Hire More Heroes Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would impose burdensome new requirements on States and metropolitan planning organizations, significantly delaying project selection and construction.
States and MPOs already, under current law, are subject to extensive planning requirements and take multiple factors into accountant in developing their short- and long-range plans. It is critical that they have the flexibility to weigh tradeoffs in different priorities without being hamstrung by a strict ranking process.
Transparency and the opportunity for participation by stakeholders and the public is a hallmark of the planning process. States and MPOs are required to have a participation plan to ensure that any interested party can be heard.
The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials all oppose this amendment, and they are the very people that deal with this.
I oppose the amendment, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose it, also.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman from California bringing this amendment forward.
The STRR Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations by the end of this year to implement recommendations of a report to Congress on assisting veterans in acquiring a commercial driver's license. However, the bill does not address the nonregulatory recommendations. This amendment does that. It requires the Secretary to implement those recommendations within a year.
This is a good amendment that will assist our veterans in making the transition to civilian life. I urge all Members to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. I, as always, appreciate the gentlewoman from California and her hard work. She is a valued member of the committee.
I don't believe this amendment has to do with transportation policy. I think it is a good thing when you bury power lines for a lot of reasons--appearance, weather, all those things--but I really don't believe this is a Federal issue, nor do I believe the U.S. Department of Transportation is the appropriate agency to determine the costs and benefits of burying power lines.
I really believe that should be up to the companies and their cost-benefit analysis to determine that and not to underwrite or subsidize their operation by doing this.
So, again, with great respect to the gentlewoman from California, I oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman pushing this issue. Again, as I said, burying power lines I think is a positive thing. It does add to the beauty of the landscape. But I just don't believe that it is the Federal Government's role to underwrite, the taxpayers to underwrite, these utility companies.
So, again, I appreciate the withdrawal. I appreciate your pushing this issue. I continue to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand what the gentleman from Washington is trying to accomplish here.
The reason I oppose it is not because of what he is attempting to do, but the Federal Highway Administration currently has strongly supported and encouraged the use and implementation of green infrastructure in the Federal aid transportation projects to mitigate highway runoff impacts.
FHWA recently published a new storm water runoff model, and it is engaged in various storm water research, including storm water performance measures.
The Department of Transportation also is part of a Federal agency green infrastructure collaborative. This initiative includes working with States to implement integrated ecosystems, including landscape-scale mitigation. So I don't believe we need to legislate further on this.
I also would make note that just last night, we agreed to the amendment of Ms. Edwards of Maryland on storm water mitigation to put the States in the metropolitan planning process.
Again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish. I think it is already in the legislation. I think it is already in current law, so I would oppose the amendment
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work with the gentleman. The gentleman is correct. It is not in current law, but the Federal Highway Administration is working on these things collaboratively with the States, and I think that we ought to let them continue at that pace.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's commonsense amendment. As usual, he brings common sense to the table.
This amendment does and will accelerate the approval of TIFIA credit assistance for certain projects.
I encourage all Members to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I share many of the same conservative beliefs that my colleague from Florida has. This town is littered with agencies that don't belong here according to the Founding Fathers. Over time they have grown up, and the Federal Government has taken that power.
But I do disagree with the gentleman from Florida on this issue. When it comes to transportation, the Constitution we have today, the breaking point of the Articles of Confederation, one of the breaking points, the biggest breaking point, was the transportation system. Maryland and Virginia couldn't come together on a treaty to navigate the Potomac River, so they realized that if they couldn't connect this Nation, then we would never be a nation. We would be 13 separate entities, 50 entities today. But the Founding Fathers came and wrote the Constitution we know today.
Article I, section 8 talks about the role of the
Federal Government, providing for the common defense, regulating interstate commerce, and establishing post roads. Those post roads today are the highways and the byways of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Washington shouldn't be dictating. This bill does more to send back power to the States, to let the States drive the issues. But there is a Federal role, not to do it all, but to partner--to partner--with the States in building the infrastructure system that we have today. What physically connects us is our highway system; it is our transportation system.
I would argue also, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed out that Florida--I agree, I know what the return on Florida is, but Florida has benefited tremendously by two roads in particular: I-95 and I-75. If you go to the east coast or the west coast of Florida, millions of people are traveling from the Northeast and the Midwest down to Florida to spend their dollars, and many are relocating. If you go to the east coast, there are many Pennsylvanians. So Florida has benefited tremendously by this system that we have today.
