred six while we do not have the funding levels in apportion forms before us today and they of course are critical we do have the proposed structure way reauthorization in the area of highway safety i would note proposed legislation that i've introduced along with several of my colleagues on this committee h r twenty one twenty five that would in our view make a number of war the improvements in highway system in i always face safety so i would do a quarter working with the chair to incorporate these provisions in any final pending legislation that would also like to point out a concern with section one thirty that how a great crossing program which in my view is serve the country so well over many years depending measure throws it to your lifeline then fold it into a highway safety improvement program where it would compete with over twenty other safety related programs i believe that the history of the rail highway crossing funding will show that states often opt to forego this work if not required to do parkways program and indian reservation roads program created would be an umbrella program known as the federal and travel plans puerto rico and territorial how a program that also includes wildlife refuge roads b l m roads and forest development ways and i'm not sure what indians have to do with the puerto ricans or the people living on guam with forced highways but i do notice that each of these elements are provided with separate funding authorizations one issue that is immediately apparent however is that to be allowed highway trust fund monies to be used to maintain b l m and for service roads but not roads within units of the national park system and this is something that i would hope we can address as we further  fashion in which you have moved forward on this legislation and i hope that in that spirit we can convince administration to jump on board and join us as we do vital work for our people and for this nation hanson writing the last he lou and it was a good and probably the only positive piece of legislation ever passed congress and we were part of it and we look forward to this one i'm deeply disappointed ministration where they're coming from i do not know if you want to create employment in this nation roads and bridges and all the other things will create employment but more than once you leave a legacy behind her future economic development you cannot have a country this behind transportation wise and be competitive globally china seeing this they're building more roads now everyday than we used to build and in the past they recognize the strength the united states has are connected together being of one because the highway the railroad system the airport system we have in this nation that's what they're trying to do with their provinces so this is a beginning it's a long one and an audio process of writing legislation such as this i'm hoping that the senate sees the wisdom of passing this and for those in the audience that have interest in this is going to be up to you to generate the heat underneath the ministration and on the senate side to get this done for the nation and for the good of the nation i am not on offer any amendments during this period of time i'm going to work with the chairman and with the vice  the committee and the ranking members to try to solve the problem and i urge my members if you have a problem make sure you discuss that with the ranking member and discuss it with the chairman sievers the way we can reach a solution this bill is always been passed unanimously no one in this committee has ever voted against a transportation bill and so i urge you to think about that on my side on the other side also but accept new ideas that the ideas made there can be an improvement there can be some improvements in this legislation we know so i thank the gentleman we're tending to reconstruct the order of arrival on our side i do know that mr carney was i know notably he was here first so i recognize mr carney at this point in time thank you mr chairman and you know we are blessed to be on this committee democrat republican in the staff because it's not often that we have such bipartisan support on what we're trying to do and i consider myself very lucky lucky man to be here and i have to echo the words of everyone today that is a little bit confused about the thinking of the administration and pushing back to eighteen months consideration of this  bill if you want to give our economic competitors the globe an eighteen month additional eighteen month advantage fine we'll continue to push back a few months but i don't think anybody in this room wants that to happen you know we have an opportunity here to do exactly what the administration wants in terms of creating jobs creating the efficiencies in transportation that we must do but also to help clean the environment by making more efficient transportation we remove billions with the be billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and you know that a not and folks and we've got to work on that now throughout the bill of course it's all it's a large piece of legislation and there are a number of issues we'd like to see fixed and worked on through a through amendment or discussion behind the scenes a number of issues for example formula for regional commissions i would like to see equitably distributed throughout the nation to make sure that we have one complete national transportation system but i'm not sure we can work through that in the spirit of bipartisanship that this committee is noted for and i thank you mr chairman and your back committee as this important piece of legislation moves forward which i am confident that it will first federal highway administration regulation makes it very difficult for states to utilize proprietary products in federal aid projects even when those projects products would improve safety ashville in numerous two seasons representing industry and motorists have proposed a statutory provision that would allow states to utilize innovative safety products based on documented evidence of the products efficacy and the professional judgment of qualified state transportation officials a few years ago chairman or a whole and i sent a letter to federal supporting a request by our two states to use such a product which was denied a bipartisan group of committee members have co sponsored legislation that includes the statutory provision and i would hope that as we move forward the chairman would consider including this important safety provision in some form in a manager's amendment when the bill moves to the full committee markup secondly safety loose pacifically include reference to the use of recycled foundry sand under the innovative payment research  program in addition the use of recycle foundry sand has been a topic of discussion with astro subcommittee on materials recycling taskforce and the federally funded recycled materials resource center but it is thought more can be done so i would like to work with the committee to ensure that this is considered as the bill is finalized final third i've met with tank truck manufacturers and others who are concerned about lines regulation particular they want to be sure that any response to be the performance based rather than enacting something that could have the effect of benefiting one company that makes  evacuation equipment some are working on other solutions as well and i think it's important that we be flexible in trying to achieve safety in this regard in other words set the standard but let people have flexibility in meeting that standard and no improvements have been made already in the bill and in regard to lines and finally well i'm generally concerned about the return of sanctions for states that don't follow our order to pass certain safety laws i do want to raise the specific issue of mandated ignition interlock for convicted drunk drivers including all first offenders i believe we should not take away the discretion of judges in all cases and there are a variety of options that can and should be able to be used in individual cases a first time offender with a blood alcohol content of point zero eight may respond differently to certain penalties than would a high content repeat offender one size fits all is usually not the best answer that's one of reasons we have judges and we need to be able to tailor the punishment to the individual on a case by case basis and so i hope that further attention could be made to address to this particular provision overall i'd like to commend the staff and the chairman for the tremendous work that's been done i are changes in here i'd like to see a matter of fact i've seen some and members proposed that i would definitely be interested in supporting however in the willingness of the chairman to move this bill forward to the next process i'd be willing to support the proposal as is i also want to thank the chairman of the full committee as well as the subcommittee outspoken s and how important that it is to move forward with the highway transportation bill now not eighteen months down the road if we're looking at trying to stimulate the economy the quickest fastest way you can do it is by putting infrastructure in place  we all know back in now districts back in our states how important the infrastructure is it's an investment it's puts people back to work for every billion dollars invested in infrastructure rates roughly around thirty five thousand jobs if this administration wants to talk about moving the economy forward this is the quickest way that he can do that my concern mr chairman is the fact when you look at all the bills that we're going to be dealing with over the next couple of months  that they're going to extend the debt so far that will not be able to get a good robust transportation bill forward so i'm with you one hundred percent moving now on a robust transportation bill and look forward to working with you as well as other issues that we have discussed previously some concerns that i have with the original bill and look forward to addressing those concerns as we move forward the full committee so  concerns about government spending i'm very sympathetic to the arguments as a member of congress and as a taxpayer but i do however supporting creased investment in our nation and prescribe her because i believe that it equates to a strong economy and jobs what remains to be seen is how this is for nasa and whether our colleagues and more importantly our constituents will be willing to support efforts to augment infrastructure spending financing aside if we're willing to increase investment in infrastructure believe that the public deserve to see a return on investment for some time i've been telling marcus touch was that we need to get back to basics approach to basic to approach room for improvement and it is my hope that if and when that bill is signed into law all that we can tell our constituents that we are truly investing in infrastructure finally mr chairman i'd like to address another issue regarding return on investments you know there are number of known or states including my home state that pay more into the system that it gets in return the reauthorization of safety lou took an important step towards increasing the return on this investment to ninety two percent this is a matter of fairness and equity for markets to chew woods and for many other constituents here and i'm hopeful that we can build a bomb this effort to provide  parity understand that letter now there may be an amendment offered to ensure that what was achieved is safety lou is not compromised and i support that effort not only in closing mr chairman i believe what's been put forth as an honest effort our nation's infrastructure laws with a gentleman you will indeed mr chairman for that statement very thoughtful as they mean raises some important issues specifically on the issue of rate of return we have left that portion blank issue in ice t t twenty one in this current safety and we need a continuing discussion on how that would be done under whatever formula of funding we will have i however expressed a concern that if we continue to have motions to adjourn gratuitously we may be here for eighteen months whether we like it or not so i hope we can actually move this forward it needs to be my small time odal it needs to be fully paid for it needs to be streamlined and we should  move this bill with great expedition and i thank the chair for his leadership gentlemen for the brevity mr moran and sherman thank you very much i will for the purposes of saving time submit my opening comments for the record i would indicate that i'm working closely with the minority and collaborating with the majority to see if a number of items that i have concern about can be handled in a manager's amendment or an