Emancipation National Historic Trail Study Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 193 simply ensures that when TIFIA loans are repaid by local funds, they are treated as part of the local share of transportation projects. That sounds like common sense to me.

Let me address some of the concerns addressed by my colleague from Georgia.

First, this provision was included in the bill with the full support of the authorizers, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Second, when my colleague was in the majority, I would remind him there were no concerns with making permanent authorizing changes on the Transportation appropriations bill, and it did not matter if a highway reauthorization bill was on the horizon.

Third, section 193 is not a significant departure from current law. Today, the Department of Transportation may--may--determine that a TIFIA loan repaid from non-Federal funds--that is, local funding--can be designated as part of a non-Federal share of Transportation projects costs. This is particularly important for large, complex projects, which are seeking to piece together local, State, and Federal funding from multiple sources.

The gentleman claims to be concerned about small communities losing their fair share of Federal capital investment grant funding, but he should know that we have appropriated ample funding for all projects in the grants pipeline. The bill includes more than $430 million for smaller projects, which are often projects in small and midsize communities, in addition to the $500 million that was appropriated last year.

To provide greater certainty to States and local communities, section 193 requires the Department to consider if a TIFIA loan has been repaid by local funds. That is just common sense. If a local government is going to use local revenue to repay a loan, why wouldn't that count as a local share?

For an administration that speaks so often about innovative financing, public-private partnerships, and local communities taking on more when it comes to improving our Nation's infrastructure, it makes no sense to discourage State and local governments from contributing to the overall cost of a project. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's concern about the committee of jurisdiction, so I am happy to be able to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chairman of that committee.

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

Mr. Chair, if our colleague says that the word ``may'' was put in to prevent a perversion of the process, I will simply say, as Mr. DeFazio has made very clear, we put in the word ``shall'' to prevent a clear and present perversion of the process.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 445, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc amendment were made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 445, and as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, the amendments included in this en bloc were made in order by the rule. They have been agreed to by both sides. I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Miss Rice).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

I want to note that the underlying bill provides $1 million for the Transportation Research Board to conduct a study to review all aspects of the transportation of liquefied natural gas in rail tank cars, and it requires the Department to incorporate findings and recommendations from this study into any rulemaking on the transportation of LNG in rail tank cars before issuing a final rule authorizing such shipments.

Mr. Chair, I plan to vote for this amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleague on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

May I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I am baffled and distressed that my colleagues seem so intent on targeting such a vulnerable population.

This Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs rule simply ensures that all Americans have access to HUD services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

This amendment strikes protections for homeless youth seeking help in shelters. It also strikes eligibility for other HUD programs and for FHA loans. Mr. Chairman, research shows that same-sex couples and transgender individuals experience significant discrimination when seeking housing.

LGBTQ youth comprise up to 40 percent of the homeless population. Let me, again, remind my colleagues of the risks faced, as Ms. Wexton has stressed, the risks faced by transgender, homeless youth when they are living on the streets.

This population is much more likely to experience physical, emotional, sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, or trafficking. LGBTQ youth have over twice the rate of early death compared to other youth experiencing homelessness.

When these young people arrive at a shelter, they are not a safety risk for others. On the contrary, they are desperate. They are vulnerable. Many are homeless because their families rejected them for being transgender. We should be doing everything we can to ensure they have alternatives to living on the streets, and that when they ask for help, they are not turned away and revictimized.

Secretary Carson assured our committee and our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee as well, that HUD would not revoke these protections. But right after he made those assurances, the announcement came that he was doing just that.

Our subcommittee has repeatedly asked the Department to provide a report detailing their strategy for continuing to ensure that LGBTQ individuals have access to HUD programs, and that they plan for disseminating this information to housing providers. They have yet to provide such a strategy or such a plan, leaving us with no choice, Mr. Chairman, but to enshrine the Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs rule in law, and to permanently reinstate the Department's guidance to ensure that providers have the tools they need to protect and to serve this vulnerable population.

This heartless amendment would lead to more discrimination, more homeless LGBTQ youth, and more vulnerability to abuse and violence.

We simply must vote ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support-- in strong opposition to this amendment.

Our subcommittee has repeatedly asked the Department to provide a report detailing their strategy for continuing to ensure that LGBTQ individuals have access to HUD programs and the plan for disseminating that information to housing providers. HUD has yet to provide any strategy or any plan. So that is why we have acted. It has left us no choice but to act.

This House took great strides a few weeks ago in passing the Equality Act, and we are certainly not going to turn around today and take those rights away. I am offended we have not one, not two, but three amendments designed precisely to take those rights away.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this discrimination and to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, this incredible amendment would target some of our most vulnerable people in our society today.

A study by True Colors United found that among homeless transgender youth, 75 percent had been victims of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; 25 percent had been victims of intimate partner violence; and 20 percent had been victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking.

Mr. Chairman, more than 300 domestic violence and sexual violence organizations have signed a national consensus statement agreeing it is appropriate to serve transgender women alongside other women according to their gender identity.

They agreed there is no safety issue despite the rhetoric heard today. In fact, transgender women are much more likely to suffer abuse themselves.

So let's not turn that safety issue on its head. Let's reinstate the guidance, let's enforce the rule, and let's make certain that in this society people are treated equally and fairly.

