Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4745, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4681, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015; And For Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, we are considering a rule that combines two bills together under one single rule. That rule provides an open rule for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, or T-HUD, and a structured rule for the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act.

T-HUD is an appropriate acronym, Mr. Speaker, because that is how we can describe this House's action on the bill last year. The Appropriations Committee tried to come up with a bill that funds our Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs, but it was so woefully inadequate that it never made it to the House floor.

Although the T-HUD bill may be $1.2 billion above last year's enacted levels, due to a reduction in offsets caused by a decline in Federal Housing Administration receipts, the program level in this bill is actually $1.8 billion below last year's level.

On the transportation side, this bill provides no funding for high-speed rail, and it cuts $200 million from Amtrak's capital funding. And if that weren't bad enough, I want to highlight one particularly egregious rider in the T-HUD bill, a rider that would exempt Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Idaho from Federal truck weight limits on their interstates.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no reviews by highway safety experts or cost-benefit analysis on the effect of increased size and weight limits on these roads and bridges, yet the majority decided to go forward with these extraneous riders anyway.

I would remind my colleagues that in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, Congressman Lou Barletta offered an amendment that required DOT to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of increasing truck size and weight on road safety and infrastructure costs. It passed with strong bipartisan support, and the Department of Transportation is currently in the process of completing the study, which should be finished by the fall of this year.

Mr. Barletta sent a letter to the Rules Committee before last night's meeting requesting that a point of order against this rider be made available. I support Mr. Barletta's request, and I wish the Rules Committee would not have protected this provision. We should not be raising truck size and weights in a State-by-State patchwork approach before DOT even has a chance to finish its study, especially when the highway trust fund is expected to run out of money this summer and our roads and our bridges are already in horrible disrepair.

I will insert letters from AAA, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, law enforcement officers, first responders, and road safety groups all opposing this rider.

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2014.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chair, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nita Lowey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: AAA opposes Section 125 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015 that would increase the current federal truck size and weight limits. This section carves out special interest exemptions from federal truck size and weight regulations for Idaho, Mississippi and Wisconsin. We urge you to remove Section 125 from the bill.

Study after study has shown that increasing truck size or weight increases wear and tear on roads and dramatically impacts bridges. At a time when the federal Highway Trust Fund and many state budgets across the country are nearly tapped out, we cannot afford to allow bigger trucks to run up the cost of maintaining infrastructure.

We also are concerned with the safety impact of allowing heavier trucks on the nation's roadways. According to NHTSA, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks increased four percent from 3,781 in 2011 to 3,921 in 2012. Of these fatalities in 2012, 73 percent were occupants of other vehicles, 10 percent were non-occupants, and 18 percent were occupants of large trucks.

Congress has recognized the importance of a stronger national freight program and work is underway to establish a robust national freight strategy. Considering changes to truck size and weight limits outside the context of this national discussion, and the two-year truck size and weight study required by MAP-21, is premature.

Thank you for consideration of AAA's views on this important safety issue.

Sincerely,

Avery Ash,
Director, Federal Relations.

OWNER-OPERATOR

INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION,

May 20, 2014.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nita M. Lowey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: On behalf of our nation's small business trucking professionals, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) writes in opposition to language in the FY2015 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill that allows trucks weighing up to 129,000 pounds on Interstate Highways in Idaho.

Not only is the expansion of existing weight limits on these roads outside of the highway reauthorization process, but this provision comes as the Department of Transportation is conducting a Congressionally-mandated study on truck size and weight provisions nationally. This study should be allowed to continue without Congress passing legislation, such as the Idaho provision, which would put heavier trucks on Interstate Highway System miles where they currently are not permitted.

Current federal Interstate System weight limits were put in place to halt an ``arms race'' between states attempting to garner favor with major shippers as a way to attract business. Today's generally uniform limits focus attention on the national nature of our Interstate System. The Idaho provision, a state-wide allowance of trucks on currently designated Interstate Highway miles above the existing Interstate weight cap, would be a step backwards from this sensible approach.