amendment process during the full committee markup and i thank the majority for their willingness to listen and to work with me in that regard i yield back  about four things jobs jobs the environment and jobs so we've been waiting to for his real transformation in transportation policy chairman oberstar has really given us  leadership for visionary bill here probably the biggest change in transportation policy in at least five decades and i know chairman over star has been leading up to has been preparing for this for about five decades also and no one better to to lead on that with all of his experience and all the work that he has done so i think we're ready to move forward so i think we should go ahead  ope we can work through as we move to full committee markup some issues that are relative to pennsylvania which you know my colleague mr carney and i share i hope we can get those worked concerns that we in this country that we have increasing capacity i know that the commission that came out i guess it was several months ago now time flies they when this study that they did their study that they said that you have to address all the issues not only transit passenger rail the pedestrian needs but also increasing passing this country because as we as we know this country is going to continue to grow in population and and we need to look at our highway system and and make sure that we add the necessary lanes to be able to move to move traffic to have traffic move freight move goods move passengers around our highway systems and and i hope as we move forward we can address time for a moment to say look there are a number of provisions in the bill that which capacity is addressed including in the requirements for states to develop six years transportation investment plans and those investment plans great many ways and i invite the gentleman to now that the bill is available to review these and welcome his thoughts about improvements thank you thank you and i thank  moving of this bill eighteen months is not a septa bill for my areas especially in california it's a job creator has been pointed out over and over again i would like to submit my comments for the record but i'd like to before that just point out that it provides for our measurable mobility program it provides for the freight improvement it also starts off with the office of project delivery which is exceedingly important for special groups who have to navigate through the transportation bills or the actual transportation agency and most importantly is a green transit training program which will provide for folks to be able to get training for the green technology the fuel cell etc cetera which i'm working with mr natter on and i really am looking forward to continuing to work with everybody making sure this bill gets through as soon as up by mr coble already about about the issue of equity and i and i heard the chairman's remarks and i absolutely feel comfortable that we will hopefully be able to work through that process one way or another and so i don't think i need  bring up a bit is the issue of states state rights and state flexibility and i understand that there have been some serious issues with some states who frankly have abused that flexibility and have supported maybe even being somewhat negligent or there are some states on the other hand who have done a great job florida happens to be one of them that has done a very very good job of making sure that the priorities are met and that maintenance is taken care of for new projects so i look forward to working with the committee to look at that issue to make sure that hopefully we can address the problems why not penalize in the states that on the other have done a good job which obviously is not is not the case anyway so those are the two issues that i want to bring up but again as i said at the beginning this is  eight formula programs into a categorical programs of the four formula programs is to ensure that that there are standards that states stablish goals long term six years to teach it plan and adhere to those goals and report to their public to us in the congress so that people have confidence that these standards are being met and that funds are not shifted from one purpose to a totally different policy purpose so will we compress the national highway system and interstate maintenance on one category but those monies should not be shifted out of that account into the congestion mitigation account and that is where we are going to achieve the transferability of dollars and tell states you will have a performance standard you will set that standard you will establish it and we'll measure there's been a confused picture and you go to your citizens you go to your state legislatures they don't know what's happening in our we're going to provide clear bright lines so invite the gentleman to take a further look at this issue at how we've structured  this issue and i think most people the country stuck in traffic or waiting for a viable transit service understand it too and i'm disappointed that the administration seems not to understand it and i hope that we will in unison say to them that we cannot afford an eighteen month delay in reauthorizing and improving our transportation system you know it was said that you could tell the roman empire was deteriorating and starting to fall when they couldn't maintain the roads well the infrastructure in this country is deteriorating way faster than we are replacing or improving it and and having a bill that is more efficient and effective and that raises the funding levels beyond the funding levels the current bill is imperative and imperative quickly it's imperative to maintain and improve our infrastructure it's imperative for jobs for our economy and now is not the time to delay it especially when we need the jobs and we need the economics the american society of civil engineers estimates would take two point two trillion dollars over five years to bring the system interstate of good repair continue doing our current system of funding the system through a g inflation sensitive means that every six years you have less and less real money to pay for it and eventually the system has to collapse we must find a substitute we must increase the level of funding i'm also pleased with the emphasis and into modalism in this bill in addition to the significant investments in transit the bill focuses on freight and goods movement which are too often overlooked by our transportation programs there's an old adage that freight doesn't vote it's too often true that if given a choice between doing a several billion dollar project moves freight more efficiently or a similarly expensive project that can be sold to constituents is cutting fifteen minutes of commuting time that's a no brainer you cut the commuting time even though the freight may be more important economically freight volumes are expected to grow seventy percent by two thousand and twenty and to increase through that ten largest ports by three hundred seventy percent over the next twenty years and we can no longer ignore and permit this this problem to fester i am particularly gratified the bill improve includes a transportation job corps act to address both the issue of jobs that mr diallo mentioned paterno rather mentioned to address both the issue of job retention for existing workers and of job creation the transit industry with an emphasis on this connected you the bill creates a career ladder program within the federal transit ministration for this purpose and let me mention one other thing before i finish and i have to address the issue of so called equity which is raised by a couple of people i think the people who've talked about it frankly have it backwards when you talk about donor states a state like new york for example has invested billions and billions of local dollars in a mass transit system which makes new york much more energy efficient which means we use less gasoline that in the public imperative that's what our public policy ought to be asking for and therefore the state should be punished that's what the equity argument says that the more energy efficient you are the less gasoline you use per capita the less funding you should get from mass transit and highways and freight that doesn't make any sense at all and if you want to talk about it doesn't make any sense from a policy perspective and if you want to talk about equity then you have to look at the entire thing and again i use new york as an example new york sends between fourteen and eighteen billion dollars a year more to washington taxes that we get back in all sorts of services the one account with that's not true it's where it's the other way around there's a highway in highways and that is got to be stopped well if you want to talk about equity then look at all accounts not just the one account to look at the one account is grossly inaccurate and unfair and if you want to look at all the council saying that every state should get back in services exactly as much as you put it in taxes then why need the federal government the first place presumably the purpose the federal government is to spend money where it's most needed for the benefit of the greatest number of people the country and to raise revenues to pay for that in the most equitable and economically efficient manner possible and they don't always mean that the same amount comes from each state as goes in each state nor should it i am not complaining that in new york we send fourteen to eighteen billion dollars more to the federal government we get back every year some others have complained about that but i think it's going to show fifteen seconds in fifteen seconds it will it will there was like   ill advised i certainly understand their consternation about spending but you know i would just give you an example in the case of the economic stimulus when the president first started talking about the economic stimulus right after the election  focus it seemed to me was principally on the investment in infrastructure which is something i was totally in favor of and i think we could have gotten a lot more votes for the economic stimulus if it had not become really unrecognizable with the final  issue really just showing a sliver of the money going for infrastructure investment i think it's very very important that we do that just one thing in the couple of issues in regards to the issue of equity it really is important i think to folks who are donor states and i appreciate the comments of my colleague from new york i would just say in the case of michigan in my state one of the reasons we are a donor state is because we in the detroit region southeast michigan are the largest metropolitan region in the nation without a mass transit system and so we are really disadvantaged when it comes to return of federal dollars so if we're if we're looking at the issue of equity i hope we might take that into consideration for some type of equitable distribution of the of the investment and the other comment i would make mr chairman in a former life before i came to congress as a michigan secretary of state i served for many many years as the chairperson of the michigan traffic safety commission and i wanted to mention about the primary seatbelt provisions that are in this bill and i'll just give you an example of how important i think this is for our national law highway safety because michigan actually went to the primary seat belt law in the year two thousand and up until that time we had actually peaked at about seventy percent of our motorists who were using seatbelts and c i had a number here real quickly actually at that time we experienced about thirteen hundred deaths since we annually since we have gone to a primary a seatbelt force meant in two thousand and eight we actually lead the nation with seatbelt use we are at ninety seven point two percent now and we are interpellation estimating that we are saving between three and four hundred lives every single year in the state of michigan so i think this is an important provision and i appreciate the opportunity to comment on it we'll be monitoring that very closely as we proceed and i appreciate the time mr chairman i yield back thank general amos larsen as chairman thank you thank you thank you and chairman over star in the ranking members as well for their work and jeff in this bill still working a way through it but i'm encouraged by what i've read so far particularly pleased to see the new freight improvement program and the revised projects of national significance program to increase focus on goods movement and freight mobility something very important for the northwest i'm pleased a committee blueprint also doubles our investment highway safety and makes a historic investment high speed rail and i'm looking