Mr. Chairman, let's reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman and the colleagues she mentioned for bringing up this important issue. It may impose legal and financial challenges to certain States. Certainly it is an important issue for my friend from California and for her State, so I will be happy to work with her and the FAA to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleague from Maryland for highlighting this issue of aviation noise and the need for the FAA to be responsive to community concerns.

Noise we know is an unfortunate and unpleasant side effect of the investments, the jobs, and the mobility gained from aviation service. We received numerous requests about noise from colleagues this year, and we underscore the FAA should make every feasible effort to assist airports, airlines, and local communities mitigate noise for the health and benefit of those affected.

Mr. Chair, I thank our colleague for raising this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support this amendment.

The Indian Community Development Block Grant program provides Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages the opportunity to compete for a flexible source of funding to address pressing housing and community needs in Indian Country.

We know the needs continue to exceed the funding available. In fiscal year 2017, HUD was able to fund only 62 percent of the eligible applications it received. That is why we provided in the bill $75 million, a $10 million increase over last year, for the program. This amendment would further increase that to $80 million.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment and the strong investment it would

make possible, but I do want to express a note of concern about the offsetting cuts to HUD's Cybersecurity and Information Technology Fund.

HUD is facing daunting challenges to upgrade its technology infrastructure. As we head into conference negotiations with the Senate, I am hopeful we can reach a comprehensive, bipartisan agreement that makes it possible to boost funding both for critical housing programs and for IT modernization at HUD.

Again, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment indiscriminately cuts programs in transportation and housing with, apparently, very little thought as to the relative merit of the programs contained in the bill.

The amendment would result in less affordable housing and less support for Habitat for Humanity, public housing, homeless veterans, housing, the elderly, the disabled, and the Department of Transportation and its agencies responsible for the safety of our roads, our bridges, our aviation, our pipelines, and our waterways.

It would reduce funds available to pay the bills submitted by State and local governments for their transportation programs. These programs are the legal responsibility of the Federal Government.

The base bill enables us to continue to make progress in restoring our infrastructure. This amendment would roll that back.

This amendment would not encourage DOT or HUD to do more with less. It would force them to do less with less.

Our colleague describes this as a modest amendment. Well, let me just ask how modest these cuts are for his home State of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chair, is $3.1 million for CDBG funding, which could have been used to rehabilitate housing or improve water mains and sewers, a modest cut?

$12.4 million in Wisconsin funding for CDBG dollars, the money that would be generated, is that modest?

Or is $1.5 million in HOME funding in Wisconsin, $1.8 million in funding for transit in Wisconsin, or $1.3 million in funding for highway infrastructure in Wisconsin?

Our colleague may want to inquire back home as to how modest those cuts are.

The amendment is particularly galling since the gentleman voted for the 2017 tax bill, a $1.5 trillion tax cut, most of which went to the top 1 percent.

He is concerned about the deficit. That tax bill alone adds $1.9 trillion to our deficit from 2018 to 2027.

Why is it more important to give tax cuts to the wealthy than it is to build affordable housing and other infrastructure like roads and bridges that all of our citizens need and that they benefit from? It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge Members to oppose this damaging and indiscriminate amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as to the tax cut, I will simply quote very reliable figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: The top 1 percent of the population received 34 percent of the benefits of the tax cut.

As to the constitutional point, if I hear that correctly, the point is that these programs should be eliminated. Constitutionality raises the issue as to whether this should, perhaps, be zero funding, as opposed to these indiscriminate cuts that would do so much damage to the State of Wisconsin and to the entire country.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly support this amendment and commend the gentleman for offering it. He is highlighting horrible conditions with the situation in Alexander County, Illinois.

HUD's IG has concluded that HUD should have done more to oversee this decades-long situation, these deteriorating conditions at the Alexander County Housing Authority and has made multiple recommendations to address the situation and to ensure that something like this doesn't recur.

In fiscal year 2018, our House THUD report requested that HUD work with the community to find adequate housing for displaced residents, and to quickly investigate the root causes of the situation.

The base bill, I am happy to say, does fund the IG account above the request level, partly to help with work on this issue. And we have also increased funding in the Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds to provide more resources to public housing authorities for capital improvements and better management.

Mr. Chairman, we are continuing to monitor this situation. We expect HUD to implement the Inspector General's recommendations as quickly as possible. So I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose if you liked a 4.6 percent across-the-board, indiscriminate cut, you will love 14 percent, even more draconian, and equally indiscriminate.

I won't repeat what I said a few minutes ago about the drastic effects a cut of this magnitude would have on the range of housing and transportation priorities for this country. But I will look at a particular State, the gentleman's own State, Indiana, and just mention what some of the consequences would be. I hope this is useful information.

The gentleman's amendment would cut $10.2 million in CDBG funding for Indiana, which could have been used to rehab housing, to repair streets and sidewalks, provide senior and youth programs. The amount of additional funding generated by CDBG dollars in Indiana is estimated to be--the cut, the effect is estimated to be $40.6 million in money taken out of the Indiana economy.

Home funding, the most flexible affordable housing funding we have, $4.8 million taken out of that funding in Indiana.

Transit projects in Indiana take a whopping loss of $23.8 million.

Highways in Indiana, highway infrastructure, a loss of $5.1 million; and so it goes.

These are cuts that would reverse the progress we have made.

A lot of people are talking infrastructure these days, including our President. This bill is actually doing something about it. We are making long overdue investments in this country's infrastructure, and that includes the housing infrastructure.

