To repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration entitled "Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform".

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 496) to repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration entitled ``Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 496.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague across the aisle, Representative Lipinski, for his work on the original House version of this legislation and to Senator Duckworth for introducing the corresponding language in the Senate. We all understood the unintended ramifications that this last-minute rule created, and we worked together to address this issue.

This bill rescinds the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration's Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Reform rule that was promulgated in December, 2016.

After being sworn in to the House of Representatives, one of the first pieces of legislation I offered was to repeal this rule. Through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we were able to work in a bipartisan manner to achieve that goal, and I was proud to serve as the lead Republican in advancing a commonsense policy unanimously through our committee.

This flawed rule mandates the expansion of boundaries for federally required Metropolitan Planning Organizations, or MPOs. There are 409 MPOs in the United States, and the Department of Transportation identified that more than one-third of these MPOs would immediately be subject to the new requirements of this rule.

By requiring that MPO boundaries encompass the entire urbanized area and any surrounding areas that may be urbanized within 20 years, the Department of Transportation has taken away the ability for States and localities to determine how to plan their transportation networks. In many cases, this rule pushes an MPO into the boundary of another MPO, forcing consolidation of areas that are represented by different governing bodies. These areas are not capped and could become extremely expansive. There are even instances where MPOs would be mandated to include cities and counties in neighboring States.

The question is: Why did the DOT feel the need to institute this rule? States already have the ability to reassess their MPO boundaries. MPOs have the ability to expand beyond their boundaries by using memorandums of understanding. Minnesota uses several for transportation planning. Additionally, every 4 years, MPOs are required to participate in a review process that identifies areas of concern like the planning of projects with neighboring areas.

Meanwhile, in the instances of unelected MPOs, like Minnesota's Metropolitan Council, this rule encourages them to expand without any participation or control from local citizens. The MPO council representing the Twin Cities area is entirely appointed by the Governor. Through State statute, they have the ability to levy taxes, and, like all MPOs, they determine what transportation projects to pursue. An expansion of MPO boundaries could mean a new tax for surrounding counties to fund transportation projects that do not address their local needs.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure and return current law to what Congress intended when it passed the FAST Act. This bill ensures that States, cities, and counties retain decisionmaking ability when it comes to planning their development and transportation growth.

Our language restores certainty to local officials already in planning phases for local projects and could save MPOs more than $340 million over the next several years conforming to the regulation. The essence of this bill is local control. The more government is removed from the people, the less responsive it becomes. Self-governance works best when closest to home.

I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership on this matter, as well as my colleagues, Representative Lipinski and Senator Duckworth, for their work on this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support our bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Association of Regional Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and a letter from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

National Association of Regional Councils and Association

of Metropolitan Planning Organizations,

April 25, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the members of the

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and

National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), we wish to

express our strong support for a bill expected on the floor

later today: S. 496--``To repeal the rule issued by the

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit

Administration entitled ``Metropolitan Planning Organization

Coordination and Planning Area Reform''. This legislation

passed the Senate unanimously on March 8. Identical

legislation from Representatives Daniel Lipinski and Jason

Lewis, H.R. 1346, has the support of 26 bipartisan co-

sponsors and passed the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee by voice vote on March 29.

AMPO and NARC support increased planning coordination at

all levels, but this Final Rule has significant drawbacks

that make its implementation impractical, and would hinder

the regional planning process and delay project

implementation. Our extensive joint comments to the federal

docket explain in significant detail the problems with this

rule and the negative consequences we believe would result.

Ours was one of more than 600 comments to the docket that

asked this rule be withdrawn or substantially modified.

Neither occurred, so legislative action is required.

Repeal of this Final Rule is a key priority for our

organizations and for many of our members. The legislation

you will consider today would immediately restore certainty

to the planning process for hundreds of planning

organizations. Its bipartisan support is an indication that

members from both parties recognize the damage this Final

Rule could inflict on the transportation planning process and

project implementation.

We thank you for your consideration of this matter, and

reaffirm our request that you support passage of S. 496.