forward to seeing a significant investment in our nation very systems when the final bills introduced as well also i want to say they stand with you in opposing the administration's proposal to extend the current law for eighteen months this is unacceptable on monday i was back in my district in washington state and held two round tables with transportation staff stakeholders to discuss this blueprint they said two things first state local governments need certainty that funding will be available and second they agree that we must move forward with passing a new authorization bill that significantly invests in our nation's infrastructure in short the public is with us on this one they expressed concern that a delay in reauthorizing or transportation programs could offset much of the benefit of the transportation vestment provided by the economic recovery package as you say in your blueprint continuing the status quo could mean a loss of three million jobs over six years or seven hundred fifty thousand jobs over the proposed eighteen month extension period so i'll yield myself an additional twenty five minutes it's clear to me and my constituents but no one else on this committee that we must move ahead with this new authorization bill to create jobs and invest in our roads bridges and highways so to the chairman the ranking members thank you for your hard work are there any other members who wish to be recognized but that will you come back to order chairman asked me to open up and recognize any members and as i can see there's no other members here besides myself so i'll make my brief statement but i would just like to echo the sentiment of the chairman the full committee in the subcommittee and the and the ranking members and all of our colleagues that it's spoken against the eighteen month extension of pennsylvania has more road miles to maintain in new york new jersey and new england combined and some people would say well the eighteen month extension would be good for pennsylvania he ought to just go along with it but unfortunately we would not have any member priorities put into an eighteen month extension the way i understand and i can tell you is absolutely embarrassing as the senior pennsylvania on this committee to see what the pennsylvania did to my home county in the stimulus bill they we did not have the opportunity to highlight because of all the do gooders and who decided that we're not going to be i able have any high priorities for members of this committee of the house the entire stimulus funding was left up to our individual states and they depended upon the m p o's and again it was awful embarrassing to me as a senior pennsylvanian on this committee to be treated the way it was by pending from my home county although my largest county did very well in the funding we need to have accurately and we need to have input from members of this committee and of the subcommittee so i would just like to go on record with the chairman and ranking member of the committee in the subcommittee as opposed to the extension and  anxiously awaiting recognize someone else three hundred sixty one the motion is not adopted purpose is the gentleman for colorado rides the gentleman will suspend the house will be in order staff will take their seats members in conversation will remove them from the floor the house will not consider business until the house is in order e you know i want to give everybody an opportunity to make a statement and i want to give people an opportunity to offer amendments that we can offer them but if they dally on the floor at the next opportunity i'm just going to move the bill through so members need to be informed that you know if i can get over there and back in for five minutes other members can do that too so with that i will read like them recess but i hope this is the last time think you in the ranking member duncan and i do have just a few concerns regarding section seventy ten of the surface transportation service authorization act which would add a new section five one one to the hazardous materials transportation act as i understand it based on the hearing we held a couple of weeks ago the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration and the f a a are working on a rule making regarding a lithium battery transportation regulation furthermore that rule making would dress all the concerns this committee has raised as i understand it the committee staff has been in communication with both agencies assure that the room making for this provision stays on track that being the case i am unclear about the benefits including the provision like govern batteries among those exemptions other provisions that allow individuals to carry onto aircraft portable cobbs cell phones d v d players in the like question it is the committee's intention to give the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration authority an encouragement for the prohibit our constituents from having access to that kind of equipment when they're flying or you're not being able to put in their luggage some of the current language could be read to authorize and perhaps even mandate changing the rules allow new portable electronic products be shipped by air to stores or consumers i'm not aware of any suggestion that there have been any safety risk in the shipments but changing the rules could have enormous consequences both for consumers and for american companies i do have a lead better facility in my district to be negatively impacted by the language at a time when unemployment rate is over fifteen percent or many parts of my district we cannot pass yet another change that will negatively negatively impact business and third concern i have is with possibility of this language could be read to discourage the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration in the f s a from allowing prototype batteries for hybrid electric vehicles and other products from being certainly shipped as they are being developed through the stimulus act federal government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars a day i jobs and support these products and again at a time when the auto industry is struggling we certainly do not you need to put further impediments on the industry through a regulatory distractions also this year is my understanding because language has never been shared with or commented upon but many of my by especially by many concerned stakeholders i believe this language must receive input from these individuals who are realize that you're in once see this bill move forward today and therefore a lie for the record reflect that side of section seventy ten minutes considerable further scrutiny and an opportunity for the input from all concerned and potentially potentially affected this issue let's see him batteries in the be a sion subcommittee and numerous issues were raised about the shipment of large packages of large and the batteries caught on fire and destroyed the aircraft they language in the legislation does not deal with your cell phone or  blackberry or radio or anything that you would carry on board aircraft or in other only with packaging large packages that would go in the cargo hold of an aircraft and and concern that concerns are raised in the hearing that lithium batteries did when they catch on  we feel we need to advance the the state of regulatory action on lithium batteries carried in packs in this in the cargo hold of the aircraft where there is no crew accessibility whether is no there's been no advance warning no advance notification to pilots and i thought we had learned this lesson after well you jet when oxygen bottles were stored in the cargo hold not properly packed back and not notified to the crew and they ignited and unfortunately ignited right near  choir which caught on fire from the oxygen that are in the tire and the option fed each other and ninety seven people perished in that crash there are very very serious issues and i understand gentleman says he has a  mr bishop in the interest of time i will be brief let me thank chairman over starr and chairman de fazio for their outstanding work on this bill than let me also thank ranking members mike and duncan for their for their great work on this bill two quick points one is that i believe the reauthorization must be for six years and secondly i believe the reauthorization must be as financially robust as possible we have a great many needs to address and time will only make these needs more acute and more expensive to address and we also say that i'm happy to see that there are many important and necessary safety provisions in the bill and i look forward to working with the chairman to continue to strengthen and improve these provisions i yield back the balance of my time  don't delay it and i agree with my colleagues on the other side that it's important that we fund our highway reauthorization system and station bill in our system itself and make an investment in the infrastructure of our nation and our roads and highways and all the trances ports and all the other things that are in this piece of legislation it's important for our safety it's important for transportation of goods and services for mobility porton for our security of our nation and i appreciate the committee's hard work on this legislation and a little bit when we get into the committee amendments i will have two minutes i like to address one with trying to address farm truck and white limits as you know i've discussed and we've had some hearings on look forward to discussion more detail on those matters as i have reviewed the interests state to exemptions they're very far reaching and raises serious safety questions i think we should have  a extensive discussion about the other matter of raising the cap to a billion dollar projects again i'd like to understand we won't do this here but later but the gentleman's reasons are for doing this chairman i just wish to add my voice to the chorus of members here who hope that this bill moves rather quickly through the subcommittee the full committee and ultimately onto the floor as a new member of congress i will tell you that i joined this committee in the subcommittee because i genuinely and interested in seeing a high will i wave bill pass genuinely interested in seeing this congress in this country invest in its infrastructure i don't believe there's anything more expensive than deferred maintenance we've seen that with very public disasters such as the bridge collapse in minneapolis we see how technological failures and such can lead to crashes on our subways and c t a systems i guess the frustration i wish to express here is one that i found when i went back to my district in the center part of our country to explain to them that despite this administration and this majorities attempt in congress to get us out of the economic rut that we're in despite the three and a half billion down i'm sorry three and a half trillion dollars that has been spent the last nine months between the the stimulus checks and the stimulus bill all in an attempt to stimulate our economy to get people back to work that unemployment rates have gone up the stock market has tumbled despite the administration's call for a stimulus bill that quote was going to be the largest infrastructure investment since eisenhower was president i too is a new member of congress that this will be great will finally get the involved vestment we need rail in airports and highways that our nation so desperately  needs in the meantime putting a lot of good working men and women back to work at a time in our economy when we need it unfortunately most of you in this room know that less than six percent of that stimulus bill actually went towards infrastructure and so it was with great hope but i thought at the end of the day this body would move forward a substantive highway bill that would first put people back to work something that they had hoped in the stimulus bill what would actually be done in this bill and secondly would make those needed infrastructure improvements that are necessary for both urban areas as well as rural communities who as a part of economic development need infrastructure need to be able to get their grains and goods to market need to be able to get their people  products in and out of our communities and we know important the airports and the rails are to that system and for the administration now to come forward and say that we believe there are other bills that are more important we believe that there are other issues that need to be ironed out more important than this highway bill i find hard to justify and i truly hope that the administration will take a second look at their position and rather than be obstructionists the ones who embrace this bill and help us move forward it is a bill i