Yet, colleagues who--I don't know what they have said about this as a national priority. Certainly, if they offer an amendment like this, or vote for an amendment like this, they are marching back down the hill in terms of the progress we have made and hope to make.

So this amendment, I would think, has very little to recommend it for any Member who wishes to invest in our country's future, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am happy to strongly support this amendment, and I thank my colleagues for offering it.

I want to make a comment on what is going on over at HUD. Secretary Carson assured our committee that Dreamers were not being denied FHA loans, that there was no change to the policy, no plan to change the policy. Now, HUD has confirmed that FHA will no longer make loans available to Dreamers.

This is the latest in what is becoming a disturbing pattern of HUD telling Congress one thing and then doing another. They haven't been forthcoming, to say the least, on this issue.

This amendment reverses that decision, that HUD decision that would effectively block a key part of the American Dream, homeownership, to this population.

Dreamers are already in limbo, Mr. Chair. Let's not make these young people pay a further price for our failure to act.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Nita Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Texas for those questions, which highlight the issue of historic preservation and NEPA review.

As part of its evaluation and approval process, the Department of Transportation must consider the effects of proposed projects on areas of historical significance. Under the law, the Department must make an assessment of any effects of a project on historic properties and evaluate options to avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative effects. This assessment must be completed in consultation with State and local partners, as well as civic and community leaders.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) on issues of historic preservation.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for any comments she might have.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her kind words and also for her relentless efforts, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 267 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment and commend my colleague and a number of colleagues, actually, for offering it.

The recent news reports about the Secretary of Transportation are disturbing. It is critical that anyone who serves in public office follows the law, and if the law clearly states you can't use your public office for personal gain, that is what following the law requires. We expect all Federal employees to follow the law, and this amendment reminds them that it is their obligation to do so.

So I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue.

Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and wish to express support for her amendment. I commend her for offering it.

Our underlying bill provides $2.8 billion for HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants program. That is the highest funding level in that program's history. It includes more resources for Emergency Solutions Grants to rapidly rehouse and prevent homelessness, and the bill includes targeted investments for survivors of domestic violence and for youth experiencing homelessness.

In addition, section 231 of the bill creates a mechanism that allows HUD to more readily use recaptured funds from the small number of projects that

might not utilize their resources. We expect this provision will give us an additional $90 million to use as grantees fight on the front lines to end homelessness.

So we have added resources. More can and must be done, and our colleague's amendment reflects that reality. We are going to pair this with sustained investments in affordable housing, and we are determined to reduce housing insecurity across the Nation.

So I am proud of what our bill accomplishes in this area. I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment additionally emphasizing our homeless challenge, and I urge adoption of our colleague's amendment.

I thank my colleague for yielding, and I am happy to express support for her amendment and for highlighting this issue.

Remote towers can be a cost-effective way to provide additional safety and operational benefits to the National Air Space program. The underlying bill, in fact, includes report language encouraging the FAA ``to use remote tower technology as a means to enhance safety, reduce costs, and expand air traffic control services at rural and small community airports.''

I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue. I urge adoption of her well-considered amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept this amendment, take it to conference, and work out what the most appropriate level of funding is.

I want to acknowledge strong support of this Chamber from both sides of the aisle for the BUILD program. That is the one discretionary program within DOT that allows States and local communities to seek funding for major multi-modal transportation projects.

As our colleague has underscored, technical assistance and planning support is often essential to that process, especially for communities with more limited resources or expertise.

These planning grants are important. The underlying bill provides $15 million for competitive grants for planning, preparation, and design. The amendment sets that figure at $20 million. These resources are going to lead to increased investments in our communities, they are going to create jobs, and spur economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's efforts to highlight the importance of planning grants, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and I wish to support his amendment, particularly to stress the emphasis he has given to low- and no-emission buses. They do improve the environment. They improve public health, they reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and also reduce long-term maintenance costs for transit.

Our bill provides robust funding for these grants to State and local governments of $145 million. That is $94 million above the authorized amount.

Meanwhile, we are offering strong support for the bus and bus facilities program. That provides vital resources that improve bus fleets in communities large and small. Between the transit infrastructure grants and funding provided via trust funds, the bill provides $678 million in competitive grants under that program.

These are both important programs for transit grantees. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure robust funding in public transit.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Family Self-Sufficiency program helps low-income families living in subsidized housing. It allows them to enhance their job skills and to increase earnings to improve their economic security.

Currently, there are more than 75,000 families enrolled in FSS, which is just a fraction of the number that should be--the families living in assisted housing, many, many more than that.

Mr. Chair, I am proud of the fact that our base bill already increases this program, providing $100 million for Family Self- Sufficiency. That is a $20 million increase from current funding. This amendment would do even better, would make FSS available to even more families, so I applaud my colleagues for offering this.

I want to register some concern about the offset in this and other amendments in terms of the Office of the Secretary and other departmental staff. They do have to do their work, and we have to consider the cumulative effect of amendments, but we will do that as the process moves along and we go to conference.

Mr. Chair, the situation can be addressed. This is a useful and helpful amendment, and I am happy to support adoption.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment and to take advantage of the opportunity this offers to say something about the BUILD program.

Mr. Chair, it is unique, as our colleague has stressed. It provides the kind of flexible funding to States and localities that can address complex multimodal projects.