Again, I believe with this bill we are turning back to the States a lot of responsibility. I think this is a conservative bill based on that, to let States--and also, to remind the gentleman and my colleagues, I like to turn back things to the States that they actually ask for. My phone is not ringing off the hook having Governors say, ``Give us this back.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by first saying we lost a valuable former member of this committee just recently. Howard Coble passed away. I just want to say that Howard was on this committee his entire time in Congress.
He was a very valued member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was a champion of the Coast Guard, which he served, his beloved Coast Guard, and he was always there fighting for them. He was an excellent Representative of the people of his district in North Carolina, and he was a great friend of mine and, I know, many, many Members of this Congress.
Howard Coble will be missed greatly. I am just proud to say that on the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill we were able to name it after Howard Coble, someone who deserved that honor.
So, again, it is with a heavy heart I say that I salute Howard Coble and say farewell, as I said, to a great friend and great Member of this institution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer these amendments en bloc. They reflect priorities from both sides of the aisle. I thank all Members for their cooperation in putting together this en bloc, and I urge all Members to support it.
I would like, also, to take a moment at this time to thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle that participated in this debate. I want to thank the Speaker for putting us first on the floor for this new open and transparent--I know some of my colleagues on the other side don't think it was open enough, but I think many of us on the committee, I don't want to speak for Mr. DeFazio, but it was an open process to me, and I think that is important.
As Mr. Polis talked about earlier today, he had ideas. We were able to incorporate some of those, some of the Members on the other side, and some we certainly opposed. But it was the hard work and willingness to come together on this important piece of legislation. I think this makes it stronger when we go to the Senate.
The STRR Act continues the Federal role in providing a strong national transportation system, enables our country to remain economically competitive, and helps ensure our quality of life. As we just talked about in the last amendment, this is a Federal responsibility. The Founders would have wanted it this way. They certainly probably had differences of opinion. But this role is something the Federal Government needs to be part of.
The STRR Act is a multiyear bill that provides that certainty for States and local governments. This bill helps to improve our Nation's infrastructure and maintains a strong commitment to safety, but it also provides important reforms that will help us to continue to do the job more effectively. Some of those reforms I mentioned earlier were pushing back to the States, giving them the ability to have the flexibility, to make sure that they can drive this in their States to get these projects done more effectively and more efficiently, which will save us all money.
I urge all Members to support this bill and the amendments en bloc.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this has been 3 years in the making. When I first became chairman just about 3 years ago to almost the date today, one of my top priorities was to pass a multiyear surface transportation bill. I have had some people who lament and say: Oh, you have been on the floor long; oh, you have had to go through these different fights. But I can tell you, it has all been pleasurable. It is exciting that we finally are getting this thing to send here on the floor and get it into conference.
I couldn't do it without the help and advice of a great staff on the Republican side. I also want to thank the Democratic staff. I know both staffs have spent some long nights and some long weekends trying to get this thing all worked out, and they have done a great job of it. I thank each and every one of them on both sides of the aisle for their hard work.
I want to thank all the members on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on both sides for their valuable input and, again, their hard work in putting this thing together to bring it to the floor. I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Norton, and the chair of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Mr. Graves, for their work.
Peter DeFazio has been a good friend and able opponent at times. He has been here a long time. He is bright; he is tough; he is passionate; but at the end of the day, we are able to come together on a lot of these issues and work it out, so I appreciate Mr. DeFazio's efforts.
And finally, let me say, for the first time in my 15 years of Congress that I have participated in a Transportation and Infrastructure debate on the floor, that my father's name has not been mentioned one time. So let me be the first to mention my father, Bud Shuster. I am not sure if he is watching at home. If he is, he is taking notes and will tell me things I said right and things I could have probably said better. But I just want to thank him for the guidance he has given me throughout my life, for the valuable advice he has offered to me at times when I have asked and many times when I have not asked. And, again, if he is watching tonight, I am sure he is writing down some things that he is going to give me some pointers on. But I want to thank my father, Bud Shuster, again, for his great support over the years.
I am looking forward to getting to conference and getting this thing done because I think it is important to the American people that we have a long-term highway bill. This has been an issue that people say it is great, there is a lot of bipartisan support--and there is--but these are issues that Republicans, Democrats, and Americans care about, our infrastructure, and want to get to work without delays and want to get products to market and want to get the raw materials to the factories that keep us competitive in the world. We are in a world market that we have to remain competitive, and transportation is one of those vital links that will keep us there.
With that, again, I thank everybody for their hard work. Staff, again, thank you.
With that, I urge all Members to support the final bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source