believe that truly has the opportunity to get bipartisan support we're seeing a lot of discussion right now in the house floor about cap and trade we're hearing discussions about the health care bill and i think you see the votes on our side few and far between on those issues this is a bill mr chairman that can get a huge number on our side and your side working together constructively and not only legislation but ultimately projects that was i mentioned put people back to work stimulate our economy and also leave our country in a much better place competitively in the world economy so i just want to add my voice and mr chairman thank you for your hard work and your leadership i know that my disappointment i'm sure paled in comparison to yours because i know you've spent a number of years working on this bill in an earth very earnest way understanding the needs trying to get a comprehensive bill brought forward and i look forward to working with you on the full committee and also mr de fazio for your work here on the subcommittee and i just hope that the administration will work with us constructively here in the house as well in the senate get this thing passed so that we can put people back to work as what's been promised unemployment rate now in may the numbers came out over nine percent department of labor's own numbers show the construction industries unemployment rate nearly twenty percent without a doubt those are the folks w go slow veto threat though there hasn't been any veto threat by this administration run but also the gentleman participate in tomorrow's second of our series of hearings on our committees portion of the recovery act is going to very good story to tell on the surface transportation where fifty four percent of the recovery funds are out over four thousand nearly fifty one hundred projects are under contract and twenty one thousand jobs conifer as of ten days ago when we finalized the figures and getting better so we'll have whatever the rest of this is they put more money overnight amendment along with the gentleman from illinois mr schrock that would help restore some of the funding to the off system bridge that it set aside for states that choose to participate under current law states must use fifteen percent of their bridge funding for bridges that are not federal aid highway are not within the federal highway system in kansas we have over four thousand structures that are considered off system bridges most of which are located within my congressional district last year alone our state used this set aside to invest six point six million dollars to help maintain and repair those bridges the legislation before us completely eliminates the off system bridge set aside the bridge set aside and prevent states from using federal money to help local and counties help repair and maintain those bridges again i represent a district that contains sixty nine counties the congressional district is larger than the state of illinois and i travel those roads on a regular basis and see with my own eyes and hear from my own constituents about bridges that are in desperate need of repair yet many of the counties i represent have less than twenty five hundred residents and the tax base is simply not there for local residents to shoulder the entire burden of maintaining those bridges i would guess that many members of this committee represent rural areas of the country would have similar concerns the amendment that i present before i present to the committee is what i believe to be a reasonable compromise a compromise between the present mark of the bill that provides no money can be used and the current situation which a fifteen percent set aside is required i'm hoping that i can convince the chairman of the full committee the chairman of this subcommittee that this proposal has merit simply it would allow states the opportunity the option to use up to five percent of their funding for off system bridges this language is not a requirement like the current law rather the state may choose to use up to five percent and it's kept after that mr chairman i believe this to be a compromise i know the chairman has concerns about money being diverted from major bridges in a rural state like mine most of our bridges are rural and are to be maintained built and repaired by counties and cities that lack the necessary resources to do so i would reserve the balance of my time to be happy to respond to questions or hear from other members of the committe can tell you that while i think most of us would agree fifteen percent mandate has its problems we shouldn't just outright abolish or prevent the use of these federal funds on on off system projects off system as we know really just mean small and for many of the communities that we represent i represent the federal bill highway bill is really the only way in which they can get the help they need to make some of these infrastructure improvements let me speak to one specific project in my district i like many of you solicited my county engineers and local folks for projects for this bill and time and time again i had to tell them you know based on the rules that they're written right now these are projects that will not work these are projects that i cannot help you with one particular project was in stark county a very rural county in my district it's a bridge over the east fork of the spoon river and this project this bridge has been closed now for over two years which basically is cut stark county in the state of illinois and half my residents cannot cross the spoon river in stark county because this bridge has been closed for two years and without this amendment and change to be able to permit the state department transportation to be able to use some of this money for some of these smaller projects  that improvement will not be made and so i just hope that will allow some flexibility understanding that we all represent different states big and small we all represent different rational districts some urban some rural some suburban and that as a part of that we as members and hopefully department of transportation's in our respective states should have some flexibility be it small to be able to use some of their money on important projects is this thank you  as everybody know it rains a bit in oregon and we have a substantial mountain range we have lots of rivers streams and a lot of bridges that need to need attention while i am sympathetic to the the the objective i just have concerns with the means here what we attempted to do in reorganizing and refocusing the department of transportation  either structurally deficient low limited or actually or functionally obsolete which is more than a little problem and often leads to accidents deaths and congestion when one bridges are functionally obsolete or obsolescent so our attempt in the bill and by limiting this was not to say that states wouldn't have flexibility or capability of spending money on these on these needs but was to take the  money in our critical asset program and focus it on these very real and difficult problems of the national highway system under the bill states would still have authority under the s t p program to assist their counties or other local jurisdictions with bridge or other infrastructure problems as they see fit and the bill of course should we have achieved our objectives in terms of funding we'll have considerably more money flowing to the states in the state as t p program there may be report language or other things we can do to bring this problem to the attention of the states and make clear what the intent of the committee was here is not to say that the state shouldn't pay attention to and help these smaller jurisdictions but we just wanted to really refocus the states and the d on bringing our critical assets the actual national highway system and the actual bridges on that up to a state of good repair so that's why we have concerns about this amendment and i'd hope that the gentleman would see fit to perhaps  withdraw the amendment and and look to org continuing a discussion as as we move into the full committee markup and hopefully we can address your concerns and if not then you could certainly would reserve the right to have an amendment  duncan which is very well mr chairman let me just save a lot of time by saying that our staff the staff on our side has worked with the author of each of these thirteen amendments and we feel that there are going to amendments with until the full committee and i think that's with yours and chairman over starr's understanding as well but we are supportive of all of these amendments and i'll just say that now so i don't have to speak on every single amendment and then maybe that will save a little time importance not only to their disagree all of rural america the bill does not prohibit the use of federal aid funds for non federal aid system bridges but understand that we have been in the past using federal aid just funding for non federal aid system structures roads and bridges so in this bill we do not prohibit the use of funds for that purpose but we don't make it a category either because it's inconsistent with the principle of a federal aid system this if it is a safety critical bridge the state d o t under the language of this bill can use its highway safety improvement funds which we are doubling in this bill over the life of the legislation state and use its h sips as we call the highway safety improvement program funds to address that issue or can use s t p surface transportation program funding there's no prohibition on it it's just like what we've done with others of the hundred eight categories that existed in the surface transportation all of those are what i call sacred cows we're taking the sacred cows out and i know that's going to cause a lot of consternation among the many people who  represent those sacred cows in one form or another but if we're going to succeed in shifting from a highly prescriptive program to a performance and outcomes based program where we give states more responsibility for their programs tell them less how to do things and this and reduce the categories down to four formula programs then we have to take steps like this so i second the remarks of mr de fazio that will like to talk with you further about this issue but understand we haven't picked out one here we have picked up someone else there are some out there we're trying to bring rationality and simplicity to this program while giving states broader authority greater responsibility in greater accountability for their programs and look forward to trying to develop that over a period of time at the sacred cow mr over star that i represent is kansas the sacred cow i represent particularly is rural kansas and the bulk of highway funding will go out through the critical act asset investment program and so the exclusion of this particular non federal bridges from that is is especially troublesome to me off system bridges as you indicate will be eligible under other programs a surface transportation program but many of those funds are already sub allocated to urban areas and the reality is that whether death or accident occurs on a federal bridge or a nonfederal bridge death is death and safety is important and my hope is that we can work together to find a way to provide additional funding for bridges that are nonfederal bridges if our states decide that that's the highest priority within that state in how they spend the money and with that as as was requested i would withdraw my m r amendment at this point and hope to work to a satisfactory conclusion over the next few days few weeks and i appreciate the yes we can read amendment only if you really want to know i would confer community land use and housing planning important parts of the local planning process however these local planning activity should not be part of the federal transportation planning typically housing affordability is determined by comparing the area medium income with the median home price for the same area the language in the bill requires the but of an adequate supply of housing in all income levels these will amount to the recalculation of regional affordable housing goals based on planned transportation projects i believe the efforts to mandate federal growth management policies at the transportation planning level runs the risk of creating a further imbalance between housing supply and demand by dictating  development of housing in transportation and infrastructure can exist this imbalance could occur based on the tip specific type and location of housing putting upward pressure on housing prices notably reducing housing affordability in the region we all know that transportation planning  sometimes a multi decade process housing markets and prices in certain regions