My district has benefited greatly from this. The city of Raleigh has successfully built Union Station, a state-of-the-art rail and public transit facility that is already transforming that area of downtown.

Unfortunately, despite the diverse set of eligible projects, the current administration has heavily favored road projects only when awarding BUILD grants. This has most significantly affected transit. On average, it received about 32 percent of the awards during the previous administration.

Under the Trump administration, this has plummeted to less than 10 percent, and at the same time, the Department has completely abandoned bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects and actually eliminated this as an option for primary project type for years 2017 and 2018.

So, the underlying bill provides $1 billion for BUILD--that is a $100 million increase--but it places greater emphasis on investments in transit, passenger rail, pedestrian improvements, and multimodal projects. It also maintains a 50-50 parity between urban and rural awards, while directing the Department to consider the full range of benefits from a project, regardless of location in an urban or rural area.

Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I am happy to support it and look forward to continuing to work with her on this issue.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to En Bloc No. 7, which includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 242.

I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for their hard work in bringing Division E, the Transportation Housing and Urban Development portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.

I include in the Record letters of endorsement for this Jackson Lee Amendment provided by Bike Houston and the League of American Bicyclists.

I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $10 million to support urban bicycle and pedestrian safety programs.

In June the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published its traffic fatality report which showed a one percent decrease in traffic fatalities and a four percent increase in pedestrian fatalities but a whopping 10 percent increase in bicyclist fatalities.

On March 30, 2019, in the city of Houston, at the intersection of North Shepherd Drive and West 10th Street located in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, Lesha White, 54, was driving with her daughters when she saw Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez struggling to cross the intersection in a wheelchair.

Ms. White pulled over and got out of her car to help Mr. Perez cross the street when another vehicle struck them, and they were both killed.

On March 7, 2019, 23 year-old David Leon Loya was killed in a collision with a school bus while riding his bicycle in The Heights area of Houston.

Police report that Mr. Loya was in the bike lane and tried to avoid the accident by sliding under the bus, but unfortunately he was run over by the back axle.

This young man was greatly loved by his family, the lives of the people he touched in his volunteer work, and the bicyclist community.

This amendment was offered in remembrance of Lesha White, Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez, David Leon Loya, and all of the other pedestrians and bicyclists who have lost their lives in accidents with motor vehicles in urban areas.

In the past sixteen years, the Houston area has seen 2,000 deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians, at an average of 100 a year, with the last three years seeing the rate increase to 150 a year, according to federal statistics.

In 2017, the most recent year for which comprehensive statistics are available, according to the Texas Department of Transportation (``TDOT''), the numbers were no more encouraging.

According to TDOT, 1,409 Houston-area pedestrians were injured in roadways crashes:

275 of them were injured seriously; 146 pedestrians were killed in roadways crashes; 639 bicyclists were injured in roadways crashes; and 82 bicyclists were injured seriously.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has called the number of deaths a `public health crisis.'

The problem is no more encouraging on the national level as Texas ranks third nationwide in bicycle deaths, behind California and Florida.

Nationwide, the number of fatal bicyclist accidents is rising and are also amounting to a greater percentage of total traffic fatalities.

Cities are uniquely susceptible to this problem, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 70 of bicycle fatalities occur in cities.

City of Houston Mayor Turner has launched a Vision Zero Policy initiative to address the issue of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities.

In May 2019, Mayor Turner invited bike advocacy groups like Bike Houston to partner with LINK Houston to identify the 10 highest priority intersections for improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

LINK Houston analyzed motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, to identify priority intersections across Houston.

This work identified seven priority intersections that if addressed could reduce pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries:

Fanning & Pierce; Rochester & Bellaire; Westheimer & South Dairy Ashford; Long Point & Gessner; Westpark Dr. & U.S. 59 South; Old Spanish Trail & U.S. 288 South, Fondren & West Belfort; Bissonnet & Wilcrest; West & Airline; Bellair & Gessner.

Mayor Turner prioritized twelve intersections for the Safer Streets initiative by selecting seven intersections selected by LINK Houston and five intersections proposed by BikeHouston.

The city then reached out to the Federal Highway Administration to request their assistance in performing a multi-disciplinary Road Safety Audit for six of the twelve locations.

The city of Houston could fund six of the areas that are listed as high priorities and needs funding to perform assessments on the remaining six.

Additionally, funding is needed to make the needed changes to the intersections to improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety.

We must come together to tackle this problem and work to ensure that we stem the tide in these fatalities.

The rising death and injury toll of pedestrian and bicyclists is alarming and merits serious attention but as we know too tragically, behind the statistics are stories about people who are treasured and sorely missed by family, friends, and coworkers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of En Bloc No. 7, which includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 242 to help reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in urban areas.

BikeHouston,

Houston, TX.

Lillie Coney, Policy Director,

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Coney: BikeHouston is writing to endorse Jackson

Lee Amendment 103 to the Transportation. Housing and Urban

Development Appropriations section of HR 3055. Cities

throughout the country are experiencing major changes to

urban mobility, including an increasing number of trips taken

by biking, walking, and riding scooters and other micro-

mobility options. At the same time, fatalities are on the

rise for people who walk and ride a bike.