While proponents of this provision argue that Idaho is at a disadvantage compared to neighboring states with higher weight limits on Interstate highways, it is critical to remember that those states operated these heavier-weight vehicles on their Interstate system prior to the passage of federal legislation in 1991 that froze maximum weights on longer-combination vehicles. Idaho's state government could have enacted legislation prior to the 1991 freeze setting an Interstate weight allowance equal to its neighboring states, but it did not. Additionally, neighboring states also have strict permitting requirements for these heavier weight loads, requirements that are absent from the provision included in the THUD bill.

While Idaho conducted a pilot study regarding use of heavier weight trucks, it is important to note that none of those trucks in the study operated on Idaho Interstate System roads. Federal studies that have examined operations of heavier vehicles on Interstate System roads, including the initial work completed for the on-going MAP-21 truck size and weight study, show significant infrastructure and safety concerns with bigger and heavier trucks. These are facts that OOIDA members and other small business truckers know full well given that the highway is their workplace.

Further, while proponents of bigger and heavier trucks argue that the entire trucking industry is supportive of a weight increase, the overwhelming majority of drivers and motor carriers do not see a benefit from increasing truck size and weights. Heavier weights may lead to cost savings for shippers and receivers; however, for the small business truckers that make up more than 90 percent of the trucking industry, heavier trucks only mean higher fuel, repair, and equipment costs.

Bearing in mind that that MAP-21 study has yet to be completed, we urge the Appropriations Committee to remove this language from the FY2015 Transportation Appropriations Bill. Should you have any questions, please contact Ryan Bowley in our Washington Office.

Sincerely,

Todd Spencer,
Executive Vice President.

National Troopers Coalition, NAEMT, and National Sheriffs' Association.

May 29, 2014.

DEAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, We are writing on behalf of the nation's law enforcement officers and first responders to express our opposition to any truck size or weight increases. We understand that proposals to allow heavier trucks and thaw the freeze on longer combination vehicles are being considered as part of annual appropriations legislation. We urge you to reject these proposals.

Bigger trucks would add new dangers to our roads. Allowing heavier or longer trucks would threaten the safety of motorists as well as law enforcement officers and first responders because heavier and longer trucks would be more difficult to control, take longer to stop, and increase crash severity. Studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation have found that trucks with multiple trailers and trucks that are heavier are associated with higher crash rates. (2000 US DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study; 2013 US DOT ``Desk Scan'')

Bigger trucks also would impose a huge economic cost in terms of further damage to our already deteriorating highway infrastructure, the additional strain to our aging and deficient bridges and the costs associated with cleaning up crashes. These are additional costs that would be borne by all levels of government and ultimately by the taxpayers.

The current proposals to allow bigger trucks have not been the subject of congressional hearings. We question the appropriateness of making changes such as these that affect public safety in a funding bill without full and open public debate.

Representing law enforcement and first responders across the country, we are united in opposing bigger trucks. Not only do these trucks endanger the traveling public, but they also put at risk law enforcement officers and first responders. Please oppose any provisions that would increase the size or weight of trucks.

Thank you,

Mat Hodapp,

Chairman, National Troopers Coalition.

Don Lundy, BS,Ð NREMT-P,

President, National Association of Emergency Management Technicians.

Aaron D. Kennard,

Executive Director, National Sheriffs' Association.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule, as I noted earlier, also covers debate on H.R. 4681, the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act.

The intelligence authorization bill is one of the many important pieces of legislation that comes before the House every year--or nearly every year. Last year, for fiscal year 2014, the bill was marked up in committee, but the majority never seemed to be able to find the time to bring it to the House floor, which is why today we are dealing with a 2-year authorization for both the current fiscal year, FY 2014, and the coming fiscal year, FY 2015.

Now, a great deal has happened since the fiscal year 2013 intelligence bill was approved in December of 2012--everything from Edward Snowden to the sequester, from extreme weather events to drone strikes that also killed innocent civilians, from new technologies and cyber sabotage to protecting our human assets on the ground in dangerous regions. While the underlying bill attempts to deal with these and other issues in a bipartisan manner, some of the choices it makes weaken rather than strengthen our ability to accurately assess potential and real threats to our security.

One particularly troubling example is the bill's failure to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to analyze and assess how climate change affects our national security. Over a decade ago, the National Intelligence Estimate--or NIE--noted with grave concern how extreme weather and environmental changes were adversely affecting global food security, as well as increased refugee and IDP populations due to droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events.