are volatile long range transportation plans and projects should not be held up because of the housing affordability crisis within a specific region of the m p o in southern california the skeggs spent six counties while skag is charged in the california state law with perform the allocation of regional housing need shares once every five years development of the affordable housing should not impede the approval of important federal transportation projects there's a place for housing affordability goes and for land use decisions the federal transportation planning process is not one of them the bill's language requires in peals of large metropolitan areas to assess land use patterns that support a reduction in single occupant motor vehicle trips in plain language just means that in peoples will be pressured to consider transit projects above highway projects even if a house project would do a better job of proving mobility reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving congestion for most southern californians transferred alone is not a feasible option for the commute despite efforts to push for an increase in transit projects the fact remains that millions of southern california commuters will not swap their car keys for a bus pass public transportation is not a feasible option for these communities because their job schedules and family have demands it is not here to bus and transit schedules an increase in transit alone is not enough to address the congestion concerns of sunny california and i oppose efforts to prioritize transit in major metropolitan areas to ignore the local reality of southern california regions to ignore the transportation of constituents i was elected to represent livability is not defined in federal law or in this building in my experience is different from person to person region to region culture to culture americas diverse  not be a national even a regional standard of what is livable that should be a personal choice on where someone wants to live work and raise their kids there should not be a federal standard of what is considered livable nor should federal transportation planning require  into consideration when determining whether or not to approve a project the bottom line is that local land use planning and housing goals are important part of the community planning process however it is a necessary reach to involve these issues in the federal transportation project urge my colleagues has a minute to ensure amendment well as we discussed earlier and hopefully will continue in that vein we would be happy to have discussions with the gentleman in the interim but i would reflect on the fact that  this particular provision in the bill is much much less restrictive then the requirements imposed by state law is not mandatory but  it does you know say that they have to consider so in the sense all of your metropolitan areas are already required to develop a plan which addresses the issue i would assume that they could easily show that they have considered and therefore  yes having been the development in chief probably over thirty five years and knowing the complexity of getting in title months in california and there's always that there's a gentleman wish to i mean the gentleman has exhausted is debate time the gentleman have a procedural request at this point time i am willing to withdraw my minutes at this point in time i thank the gentleman i appreciate that and we will have an opportunity to discuss this more fully at full committee if we don't resolve in the interim richardson wish to be recognized out of in light of the voting situation that we've had i'm not going to read my full statement into the record and in time with the time frames but i would like to make a few key points number one of course i do want to commend chairman over starr and chairman de fazio and of course this committee bipartisan effort that we've taken with mr duncan and mr mica i think we really set the stage for what bipartisanship is all about what we talk about in the house but we oftentimes don't see just a fresh reminder for folks here in the public and for what will go on the record i represent california's thirty seventh congressional district where we have a port complex the port of los angeles and the port of long beach where forty five percent of the entire nation's cargo goes through that corridor or so this has been a long awaited opportunity for me and my constituents we have major bridges major highways and also we have the alameda accord or and i'm fortunate in that our chairman de fazio did have an opportunity to come to the district and to view it and i feel both mr over star have worked very hard to ensure that as we prepare for this legislation we have a good sense of what the country is facing in the real world i want to applaud both of their efforts of including both the projects of national significance and the freight improvement  modalism those are key sections that will be very important to my district as we move forward and i was very glad to see that those comments in the work has been incorporated in terms of m m s we've been i will not be bringing forward any official amendments at this time however at our next opportunity i would like to do so and they would cover two things one i believe in the freight improvement that we must look at how the goods movement community the stakeholders need to contribute to the enhancement in the efficiency of our highways and i have had this conversation with our chairman the second thing i'd also like us to consider is that in many states the state standards for example in california sequence standards far exceed the nepa standers and we shouldn't have  various cities municipalities and states who are looking to move forward on projects go through a sequel process and then have to go again and go through a nipple process when the nepa no way compares to what they've all really already qualified for which delays the project and cost significantly more money last two points that i'd like to make i'd like to be on the record in agreement with many of the comments that i've heard that i find it frankly offensive that the administration would seek for this particular body this legislative body to delay there was a reason why our founding fathers established three branches of government executive legislative and judicial and as a part of this committee i intend upon using the full scope of what we are required to do it is our job to legislate not the administration's job to legislate and so i will be walking and duncan to ensure that we are able to fulfill the job that we were sent here to do and finally i want to say having an opportunity to look through this bill this is a twenty first century approach been much work to take us into pilot program that allowed five states one of them california to take the responsibility complying with nepa for highway projects under the federal highway administration f h w a the pilot program was designed at a national experience experiment to assess the cost benefit and risk project specific environment responsibilities to staple maintaining rigorous federal environmental protection standards this is something of responsibility did not remove or change any federal environmental law regulation or policies under court jurisdiction the pilot program has produced to be a success and cal trans has found that the environment of you process takes less time when needed decisions are made by caltrans even though there's a time savings integrity of nepa decisions are maintained in the on ground environmental protection remain strong the bill before us today should expand shell ability to all states and reauthorize the authority of the program on this the bill of silence i think more must be done to ensure that the program can fully utilize in the future by california and other states  amendment to make the nepa delegation part of program permanent and provide a clarification assurance efficient efficiency and effectiveness specifically my members would do the following make the pilot program permanent allow program participants to make project level air ali determinations to ensure the project complies with state me joy equality planning includes language preserving state flexibility in use of all current future environmental streamlining tools when they're participating in the program allows state use of delegation authority for highway projects that use also use funding from other federal sources and apple this is using a minimal funding from f d a when the building of a transit component of a highway projects such as a bus shelter or a new road a pilot program allows assignment of a project environmental of responsibility but  planning level thirty specific mentioning said section one seven six the clean air act in this exclusion unfortunately section one seventy six not only includes planning and program level conformity between transportation air quality planning it also has a portion of that requires it co determination at the project level and that is not the only project level environment involvement with left with a way under the pilot for projects need a project level air quality conformity determination which are many caltrans now must go through a hole drilled of running air transportation ministry funding is being used for that shelter because the funding even though it may be minimal is coming from the f d a the entire project is no longer eligible for the delegation authority language my minute is intended to clarify i understand there were a minim amount of funding is used in the project in the state can still use delegation authority complete the project this amendment is a small expansion on the program that is working well and needs to and these policy changes so that we can even be more effective in the future you'll back to b thanks gentleman any other members wish to be heard on the amendment and recognize myself for such time as i may consume we had a number of discussions regarding this this  pilot program the problems with it and that as i believe i think four states reviewed it in only one or five states for four decided not to participate and california at this would have an opportunity to review and we you know we think would be premature to make the program permanent at this point in time since we're still trying to find a program that that a larger number of states would find acceptable and useful in expediting their analysis and project project delivery and then the gentleman would go a bit further in terms of expanding their responsibilities which the  we want to deal with these issues that are covered in the delegation of authority that are provided in the in the pilot program for the purpose of expediting state decision making we provided for five pilot projects to be undertaken five states the protests it only california proposed other states walked up to the brink and then decided they didn't want to participate unfortunately so we decided in this legislation to extend we need a much bigger experience base extend the pilot program for the whole country but now the german raises a very important point that the pilot in california did not provide this flexibility for the transit program i think the valid point and we ought to be able to address that and we'll discuss this matter further with the gentleman i think i think it is it is an easy matter to adapt to that and i y yes the problem is we found no extension in the bill and it by law expires in two thousand and eleven i believe and that was my concern that in california and mr so you've been there you've seen that this works very very well for a state as complex as california and i would hate to have that authority expire because we did nothing or were cited in this bill on page three sixty eight i heard the gentleman's concern page thirty sixty eight of the bill line twelve special rule can read california in there any state california participating in this program under in the program under the section on september third two thousand and nine and only california applies i shall be permitted by the secretary continue to participate in the program and such state should not have to submit an application to paragraph sub two in order to participate in the program would you please you'll let you know but that's the application process but there's a termination process in the code that allowed for six years is all if that could be addressed i would be happy with that but my concern is any limitation we we intended with this language any state participating shall be permitted to continue in the program and  twenty four percent of all traffic and forty four forty one percent of all truck traffic the nation has changed a great deal since the interstate system was first developed more than fifty years ago goods movement