This month, June 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration released preliminary traffic fatality data for

2018 that shows while overall traffic fatalities dropped by

one percent, pedestrian fatalities rose by 4 percent, and

bicyclist fatalities rose by 10 percent! Nationally,

bicycling and walking account for 12 percent of

transportation trips, but 18 percent of overall traffic

fatalities, and yet states report spending less than one

percent of their highway safety funds to address the too

common deaths of vulnerable road users. By setting aside

funds to specifically address bicyclist and pedestrian

fatalities in cities, this amendment will help address this

unacceptable increase in fatalities of our most vulnerable

road users.

Thank you again introducing this amendment to set aside

national infrastructure investment funds to address bicyclist

and pedestrian safety in cities. We look forward to

continuing our work with you to address this serious issue.

Respectfully,

Clark Martinson,

Executive Director, BikeHouston.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for their kindness. I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price for the assistance and resources he has helped direct to my home State of Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey and for his commitment to revitalizing the Nation's infrastructure in a way that preserves our Nation's cultural heritage.

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the landmark National Historic Preservation Act, which, among other things, established the National Register of Historic Places.

Independence Heights is just one of the dozens of communities throughout the United States that can trace its beginning to freed slaves. Since its beginning in 1915, it has survived economic hardship and natural disasters in the period of 1919 to 1921 called the burnings.

Because of its historical significance, Independence Heights is included in legislation I have introduced, H.R. 434, that will create the Emancipation National Historic Trail, which begins at the location in Galveston, Texas, where General Gordon Granger announced President Lincoln's emancipation of slaves on June 19, 1865.

Mr. Chair, I would inquire of the chairman if he agrees with me that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA regarding the environment apply with respect to USDOT approval of the I-45 Highway project that may adversely impact historic buildings and neighborhoods in Independence Heights, Texas, which, in 1915, became the first African American municipality incorporated in Texas?

Would it be appropriate for USDOT officials to consider the views and input of civic and community leaders of Independence Heights and others in

assessing whether Federal support of the I-45 transportation project complies with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA?

Mr. Chair, will the gentleman work with me to ensure that the approval process for this I-45 transportation project in my congressional district is conducted in a manner that complies with the law and preserves to the maximum extent feasible historic sites in Independence Heights, in compliance with NEPA, that have national, State, and local historic significance for the Nation?

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much

Mr. Chair, thank you, Chairman Price, for the assistance and resources you helped direct to my home state of Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, and for your commitment to revitalizing the nation's infrastructure in a way that preserves our nation's cultural heritage.

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the landmark National Historic Preservation Act, which, among other things, established the National Register of Historic Places.

Independence Heights is just one of dozens of communities throughout the United States that can trace its beginning to freed slaves and since its beginning in 1915 it has survived economic hardship, natural disasters, and the period of 1919-1921 called the ``Burnings.''

Because of its historical significance, Independence Heights is included in legislation I have introduced (H.R. 434) that will create the Emancipation National Historic Trail which begins at the location in Galveston, Texas, where General Gordon Granger announced President Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves on June 19, 1865.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much. If I might, I would like to thank the chairman again for an amendment that increases and decreases by $10 million funds for the National Infrastructure Investment Account to provide funding for urban bicycle and pedestrian safety programs.

Let me say that, tragically, we lost a brilliant young man on May 30, 2019, at the intersection of North Shepherd Drive and West 10th Street in the 18th Congressional District. When Lesha White was driving, it was Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez who was struggling to cross the intersection, and this caused him to lose his life.

Let me also indicate that we know that, in Houston, there are 2,000 deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians. We would like to make sure that we increase opportunities for safety.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman and the Rules Committee for this amendment being made in order.

According to TxDOT, 1,400 Houston area pedestrians are injured, and 275 of them are injured seriously.

We hope that this will work for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Bicycling in Houston has taken off in the State of Texas and everywhere, and we certainly want to make sure that they are safe.

Mr. Chair, let me also thank the gentleman for an amendment that gives $2 million for the Office of Inspector General account to investigate the Department of HUD's delay in releasing $4 billion in Hurricane Harvey disaster community block grant dollars.

We are still desperate. Every day, people ask me when their homes are going to be able to be fixed. We do know that we are working to move that along, but we know what is important is to make sure that those dollars get to those individuals and that we can restore our communities.

We are going into hurricane season again, and I thought it was very important that we work strongly to ensure that these citizens are made whole.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for including them in the en bloc and for allowing Houston to stand up again after a devastating hurricane, Hurricane Harvey.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is listed in the Rule as Jackson Lee #243.

I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I thank Chairwoman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for their hard work in bringing Division E, the Transportation Housing and Urban Development portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.

I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $2 million to an effort to explain why the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not released the funds appropriated almost two years ago to the State of Texas, the City of Houston and Harris County to rebuild following Hurricane Harvey.

In August of 2017, Hurricane Harvey paralyzed the Houston region dumping nearly 60 inches of rain, claiming 88 lives and causing $113 billion of damage.

In February of 2018, Congress appropriated $4.383 billion to Texas through CDBG-DR funds. In June of 2018, HUD approved the State Action Plan Texas submitted by The General Land Office (GLO), which outlined how the CD BG-DR grants would be distributed throughout the state.

This money still has not made it to Texas to help those in need.

While the waters receded nearly two years ago, many Texans are still struggling to put their lives back together and rebuild.

Homes and neighborhoods remain with visible damage from the flood waters.

I, along with members of the Texas House and Senate Delegations have made numerous requests to HUD Officials to move the process of releasing funding forward, but without success.