The NIE described how such events contribute or can even drive social and political instability, which might threaten our national security interests. Given the acceleration of extreme weather and climate change over the last decade or so, I would think that we would want to encourage our intelligence agencies to analyze the national security implications of climate change, whether that is how storm surges and rising sea levels and temperatures might affect our Navy, or how competition over resources might affect the opening of the Arctic or water wars in the Middle East and northern Africa--but no.

Instead, this bill continues the Republican foolishness of pretending that climate change does not exist. Some of my Republicans colleagues would rather stick their heads in the stand. That is not the way to run a government, Mr. Speaker.

Over 30 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and I wish that all of them were made in order under this rule. It doesn't take long to debate 30-something amendments. I believe that the House is fully capable of handling such a debate.

After all, we should be pretty rested after a 5 1/2 -day break at the beginning of this week and a 9-day recess starting tomorrow. Surely, we could use the 2 1/2 days when we are in Washington to actually debate the intelligence bill.

Several of these amendments dealt with highly controversial aspects of drone strikes, many of which have killed or wounded innocent civilians. I was glad to see that the U.S. did not carry out any drone strikes for the past month in Pakistan, where our use of drones has contributed to tensions between our two nations.

Our colleague and a member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), submitted an amendment to ban so-called signature strikes against unknown targets.

Her amendment modestly calls for the U.S. Government to know, with near-certainty, that at least one individual who is a known target will be present before the strike is launched. I am outraged that her amendment was not made in order under this rule.

Other amendments, including bipartisan amendments, dealt with increasing the transparency of decisionmaking and reporting from drone strikes; others would have simply banned their use.

The U.S. is increasingly dependent on the use of unmanned weaponized aerial vehicles to deliver deadly force against individuals and groups residing or operating in other countries.

As we wind down the war in Afghanistan, we need to take a hard look at how we should pursue the so-called global war on terror, especially the use of drone strikes and operations outside the boundaries of international law enforcement.

I regret that all of the amendments brought before the Rules Committee dealing with drone strikes were not made in order, as each dealt with a different facet of the policy and each deserved to be debated by this House.

I would also like to say a word about the McCollum amendment, which was also denied by the Rules Committee. Our intelligence agencies should never ever use humanitarian work or workers as a cover for covert operations or a means to gather intelligence.

Whether we are talking about a vaccination campaign to protect children from polio or the delivery of food to desperate refugees, leave such plots and machinations to the movies. Keep them out of U.S. policy and covert operations.

They endanger all humanitarian workers and place obstacles in the way of carrying out urgent and essential global health and humanitarian work in places where too many dangers already exist.

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I also want to point out that this rule contains a provision which makes a change in the procedures for the special Select Committee on Benghazi, which was established by the House just a few weeks ago. The new provision allows the chairman of the new select committee to authorize foreign travel as part of the investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress has already conducted seven investigations of the Benghazi matter--seven. Many of us have argued that an additional eighth inquiry is not necessary, but since the House insists on proceeding, we would like to make sure that some of the partisan abuses that marked the previous inquiries will not be repeated by the new select committee, particularly with regard to foreign travel.

Mr. Cummings has often protested the partisan abuses of foreign travel at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I insert in the Record a letter from Mr. Cummings to Mr. Issa, asking him to delay a Republican-only delegation to Libya, so that Democrats could join the delegation as well.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2013.
Hon. DARRELL E. ISSA,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to request that you immediately postpone your upcoming delegation to Libya and several other countries until you come into compliance with your own Committee directives, stop your partisan efforts to deliberately exclude Democrats from this trip, and provide adequate notice to allow Democratic Members to join this delegation at a later date.

On April 6, 2011, upon becoming Chairman of the Committee, you issued a memorandum to all Committee Members entitled ``Rules for Committee-Authorized Foreign Travel.'' According to that memorandum, ``All delegations must be bipartisan.''