patterns have changed urban areas have grown a and whole regions of the country become not only populated but crowded because of these change experts are stated the need to fully complete complete and expand our interstate system and just this year which represents state department of transportation project selection criteria project a complete our current interstate system or develop new interstate routes this change will move us forward towards the next phase away in a state system additionally my memory allows a national significance program to put a priority on projects that will improve transportation access to and within communities whose economics are focused on tourism these areas have special needs since many of the factors reckon transportation spending large you do not consider the impact of this is my mammoth make sure that a national significant program takes those needs into account its national significance program rightly focusing on safety by members makes you the project it addressed reducing emergency evacuation times are part of that focus all transportation modes play a part of improving emergency evacuations for communities of all sizes across the country and sure that our country statements can get out of the way of trouble when they need amendment i believe the memel go a long way towards achieving the specific national objectives set out in the surface transportation reauthorization or authorize authorization act specifically improving gentleman the the idea that our system should enhance economic development including a strong emphasis on tourism both domestic and international tourism which results from a fully developed  i'm not quite certain whether amending this section of the bill projects of national and regional significance with this language is the way to to accomplish both those goals and get a federal emphasis on them but i'd be happy  to work with the gentleman our intention is that the projects of national regional significance should not in any way be pointed toward any one individual project but be accomplishing yes thank you thank you mr chairman and ranking member duncan i have him at the desk jilly's right now is five minutes thank you i'll make this brief i know briefly the town of chesapeake west virginia is like a lot of small communities represented by members of the subcommittee it's a community with a few hundred families that work hard and don't really ask for much in return however this this bill the transportation reauthorization is that build is transforming the nation and i think with my minute we could transform the town of chesapeake and its surrounding communities the main route through chesapeake is part of our state's coal har hole a college system in each day three to four hundred trucks pass through the town hearing west virginia coal as you can imagine it's heavy traffic that poses a safety risk and serious challenges for keeping the town clean free to debris we have we and conjunct me and the community have exhausted all of our options in the final final and simple solution is for the coal trucks to use a twelve mile stretch of interstate seventy seven to bypass the town  the federal interstate weight limits prohibit this so what i'm thinking is not a state issue the residents of chesapeake have worked with the state department of transportation and my m m it would permit the state of west virginia to allow certain coal carrying trucks weighing up one hundred twenty six thousand pop pounds to travel to twelve miles on interstate seventy seven to get to the coal tipple into the river bypassing the small town and all of the citizens of the town of chesapeake i urge support of my mehmet however i will be numerous occasions and would also note that our state's largest newspaper has also endorsed this particular provision and i want to join her in expressing support for the amendment recognizing the unique problem that this particular stretch of federal highway poses for our efforts to move coal from its markets to the world marketplace thank you i appreciate  my fellow west virginian support it means a lot to me and i think means a lot of the folks in the community it is a very specialized issue for that just twelve mile stretch of highway other members which we heard on the amendment  recognize myself or such time as they may consume appreciate the concern of the two members from west virginia and you know the efficiency of the system we we will have been some discussion regarding truck weights before we move to full committee it's it's not currently referenced in the bill the gentleman from maine also has a an amendment on a touch that part and i clearly understand the need to understand but i share the chairman both chairman's concern about there's been some states that have frankly abused that flexibility some states however like florida have not as a matter of fact they've utilized this flexibility to better well maybe there's a way to to get to where we will both want to be which is to make sure that there's little abuse that states do what they're supposed to be doing but that we don't hurt those who have done a good job and have used that flexibility well and  and i sense that it rises out of the out of a concern that i think need elaboration and i would like to engage mr fazio just  a further discussion of of the true underlying concerns here and see if we can address those in a better fashion than this was jim again i would again i you know that's all i need to hear and i know that would be the case so with that i would fuel vehicle provisions in this legislation really what we're trying to do here is make sure that hydrogen and other fuels fuel blends like hydrogen natural get compressed natural gas would be included in the language in the definition of a gentleman you know i would thank you mr chairman it was an oversight requirements in the bill having been through this once twice three times but this time going to withdraw the amendment but just to say to you mr chairman you mr chairman that this is still an issue that is deeply seated and i believe that we could do better for our states for our transportation projects without the davis bacon requirements and thank you for your time at that point at this point i'd like to withdraw the amendment without  withdraw and i look forward to a vigorous debate over that issue during full committee consideration that will not be one that will be discussed toward any a compromise for any and i would just like to compliment the gentleman is consistent he's open candid straightforward on this issue which he holds very a view that he was very deeply we respect that and we'll have a further debate the german wishes to have a vote on it in committee or again on the house floor  question of the privileges of the house conversation move them from the floor and the outstanding public debt of the united states stood at ten point six two seven trillion dollars whereas on january twentieth two thousand and nine in the president's inaugural address he stated quote those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account to spend wisely reform bad habits and do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between the people and their government nine whereas the american recovery and reinvestment act of two thousand and nine included five hundred seventy five billion dollars of new spending and two hundred twelve billion dollars of revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of seven hundred eighty seven billion dollars whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the american recovery and reinvestment act of two thousand and nine will cost an additional three hundred billion dollars whereas on february twenty sixth two thousand  the president unveiled his budget blueprint for a fiscal year two thousand and ten whereas the president's budget for f y twenty ten proposes the levon highest annual deficit in united states history whereas the president's budget for f y twenty ten proposes to increase the national debt to twenty three point one trillion dollars by fiscal year twenty nineteen more than doubling it from its current levels whereas on march eleventh two thousand and nine the president signed into public law h r eleven o five the omnibus appropriations act of two thousand and nine whereas the omnibus approach appropriations act of two thousand and nine constitutes nine of the twelve appropriations bills for f y twenty zero nine which had not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year whereas the omnibus appropriations act of twenty zero nine spends nineteen point one billion dollars more than the request of president bush the house considered conrads eighty five congressional democrats budget proposal for f y twenty ten four as the congressional democrats budget proposal for f y twenty ten h conrad as a five proposes the six highest annual deficit and united states history whereas the congressional democrats budget proposed for f y twenty ten h conrad is eighty five proposes to increase the national debt to seventeen point one trillion dollars over five years five point three trillion dollars more than compared to the level on january twentieth two thousand and nine whereas congressional republicans produced an alternative budget proposal for two thousand and ten which spends four point eight trillion dollars less than the congressional that kratz budget over ten years loop where as the republican study committee proposed proposed an alternative budget for twenty ten which improves the budget outlook in every single year balances the budget by f y twenty nineteen and cuts the national debt by more than six trillion dollars compared to the president's budget whereas on april twentieth two thousand and nine attempting to respond to public criticism the president convened the first cabinet meeting need to take their conversations from the floor gentleman will suspend until the house is in order cabinet meeting of his administration and challenge his cabinet to cut a collective hundred billion dollars in the next ninety days whereas the challenge to cut a collective hundred million dollars represents just one forty thousand of the federal budget whereas on june nineteenth two thousand and nine total outstanding troubled asset relief program or tarp funds to banks stood at one hundred ninety seven point six billion dollars whereas on june sixteenth two thousand nine total outstanding tarp funds to a stood at sixty nine point eight billion dollars whereas on june sixteenth two thousand and nine total outstanding  to domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units stood at eighty billion dollars whereas on june nineteenth two thousand and nine the outstanding public debt of the united states was eleven point four zero nine trillion dollars whereas on june nineteenth two thousand and nine eight citizens share the outstanding public debt of the united states came to thirty seven thousand two hundred thirty six dollars and eighty eight cents whereas according to a new york times c b s news survey three fifths of americans sixty percent do not think that the president has developed a clear plan for dealing with the current budget deficit whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process in the house of representatives whereas before assuming control of the house of representatives in january two thousand and seven congressional democrats were committed to an open and transparent appropriations process where as according to a document by congressional democrats entitled democratic declaration on a slate or ship and open government page to states quote our goal is to restore accountability honesty and openness at all levels of government unquote whereas according to a document by congressional democrats entitled a new direction for america page twenty nine states bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to all for its alternatives including a substitute whereas on november twenty first two thousand and six the san francisco chronicle reported that quote speaker pelosi pledged to restore minority right that speaker pelosi pledged to restore minority rights including the right of republicans to offer amendments to bills on the floor the principles of civility and respect for minority participation in this house is something that we promised the american people she said it's the right thing to do san francisco chronicle november twenty first two thousand and six whereas on december sixth two thousand and six speaker nancy pelosi stated quote we promised the american people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will unquote whereas on december seventeenth two thousand and six the washington post reported that quote after a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but crippled efforts to deal with