The last resort left is to seek the assistance of the Inspector General of HUD to determine the cause of the delay in distributing funds and to determine what needs to be done to release the funds.

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs and operations of HUD by conducting independent audits, evaluations, and investigations.

The OIG can get answers on why the process of releasing funds is taking so long and whether there is any waste, fraud or abuse associated with the delay.

Hurricane Harvey was the most economically destructive hurricane to hit Texas in its history and the second-most expensive hurricane in American history.

Hurricane Harvey and the resulting flood impacted over 1,000 square miles along the mid-to-upper Texas Gulf Coast, and into the state's interior.

Congress immediately recognized the vast extent of the damage throughout the state and that federal action would be needed to help Texas start to rebuild and recover.

Finally, it would be beneficial to Congress to know if there are other factors within the agency that may be hindering effective administration of the duty to distribute the Harvey Disaster Block Grant Development funds such as agency vacancies, skills and competence of personnel, or administration policy that may be contributing factors.

As the lead state agency for administering CDBG-DR funds, GLO entered into an agreement with HUD and has worked closely with the agency to define the meaning of mitigation and to identify projects that would best help those impacted by Hurricane Harvey.

Despite the collaboration between the GLO and HUD, the rules have not yet been published in the Federal Register.

As a result, the GLO has been significantly delayed in implementing a State Action Plan for the funds, the critical next step needed before the grants can get to those who need them.

I ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee Amendment that may pave the way for the funding appropriated in 2017 to reach those still in need of disaster recovery assistance.

Additionally, funding is needed to make the needed changes to the intersections to improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety.

We must come together to tackle this problem and work to ensure that we stem the tide in these fatalities.

The rising death and injury toll of pedestrian and bicyclists is alarming and merits serious attention but as we know too tragically, behind the statistics are stories about people who are treasured and sorely missed by family, friends, and coworkers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this Jackson Lee Amendment to help reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in urban areas.

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first, I thank my friend, Chairman Price, for working with me to include a number

of provisions important to Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate Mr. Meadows for his amendment to help unmanned aircraft manufacturers, one of our most important and innovative transportation sectors.

I also thank Mr. Graves and Mr. Scalise on their tireless work on behalf of their constituents to help them recover from devastating hurricanes and floods.

Mr. Burchett has a great amendment that increases funding for highway and bridge infrastructure.

Also, Mr. Chair, I want to mention Mr. Calvert and Mr. Cook. They have cosponsored an amendment to address an issue that is critical to Amtrak employees in their districts.

Finally, I congratulate Mr. Smith of New Jersey for his tireless advocacy for veterans housing, as he always does.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, liquefied natural gas is a major component of domestic U.S. energy growth, and it is facilitating the export of U.S. natural gas around the world.

Railroads have been successfully moving flammable gases for 100 years. As a matter of fact, Transport Canada already allows LNG on rail and tank cars. So this provision would put us at a huge disadvantage with our largest trading partner.

Furthermore, DOT always conducts a thorough, comprehensive, and transparent safety evaluation, accounting for public input and, again, before allowing for transportation of any hazardous material.

This amendment would block a proven process at DOT and would inhibit U.S. LNG from meeting growing markets, the demand from growing markets for cleaner--again, cleaner--and more affordable energy.

And again, Mr. Chairman, this is another important point. Currently, this is moved by trucks. They are all over the country, trucks moving LNG. And so, obviously, the question is: Are rails less safe than moving this on trucks? Obviously, the answer, I would say, is no.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just remind everyone that there are trucks with natural gas right in Florida and in, pretty much, every State around the Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).

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

Mr. Chair, I find it ironic that some of the same folks who are concerned about climate change and global warming want to make it so difficult to transport things that actually lower emissions compared to other sources of energy.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, again, I want to first thank Mr. Vargas, not for this amendment, but for his leadership and for his support of immigrants. He has done that for many, many years, and I thank him for that. But I want to make some things clear.

There is no DACA policy related to FHA-backed mortgages. As a matter of fact, there has been no change in policy. FHA's published policy states that non-U.S. citizens without formal lawful residency are not eligible for FHA-insured loans.

Again, this is not a new policy. This was the policy during the previous administration. This was the policy when Secretary Castro was Secretary of HUD. It has been in place since the previous administration. There has been no change.

Mr. Chair, obviously, I don't question the motives of the gentleman, whom I have great respect for, and I once again thank him for his concern on this issue. If I have some concern, it is the fact that this may let some people believe, those folks out there who are DACA recipients, that, all of a sudden, they have this new protection, which this amendment does not give them.

Mr. Chair, I have no real objection other than to the fact that this really doesn't do anything. But I do appreciate my friend for his years of leadership and of care. Again, I don't have a real objection. This amendment just doesn't do anything.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to add what I said before, that there has been no change in policy. This was the same policy that was there during the previous administration. Again, that does not take away my great respect for the gentleman who is introducing this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I respect him for that. But I think Chairman Price has set the right threshold for BUILD planning grants.

More money going to planning could potentially, frankly, mean less money for infrastructure for actual projects. That is particularly true if, as I fear, when there is a top-line number agreed to by the House, Senate, and the White House, the number that Chairman Price is going to have to work with might be less than what he is working with today, making his job a lot more difficult.