Sincerely,

Leslie Wollack,

Executive Director, National Association of Regional

Councils.

DeLania Hardy,

Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 496, a straightforward bill to repeal changes made to the transportation planning process in the waning days of the Obama administration.

On June 27, 2016, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration jointly published a proposed rule to make significant changes to surface transportation planning regulations in an attempt to promote more effective regional planning by States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, MPOs. The proposed rule was well- intentioned, aiming to strengthen coordination among planning partners and neighboring communities.

However, the rule was haphazardly put together on an expedited timeline, with very little input from States and local planning organizations. It is not surprising, therefore, that the result was overwhelming opposition to the specific requirements of the rule.

This rule was not mandated by Congress. In fact, Congress made very few changes to the planning process in the most recent surface transportation reauthorization, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, also known as the FAST Act.

Among other changes, the administration sought to require that, in any urbanized area represented by more than one MPO, the MPOs would be required to either merge or realign their boundaries or develop unified planning documents. This requirement for joint planning documents would apply in urbanized areas that cross State lines. This provision, in particular, caused substantial concern in the planning community.

The FHWA and the FTA received 299 comments in opposition to the proposed rule, of which 249 requested that the rulemaking be withdrawn. Only 16 commenters expressed support for the proposed rule. The agencies received 156 comments in support of the intent of the rule, but not the specific requirements and procedures proposed.

The final rule, published in December of 2016, made a few modifications, including the addition of a waiver process, subject to approval by the Secretary, from some of the joint planning requirements if an area can demonstrate suitable coordination. Despite the changes made by the agencies in the final rule, strong opposition to the rule continues.

Earlier this month, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed testified before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit on implementation of the FAST Act. His written testimony, submitted on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, states: ``The outgoing administration proposed a new rule on MPO designations that created unreasonable burdens for a number of regions, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee for acting on legislation to remedy this.''

Repeal of this rule is supported also by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the National Association of Regional Councils.

Last month, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed H.R. 1346, an identical bill to S. 496, by voice vote. H.R. 1346, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), is a bipartisan bill with 29 cosponsors.

S. 496 stops the controversial changes I have described from going into effect. The bill does not preclude the administration from pursuing changes in the future, through a new notice and comment rulemaking, to improve the planning process by strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 496, which is the first and likely only legislation striking an Obama Administration era rule or regulation outright that I will be supporting this Congress.

From when I first learned of the rule last year, I have had strong concerns about the United States Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposal on Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform.

Planning was a top priority of one of my predecessors in the United States House of Representatives, former Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Roe. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the Congress overhauled the planning process and gave tremendous authority to local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). The process works well in Northern New Jersey, where the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) plays an important role advancing regional projects that provides an important opportunity for local communities to offer meaningful input.

I joined my colleague, Mr. Sires, in a letter last summer expressing concerns with the draft rule and requesting that the comment period be extended.

I appreciate the DOTs end goal: to make planning more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional needs. However, in a rush to judgment and ignoring the concerns of many comments from across the county, the DOT finalized a well-intended, but misguided rule. Specifically, I object to the severity of its reconstruction of the planning processes, practices, and understandings that have been in effect for MPOs for decades, and the ability for the public to comment.

Most concerning to me is that the rule could require the redrawing of Metropolitan Planning Areas (MPAs) and require Urbanized Areas (UZAs) to have a common MPO or common Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). For densely populated regions like Northern New Jersey, the proposed rule would reduce local decision-making by either forcing MPO consolidation or requiring a burdensome multi-region single long-term TIP that could weaken local input. The NJTPA region covering my district already includes 6.7 million people and its TIP is over $2 Billion--adding any more to their plate would be unwieldy. We just need to witness the dysfunction at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to know that mandating New Jersey to undertake transportation planning with New York City and New York State in this way would be a recipe for disaster.

I thank my colleagues for advancing this bill, look forward to this rule being put back on the shelf, and hope DOT can come up with something less burdensome in their quest to reform transportation planning processes.