major national problems pelosi is determined to try to return the house to what it was in an earlier era where you debated ideas and listen to each other's arguments unquote the washington post december seventeenth two thousand and six whereas on december fifth two thousand and six majority leader standing for your stated quote we intend to have a rules committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the house unquote congress daill december fifth two thousand and six where as during  fourteenth two thousand and five in the congressional record on page forty four ten chairwoman louise slaughter of the house rules committee stated to quote if we want to foster democracy in this body we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule not just appropriation bills which are already restricted an open process should be the norm and not the exception unquote whereas since january two thousand and seven there has been a failure to commit to an open and transparent process in the house of representatives jalen most of them the house will be in order we sample take the conversations from the floor members will take their seats gentleman from georgia where as since january two thousand and seven whereas since january two thousand and seven there has been a failure to commit to an open and transparent process in the house of representatives where as more bills were considered under close rules sixty four total in the hundred tenth congress under democratic control than in the previous congress forty nine under republican control whereas fewer bills were consumed or considered under open rules ten total in the hundred tenth congress under democratic control than in the previous congress twenty two under republican control whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill seven point six eight in the hundred tenth congress under democratic control than in the previous congress nine point two two under republican control whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending reached its pinnacle in the house his handling of h r twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand  whereas h r twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand and ten contains sixty four point four billion dollars in discretionary spending eleven point six percent more than enacted in fiscal year two thousand and nine whereas on june eleventh two thousand and nine the house rules committee issued an announcement stating that amendments for h r twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand and ten must be preprinted in the congressional record by the close of business on june fifteenth two thousand and nine whereas both republicans and democrats filed a hundred and twenty seven amendments in the congressional record for consideration on the house floor whereas on june fifteenth two thousand and nine thousand rules committee reported a tryst five four for a rule with a free printing requirement and unlimited pro forma amendment for purposes of debate whereas on june sixteenth two thousand and nine the house proceeded with one hour of general debate or one minute to vet each one point zero seven billion dollars in h r twenty eight forty seven in the committee of the whole whereas after one hour of general debate the house proceeded with amendment debate whereas after just twenty two minutes of amendment to for one minute or so that age three point zero two billion dollars in h r twenty eight forty seven a motion that the committee rise was offered by congressional democrats whereas the house agreed on a motion that the committee to rise by recorded vote of one hundred seventy nine and one hundred twenty four names with all votes in the affirmative being cast by democrats whereas afterwards the house rules committee convened a special untelevised meeting to dispense with further proceedings of h r twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand and ten whereas on june seventeenth two thousand and nine the house rules committee reported h rez five five two a new and restrictive structured rule for h twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand and ten whereas every house republican and twenty seven house democrats voted against agreeing on jemison georgian whereas a trans five five two made in order just twenty three amendment with a possibility for ten more amendments out of the hundred twenty seven amendments originally filed by as a threat five five to surve a curtailed pro forma amendments for the purposes of debate whereas the actions of congressional democrats to curtail debate and the number of amendments offered a chart twenty eight forty seven the commerce justice science and related agencies appropriations act of two thousand and ten effectively ended the process to deal with runaway federal spending in a positive and responsible manner and whereas the actions have taken have resulted in indignity being visited upon the house of representatives therefore be it resolved that one the house of representatives recommit itself to fiscal restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending to the house of representatives return to its best traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process without a pre printing requirement and three that the house rules committee shall report out open rules for all general appropriations is lucian offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house as an immediate present president only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed pending that designation the form of the resolution noted by the gentleman from georgia will appear in the record at this point the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege that determination will be made at the time  when obviously those of us from donor states need to lead and we need to continue to build on that to make sure that states that really all states are dealt with equitably we obviously those of us from the donor states don't want to go backwards on that issue  obviously scope is a big part of it as well and not only equity but but as but scope so this man expresses a sense of congress that all such as all states should at least receive a minimum ninety two percent rate of return and part of my time as a family if that's all right so we can just move forward i thought i think gentleman and we we had this discussion previously and i don't think we need to repeat it again  to reiterate what my colleague has said is how important it is to really recognize the fact that many states including ohio are donor states the ninety two percent that is a return that is guaranteed in this is only the floor and i think that we need to make every effort to raise the minimum guarantee to at least ninety five percent if not one hundred percent you know there's waning support for financing or transportation programs in and in part in my district in my state it's because people now we're a donor state and they're saying why should we find ways to increase the highway trust trust fund why should we find ways to increase financing our transportation programs when we're not getting one hundred percent of our money back in with the completion of the interstate highway system there there is no logical rationale for any or any donor disparity that was created so many years ago i not going to go into what i'm going to give you this and to put in the record all my statements but i would really appreciate it if we could work with this to make sure that states like ohio states like florida don't continue to be donor states but get their sweat go forward to the full committee and it will we hear many aspects of the issues not just a simple rate of return issue but there sub text issues if you will that have to be further discuss which is why we didn't have a  provision here in the first place is this is one that goes back to ninety one to ninety eight the nice in t twenty wanted to safety and there are some issues that need to be revisited and we're going to do that if the gentleman yield again i chairman the one thing that i've always said though is that i've always been treated fairly and and that's all one wants so i appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with with you and without sir then mr chairman if that's all right i would then  last moments thank you mr chairman and thank you for your leadership and particularly your management of this markup on what is turning out to be a very in in congress kind of day i want to thank you for your leadership and chairman over starn our minority members as well because i think that this is a really strong and bipartisan bill that really is a framework for a new path and a different way of thinking about transportation that's innovative that focuses on on safety but also focuses on the importance of economic development and connecting the modes of our transportation system and creating jobs in the twenty first century movement of people and goods and i look forward to continuing to work with you i wanted to point out a couple of things first i share the concern that there's an express on both sides about the in in incredulity of moving forward on groundbreaking climate change legislation that is separated from what we really need to do on transportation because like you i share the concern that our transportation policy is deeply linked with involved with our environmental policy and with with our energy policy and so this is a measure i think that really cannot be delayed not for a couple of months not for eighteen months because it represents a new vision for the nation's infrastructure i wanted to point out to a couple of things that i am interested in working with you on  chairman chairman oberstar and as well chairman de fazio and that is a couple of things one incorporating the notion of wireless technology and coverage into our transportation infrastructure for public a safety officials for first responders and for consumers and sadly you know the tragedy that we witness here in this metropolitan area on our nation's the red line metro system brought home the fact the importance  of of wireless communication though not in a tunnel in this accident but could well have been and hampers our public safety officials from actually reaching people who might be in danger in our on our subway systems  i also look forward to to working with you as well to take innovative steps that really ensure that broadband coverage is widely accessible and we can use our nation's transportation infrastructure for that and also developing smart and intelligent transportation movement mechanisms incorporating intelligent transportation technology as we go through this new vision of our transportation system and i want to salute you for the thought about what we're doing as transportation as as a transportation system and infrastructure instead of a bunch of hodgepodge projects however good they are around the country but really connecting them and so i look forward to working with you and and to other members of this committee to make sure that both our ministration the president and also the country understands the importance of investing in our nation's infrastructure to create jobs and opportunity for the future and i know that you understand that and then we'll figure out a way that we need to convince the american public of the importance of paying for it so that it has to pay off in the future and i appreciate your just giving me a few moments to express my desire to work with you to make sure that this is the strongest possible bill that really meets the needs of the twenty first century and the  federal aid highway system and states i would write away for fiberoptic cables probably only massachusetts's availed itself of of that authority so i'd be interested in seeing the proposal long but it's always been the great contributor and we look forward to working with you on this with that i would recognize them as valid for remember thank you mr chairman i appreciate the opportunity to be able to put forth amendment ten fifty one as the first one and the members at the desk recognize five minutes i thank you mr chairman and working with my department transportation back home i have asked them for ways that we can help improve the way the federal government and the state and local governments work together and they have pointed to me and issues that they think would help create more efficiency and ease and working through some of the requirements and the regulations that we have and so this amendment deals with that and basically what this amendment it is to address the modified financial plan requirements from safety lou title twenty three section one of six h they require to have escalated  financial plans that must be updated annually and at the face value this seems like a great idea for accountability