Again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I have said it publicly and I have said it privately: I think Chairman Price has done a great job and has got a good balance. Therefore, even though I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, I respectfully have to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, after hearing the chairman, who is always willing to work with colleagues--again, I just understand the difficult task that he has ahead of him, but it is an issue that, as the chairman himself has said, he will continue to work on and with that--I understand where Mr. Garcia is coming from. Also, I know that he understands that this is a very difficult balance that the chairman has to deal with. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't object at all to the program that the gentleman is supporting with an increase. I think he has mentioned why, and I would agree with what he has stated.

The problem that I have is not with the program he is trying to increase. The part that I object to is where the cuts are coming from, where he is obtaining the money, and that is cuts to transit bus and bus facilities.

We have had a lot of Members who were supporting funding for transit bus and bus facilities. I believe it is over a dozen Members who have actually written support letters for that program that this amendment, unfortunately, reduces funding from. That provides vital resources and mobility in urban areas. It is crucial to a number of urban areas around the country.

So, as I said before in other amendments, I think Chairman Price has struck the right balance in determining funding for this program. I think what the gentleman is trying to do in his amendment is meritorious. I would, however, say that taking it out of transit bus money and bus facility money is not the place to do it. Obviously, I know that Chairman Price will continue to work with the gentleman as the process goes along, regardless of what happens with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment which would provide increased funding to support the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Family Self-Sufficiency Program.

Access to stable, safe, and affordable housing is a fundamental human right. In my district, the Massachusetts Seventh, one of the most diverse and unequal districts in our Nation, we are distinctly aware of the connection between housing and economic opportunity.

Affordable housing promotes healthy living and provides low-income people a chance at upward mobility. Without it, families are destabilized, productivity suffers, and entire communities crumble.

Recently, the Boston Housing Authority partnered with Metro Housing and Compass Working Capital, a nonprofit financial services organization which provides financial coaching services and support to Family Self-Sufficiency Program participants in my district.

The Family Self-Sufficiency Program is a voluntary, 5-year program that provides participants in the federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher Program the opportunity to save part of their rent increase when they earn more money at work. The program provides participating families with an FSS savings account.

My amendment provides $5 million in additional funding to the organizations working with individuals and families seeking to improve their financial standing. This partnership, under the auspices of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, has supported low-income families to build assets, pay off debt, and save for their retirement.

Participants have gone on to earn degrees, purchase their own homes, and start small businesses.

This includes Julia, a woman who, after years of working as a tailor and taking on additional side work for friends, learned about the FSS program. Julia used Compass' financial coaching to launch JDLS Couture, a tailoring and design business in Boston.

This includes Ernise, a resident of Cambridge, who graduated from Compass' program last year. Ernise joined the program while unemployed, saying that before she joined she was ready to give up. Ernise found full-time work, paid off debt and increased her credit score, and built enough savings to begin the home purchasing process.

My amendment will support a program rooted in financial empowerment and independence, a proven program.

We must also work to enact policies to guarantee housing for all and leverage the resources to make it a reality.

I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which underscores the importance of investing in safe, efficient, people-centered transportation systems for all communities across the country.

I view every issue through a lens of equity and health. Without access to safe, reliable, and inclusive modes of transportation, our collective well-being suffers; our families suffer; our communities suffer.

For far too long, our Federal transportation funding and policies have created a landscape which has exacerbated inequities and disparities, particularly for low-income communities, people with disabilities, our youth and seniors.

In my district, Black and Latino commuters are more likely to experience longer travel times than their White peers. These unequal burdens make the promise of economic mobility further out of reach.

I recently rode the T back home with an advocate named Dianna, who was fighting for transit justice. We spent over 2 hours making a journey of just a little over 4 miles. Broken elevators and outdated infrastructure meant that the wheelchair Dianne uses to navigate ran into constant access barriers.

Just 2 weeks ago, the red line train derailed twice in 1 week, causing massive gridlock across my district and impacting the ability of riders to commute to work, school, home, and everywhere in between.

Unfortunately, this isn't new. MBTA trains have derailed 43 times over the last 5 years, the second highest total of any metro transit system in our country. Many of these derailments place a disproportionate burden on the shoulders of low-wage hourly workers who are rushing to their second- or third-shift jobs, parents or caregivers who are traveling with young children on overcrowded and delayed trains, and riders with disabilities who already experience the failures, daily, of a biased and discriminatory system with ableist privilege as a lens.

Our chronic underinvestment in mass transit bus systems, bicycle- accessible and pedestrian paths have caused income inequality and opportunity gaps in communities throughout the country.

According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, inadequate access to affordable, reliable transportation has exacerbated health disparities, forcing many low-income patients to miss appointments, oftentimes worsening medical problems.

Mr. Chair, people do not live in silos. They live in intersectionality, and our policies at the Federal, State, and local levels should reflect this reality.

We cannot spur economic development and tackle economic inequities in urban, suburban, and rural communities without modernized roads, bridges, and mass transit, which connects communities to jobs and higher education.

We cannot tackle health disparities without reliable and affordable mass transit systems which enable low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities to access care.

We cannot tackle the existential threat of climate change without intentionally investing in mass transit systems that protect frontline communities and alleviate the environmental health hazards caused by traffic congestion.

Transit equity is a civil rights issue and an economic justice issue. We must continue to invest in transit infrastructure, multimodal improvements that promote inclusivity and dependability.