Earlier today, however, I obtained a copy of an itinerary for a trip you apparently have been planning to Libya and several other countries next week, presumably as part of the Committee's ongoing investigation into the attack in Benghazi in 2012. The only congressional travelers on this itinerary are you and your Republican staffer. No Democratic Members are listed on the itinerary, and you have not contacted me or my staff about this trip. According to this itinerary, you are planning to leave this Sunday, which means Democratic participation at this late date is impossible.

Your 2011 memo also says that the ``purpose must be very specific for each country.'' Yet, your itinerary states only that the Libya portion of the trip is ``TBD,'' although it may include a ``visit'' to the embassy and a ``working lunch.'' Your itinerary does not identify a single U.S. government official, Libyan official, or other individual the Committee plans to interview or speak with during this delegation.

Your 2011 memo also says that the only exception to conducting bipartisan international delegations is ``in rare circumstances and at the sole discretion of the Chairman.'' However, you have not identified any such circumstances in this case that would justify excluding Democratic Members. Moreover, I have obtained other documents showing that you have been planning this delegation for more than a week, so there are no exigencies that would have prohibited you from consulting with Democrats.

Although you claim that your investigation of the Benghazi attacks is bipartisan, your efforts to secretly plan an official trip to Libya--and then deliberately exclude Democrats from joining--is part of an unfortunate pattern of partisanship that undermines the credibility of this investigation.

Last October, Rep. Jason Chaffetz undertook exactly the same partisan maneuver when he traveled to Libya--at your direction--and excluded Democratic Members from that trip. At that time, my staff obtained a last-minute copy of his itinerary that listed the Committee activity in Libya as ``TBD'' and failed to identify any officials to be interviewed. We now know that Rep. Chaffetz met personally with General Carter Ham, the Commander of AFRICOM, as well as Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission, who was then called before the Committee to testify.

The problem with these actions is that they effectively deny Democratic Members the ability to effectively investigate this incident. Since your secret delegation appears to violate your own directive to the Committee, I request that you postpone it until such time as Democratic Members are given an adequate opportunity to join.

Sincerely,

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS,
Ranking Member.

Mr. McGOVERN. In October of 2012, Oversight Committee Republicans went on a delegation to Libya, but they did not inform Democratic members until 24 hours before they departed.

In September 2013, Oversight Committee Republicans planned a second delegation to Libya without contacting Democratic members at all. Ranking Member Cummings requested that the trip be postponed to allow Democrats to join, but his request was denied.

This is no way to conduct a serious investigation, and this is one of the reasons why so many people on our side of the aisle have called foul over the way the House Republican leadership is dealing with this important issue.

So before the House grants any new authorities to the select committee, I would be grateful for some assurance from my chairman that this new authority will not be misused in the highly partisan manner demonstrated by Chairman Issa at the Oversight Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his answer and for his reassurances, and we will certainly be watching. In our opinion, fairness means consultation with the Democrats and not leaving us out of the loop.

Again, I would point out to my colleagues that the inquiries into the Benghazi situation thus far have been highly partisan, and the Oversight Committee, in particular, I think, has been run in an inappropriate manner.

So I appreciate the gentleman's assurances, and we will watch and hope that what the gentleman just said will actually occur.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for all of the reasons I stated earlier, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to close with one final thought: this intelligence bill includes several provisions regarding the use of contractors, security clearance reform, strengthening investigations by the inspector general, and so on.

We need to recognize that these reforms were not initiated by us. They are a result of the massive release of leaked information that brought very serious matters about actual and potential abuses by our intelligence agencies on how they monitor and maintain data on ordinary law-abiding citizens.

This leaked information caused alarm throughout our society, by our constituents, by our press, and by Members of Congress--and rightfully so. It caused alarm among some of our closest international allies--and rightfully so.

So while we may hold different views about the individual who confiscated and leaked the information, let us all recognize that none of the NSA and FISA reforms recently passed by this House--and none of the reforms included in this bill--would have happened if that information had not been leaked because we would not have known about the abuses being carried on in our name by various intelligence agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I respect those men and women who serve our Nation in our intelligence agencies, but I don't respect a culture that intentionally keeps the American people and the Congress in the dark about the extent and nature of our intelligence operations.

More reforms are still needed; more transparency is still needed. I believe we can be safe and protect the American people without sacrificing the liberties that we all treasure.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source