and oversight but under the current provision spending from a hundred million to five hundred million requires an annual financial plan and the five hundred million and above requires an annual financial plan and a project management plan two different things the problem arises because the federal highways has always encouraged state transportation departments to utilize broad environmental studies such as quarter studies which can easily reach that threshold and when the threshold is triggered the department is in burdened with recording a financial plan with if i should be a and then maintaining it annually until all work is completed and even though the quarter study  be long range in nature and the department may have no financial solution to fund all the projects and cups is there still an issue therefore we are presenting the public the public is presented with a document that potentially offers false expectations for improvements or at best emphasizes that the quarter that they are setting is not funded and requires any updates and they say that is a situation that is not desirable in our state  they also claim in our department transportation that federal highway will claim that there is an opportunity to review the situation terminate the need to document has sustained in operationally independent phases and then no financial plan will be required however what oklahoma's found is that in getting a determination stinks operationally independent phrases from the federal highway is more painful than doing the financial plan and the department in oklahoma is left with an option of halting all quarter type clearances in favor of segmented more narrow n document addressing only individual projects are operational prove it they have asked for a resolution of this issue and pharma transportation i would like to see is changed the limits  that would fix this by raising a financial plan requirement from five hundred million to in the financial plan project management plan threshold to one billion and mr chairman i heard your comments earlier when i mentioned this that you had some concerns about this and i guess what i'm asking today is that since some of the partner transportations have raised this as something that creates some issues when they're trying to let these bids and go the environmental studies that we lead continue to talk about this issue and see if we can find a way to cause it to work better for our department transportation with the distinguished gentleman yield yes or the language in current law the two items the five hundred million and the one hundred million and the provision of current law that requires a state d o t effect to submit for each project of five hundred million or more a project management plan and an annual financial plan arose out of recommendations of the inspector general of d o t following review of the big dig in boston and  it was widely accepted adopted on both sides of the aisle as we proceeded with the current transportation law in in this legislation  we keep those provisions in place project management plan annual plant financial plan and we add further reporting and transparency items so that there is greater accountability for state the o t s greater accountability to their public to us in the congress expanding that number two billion and the second one to five hundred million what i fear weaken our accountability and transparency it's so without going into further transparency but we also want to call sufficiency which i know you do too and they have stressed that sometimes this causes many layers of regulations and delays and cost overruns within the current program but i do understand recognize five minutes a moment that that's forty thirty eight and this is an amendment that deals with an issue that we've actually had some hearings on in this committee dealing with private farm vehicles that have come under recent scrutiny from local and state law and forstmann agencies in regards to interstate commercial motor vehicle standards federal law allows each state to determine their own classification for commercial motor vehicles for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than twenty six thousand pounds when traveling with in their own borders however these federal standards mandates that trucks traveling across state lines with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than ten thousand pounds are considered to be commercial motor vehicles and that strips say between these two standards is creating a conversation burden upon our farmers and ranchers who routinely cross state lines to support their local businesses and their families with their farm trucks and i have an image which would remedy this problem and buy him in a commercial motor vehicle safety requirements to exempt farmers who are engaged in agriculture related activities from federal motor carrier for most motor commercial vehicle and operator regulations the you several times on this particular issue and had several hearings and as we continue to work along i know that you've had a great concern about making sure that all of our equipment on our road specially as it deals with weights are safe and i have a great appreciation for that and want to make sure we have safe vehicle is on our roads but also to recognize that there is a challenge that when they cross lines on states they may have one weight limit in one state and they cross to another that  targeted exemptions and that in the past and we're quite familiar with both come from areas that have significant farming activity and ranching activity in my area and timber so i'm familiar with a number of the concerns and i personally and i believe the term be happy to continue discussions as we move forward mister yes indeed and i thank you alone for raising this issue i would just observe as we go forward that waiving requirement for special train waiving hours of service rules waiving the requirements for a driver road test are really serious safety obstacles those are the kinds of issues we're going to have to have to have some discuss and the issue i'm trying to get it mr chairman is when farmers have lower weight vehicles and the requirements of keeping medical records and keeping travel logs and they're not long haul commercial drivers but they're farmers taking pro the consensus that will continue to work on this issue i think the gentlewoman for raising the issue look forward to working with her and without objection her unanimous consent request withdraw the amendment as except at the time with that i believe we have one national significance monies that are in this bill are distributed around the country equitably specifically the language in this amendment requires that when awarding these funds the secretary shall take such measures as be necessary to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds made available to carry out this section and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities under this section this language is the exact language that was included in the discretionary transportation grant program created by the stimulus which has since been named the transportation investment generating you cannot the economic recovery or the tiger discretionary grant program the purpose for this amendment  mr chairman is for several reasons for example the primary employer in my district happens to be agriculture in fact the one of the primary industries in the entire state of illinois is agriculture pumping six point four billion dollars into our economy however the goods produced by all farmers also need to get to market and the market today's farmers is selling is no longer pekin illinois but peking china as such we no longer need to farm to market road we need to mark farm to market infrastructure system that allows farmers to be cost competitive in these international markets this infrastructure is expensive and i'm concerned  the language in this bill the department will choose to fund other projects projects which are of equal importance but are in larger media markets or provide a larger splash no one knows better than the chairman that one of this bill's primary purposes is saving lives repeatedly and artfully the chairman's blueprint lists the tragic lives lost due to our outdated in an efficient transportation system unfortunately a disturbingly and disproportionate percentage of those fatal attacks occur in rural america in fact fifty five percent of highway faith faith tallaght each happen in an area that only holds twenty three percent of the population another overarching of this legislation is creating and allowing economic development and again i turn to the chairman's blueprint which discusses the economic opportunities provided by increased freight moved again rural areas are in disproportionate need in this area more than one in seven rural american lives lives in poverty and any aggregate this proud poverty occurs at higher rates and last longer than those living in cities as such if there is anyone which needs the benefit provided by enhanced movement of goods it is those in rural america so i'm hoping that the chairman will work with us and if not adopt this amendment work with us to to ensure that these monies are thank you have germans write half of all highway fatalities occur on rural roads and half of the rural road fatalities are people from urban areas who get confused who are driving on roads to which to whose conditions they're not accustomed to with blind intersections little or no shoulder poor strip ing in our part of the country northern minnesota wideouts in the winter time the university of minnesota transportation center has developed a sensor in the intersection of roadways and to alert by g p s snow paul snow plow operators so that in a white out they don't run into somebody who's stuck in an intersection i understand fully we provided and for those very concerns we provided language in the stimulus requiring states to equitably distribute their recovery dollars it's not working quite as well as as i hear randomly from members as we intend it was a really wasn't any enforcement mechanism on state secondly on the projects of national significance which i initiated in the safety legislation was my intention that there be an objective process that the secretary of transportation would evaluate projects and award  mr young agreed with me that was the bill that was the language that passed through the house but time we got through conference with the senate however they had sliced it up into little pieces that were like little snowflakes distributed a little bit here and a little bit there and a lovely someplace else and you just don't understand the in chicago create was supposed to have a two hundred million dollar investment not only got one hundred million dollars and all that came from our side and that there will be an objective process by which projects will be selected and if in the gentleness concerned that there be equitable distribution we'll find a way to put that word in put some teeth in it consent that my motion be withdrawn without objection the a motion is that on a further memon seeing no further amendments if anyone can't restrain themselves and really has to say something would recognize the chairman full committee chairman oberstar mr chairman i move that the committee print of the surface transportation authorization act of two thousand and nine be approved and recommended favorably to the full committee the questions on the motion by saying i all those opposing five binding thing a the ayes have it the motion is agreed to the committee print service transportation authorization act two thousand and nine proved and recommended favorably to the full committee the democratic staff for their hard work be authorized to make all necessary technical clarifying and conforming changes to the committee print service transportation act two thousand and nine to reflect the actions of the subcommittee which that all discussions and amendments offered today will be carried forward with further deliberate on those and any other amendments any other ideas that members have don't bring them on the day of the markup which would be well notified in advance but come to both sides with your concerns so that we can adequately work on them before we go to the full committee markup right we're open to suggestions we've got the you know the break coming up be a good time for people to put their thoughts in order and communicate and then we'll have a busy july and hope to move the bill by mid late july and we'll be working with our colleagues on ways and means for ways to pay for this much needed investment pursuant to rule five m b of the rules committee transportation infrastructure notes presence of a quorum for each of the actions taken on the committee