My amendment emphasizes the important role that Federal policy and investments make in equalizing access to reliable commuter rail and other mass transit options for all. The BUILD grant program helps to support these types of State and locally driven transit projects.

From investing in bus or commuter rail systems or cycling and pedestrian path projects, the BUILD program helps to drive innovative projects, and it seeks to expand the system, and is people-centered.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Price for his efforts to ensure robust funding for this program, which I do believe gets us one step closer to addressing these inequities across the system, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, as well as expanding our investment in multimodal transit.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman.

Mr. Chair, this is a ridiculous issue, to put it mildly. This administration has taken two totally contradictory positions on this.

Prior to this administration, if you had a TIFIA loan, you were responsible for paying it back with local funds. It was counted as a local match. It is their obligation. They have to pay it back. They have to pay the loan fees. They have to pay for everything that is involved.

Then, in the first year of this administration, they said it is local. It counts as a match.

Oh, wait a minute, a year ago, they changed their mind. Exactly 1 year apart: June 29, 2017, TIFIA loans will be considered a local match; June 29, 2018, they will not be considered a local match. They will be considered as Federal money, ineligible.

What happened in between? I don't know. I think it had something to do with the Portal Bridge in New Jersey and the Gateway Program, and President Trump being in a dispute with the Democratic leader of the Senate.

This is about politics, plain and simple, rotten politics, for critical infrastructure that this country needs.

If a jurisdiction borrows money--they borrowed it, they have to pay it back--that doesn't count. If they go to a bank and borrow it and pay higher interest rates, putting more burden on local taxpayers, that is okay. But if they got it from the Feds--by the way, the Feds make money on TIFIA loans. It is one of the most amazing programs. We make money on it. There has only been like one default in the history of the program. These are good loans.

They have to pay it back, so why wouldn't it count? Politics, plain and simple. This is trying to return to politics, as opposed to common sense, following preexisting practices and the letter of the law.

By the way, this is just clarifying existing law because of a bizarre interpretation written by the Trump DOT a year ago this June.

Mr. Chair, I certainly wasn't referring to my colleague, who I know is here in good faith on his own terms.

The point is, on June 29, 2017, the DOT stated that TIFIA loans will not be considered Federal funds for the purposes of evaluating how much local share an applicant brings to the table.

What changed in that year? All years prior, that was allowed. In 2017, suddenly, they changed their mind.

That is what I am talking about, rotten politics.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this is an extraordinary move to suddenly turn trains into liquid natural gas pipelines. Of course, liquid natural gas is not transported by pipeline. It brittlizes metal, and this would be a new and innovative way of moving liquified natural gas.

Now, there are a few problems with this. We had the Administrator into the committee last week. It is going to be moved in DOT 113 tank cars.

I said: Are those puncture-proof?

He said: No, they are not puncture-proof.

I said: Well, what happens?

He said: Oh, we carry volatiles all the time.

I said: You don't carry anything like liquified natural gas.

There is something called the BLEVE; it is a boiling liquified explosive vapor explosion. So the BLEVE has an unbelievable blast impact. And this is just one rail car. These will be six trains a day going through the most populated parts of Florida, 100 cars in each train.

Envision this: Here is Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This is the blast zone. And that is just one--one--of these tank cars. It is likely it will cause a chain reaction and explosion. It is going to be about as powerful as Hiroshima if it goes off.

Now, this maybe will get someone's attention. This is the Brightline high-speed rail line. That is where they are going to run six trains a day with 100 cars of liquified natural gas--never, ever been done before; except in small containers, never been done before.

And, oh, by the way, within the blast zone is Mar-a-Lago. Are they going to allow the trains to run while the President is there?

All you need is someone with a .50 caliber to shoot a hole in one of those tank cars and you are going to have one humongous explosion that goes beyond Mar-a-Lago.

So what is the foolishness?

The Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Agency has not evaluated this. They are the ones who are supposed to do this. They haven't finished imposing laws that we put in place in

2011 for the safe movement of hazardous goods, but now they are rushing this through.

The administration says, oh, no, we want this permit done in 12 months. Well, maybe the President doesn't know he is in a blast zone. Maybe he wouldn't be ordering it be done in 12 months if he knew it was within the blast zone.

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

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

The gentleman referred to trucks. Actually, we are talking about very small quantities in special containers, not massive rail tank cars holding these amounts.

Another thing is that there is no known company. You can't contact them. There is no publicly available contact information, no headquarters, but they have petitioned and they are going through a special permit process with--the gentleman says there is going to be public review and input--sure--to move six trains a day with 100 cars in each one, essentially, a liquid pipeline through these heavily populated areas.

We saw what happened at Lac-Megantic up in Canada with just crude oil in tank cars killing dozens of people, obliterating a town. This is 10 times more powerful than that.

Yet the gentleman from Florida is advocating that this should happen in Florida, and the people living all along the Brightline--Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, the President at Mar-a-Lago--just shouldn't worry their sweet little heads about it: It won't be a target of terrorists; there won't be an accident; it is never going to happen. Well, we have heard that before.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Again, this has potential for massive explosions. This has not been done before.

This is not natural gas. It is liquefied natural gas, 600 times as dense, and, if punctured, this is the blast zone. I hope the President is watching.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chair, again, in closing, I think it would be wise to actually conduct a study before this is

permitted. That is not the intention of this administration, and that is why I offer this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.