To amend title 1, United States Code, to define the term infrastructure, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the bill (H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 material on H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for H.R. 3684 from 113 organizations supporting the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021.

113 Organizations Supporting the Water Quality Protection and Job

Creation Act of 2021

Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), The Alliance for

the Great Lakes, American Concrete Pavement Association,

American Concrete Pipe Association, American Concrete

Pressure Pipe Association, American Concrete Pumping

Association,

American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), American

Foundry Society (AFS), American Iron and Steel Institute

(AISI), American Public Works Association (APWA), American

Rivers, American Sustainable Business Council, American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Society of

Landscape Architects (ASLA), Associated General Contractors

of America (AGC), Association of Equipment Manufacturers

(AEM), BlueGreen Alliance, California Association of

Sanitation Agencies (CASA), Center for Biological Diversity,

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Water Construction

Coalition, Clean Water For All, Academy of Natural Sciences

of Drexel University, Advocates for Clean & Clear Waterways,

Alabama Rivers Alliance, Anthropocene Alliance.

Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Water

Action, Community Water Center, Conservative Voters of PA,

Earthjustice, Environmental League of Massachusetts, For Love

of Water (FLOW), Freshwater Future, Georgia Conservation

Voters, GreenLatinos, Healthy Gulf, Illinois Council of Trout

Unlimited, Illinois Environmental Council, Junction

Coalition, Maine Conservation Voters, Massachusetts Rivers

Alliance, Mississippi River Collaborative, Montana

Conservation Voters, National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade

Association, National Parks Conservation Association, NC

Conservation Network, New York League of Conservation Voters,

Ocean River Institute, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition,

Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Tennessee Clean Water

Network, Vermont Conservation Voters, Virginia League of

Conservation Voters, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, Concrete

Foundations Association, Concrete Reinforcing Steel

Institute, Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (CPTI), Ducks

Unlimited (DU), Eastern Municipal Water District.

Environment America, Environmental Working Group (EWG),

Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Hydraulic

Institute, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE),

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT),

Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA), Los

Angeles County Sanitation, Districts (LACSD), League of

Conservation Voters (LCV), Municipal Castings Association,

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA),

National Association of Counties (NACO), National Association

of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), National

Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO), National

Concrete Masonry Association, National League of Cities

(NLC), National Municipal Stormwater Alliance (NMSA),

National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA),

National Precast Concrete Association, National Ready Mixed

Concrete Association, National Sand, Stone & Gravel

Association (NSSGA), National Utility Contractors Association

(NUCA), National Water Resources Association (NWRA), National

Waterways Conference, National Wildlife Federation (NWF).

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Nature

Conservancy, Orenco Systems Inc, Puyallup Tribe of Indians,

Plastics Pipe Institute, Precast/Prestressed Concrete

Institute, Portland Cement Association (PCA), Rural Community

Assistance Partnership (RCAP), Sierra Club, Southern

Environmental Law Center (SELC), Surfrider Foundation,

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), Tilt-up

Concrete Association, Trout Unlimited, United Association of

Union, Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA), U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, United States Conference of Mayors, Vinyl

Institute, Water Environment Federation (WEF), Water Equity

and Climate Resilience Caucus, Water Replenishment District

(WRD), WateReuse Association, Water Infrastructure Network

(WIN), Grasslands Water District--GWD, Milwaukee Metropolitan

Sewerage District--MMSD, National Electrical Contractors

Association--NECA, United Association of Plumbers and

Pipefitters--The United, Western Recycled Water Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to waive consideration of H.R. 3684, as amended, as well as my response to Chairwoman Johnson expressing appreciation for her willingness to work cooperatively on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the INVEST in America Act before us today is generational transformational in terms of what we are going to do in terms of 21st century surface transportation and water infrastructure. We are going to move past the Eisenhower era of the 1950s.

During the Eisenhower era, the existential threat to the United States was invasion or attack by Russia. The National Defense Highway System was built to move military equipment to the coast, and it was also built to evacuate our cities in times of nuclear war.

Now we have a different existential threat, which is climate change. Tackling climate change is a Herculean task.

Some may ask: Why address it in the transportation bill?

In fact, we will hear that from the other side.

Because the transportation sector is the single largest carbon emitter in the United States of America, and it would be foolish and irresponsible to continue pouring taxpayer money into the old way of thinking, that we must merely expand highways.

We know now that doing that creates induced demand. You add more lanes, attract more cars and, before long, congestion returns and you are right back where you started, except now you have bad traffic and more carbon pollution.

According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, in the last 25 years, we have built 35,000 lane miles in our 100 largest cities, and the cost of congestion and delay have gone up six times.

Should we keep doing that?

No. It is not working.

There are alternatives. We have a great opportunity.

The infrastructure of the Eisenhower era is crumbling, threatening safety, quality of life, and economic competitiveness. In fact, some of the infrastructure we are living off, like the critical Baltimore rail tunnel, was built in 1872. It is not going to last long. It is brick and it is leaking water.

The tunnels under the Hudson are subject to failure in the not-too- distant future. They were built in 1908. We had great engineers at the time, but now we have become so puny, we can't do big projects like that.

No, that is not the United States of America. That is not the American way. We can tackle these challenges, and we will. And climate change is part of what we have to deal with.

I hear a lot from the other side about we want resilience.

Resilience to what? Sea level rise? Why is the sea level rising?

Hmm, I don't know.

Severe weather events?

Nope.

But in my region, just this week, an unprecedented heat wave-- unprecedented in the history of the United States and western Canada, by far; 40 degrees above normal--pavement buckled and melted, cables supplying power to transit melted, high tension lines sagged. Luckily, we got the trees out from under them. They didn't cause fires this time.

We have to rebuild this infrastructure to deal with the threats of the 21st century, and this is a tremendous opportunity.

We have long had problems with inequality and racial injustice perpetuated by transportation programs, policies, and funding decisions. We have a major section in this bill to right those wrongs and provide new opportunities for those communities and rejoin some of those communities; social equity.

U.S. infrastructure was once the envy of the world. We are now 13th and plummeting fast. We are kind of a joke around the world. China is putting 6 percent of their GDP into transportation infrastructure. We are putting in one-half of 1 percent.

We are going to compete with that?

Other competitive nations in Europe are putting in 2 or 3 percent of their GDP. We are putting in a fraction of that.

You know, we have water mains that explode, sewers that back up, and bridges that collapse. We have decrepit transit, $100 billion to bring up to state of good repair, and it breaks down when people are trying to get to work. We have potholes that cost every American between $560 and $1,000 a year in car repairs. The cost of delays is $170 billion, which is way more than we are spending on investment in transportation infrastructure.

A rising China is threatening to take over the future of transportation in the world. We cannot let the Chinese do this yet again and steal those jobs from America. We have to move toward the future.

We have General Motors, all electric in 2035. The Ford electric Mustang is outselling the fossil fuel Mustang. Hey, it is faster. I have driven a semi-truck made by Volvo. But there are four manufacturers making them, an 80,000-pound capable semi-tractor. Fred Smith from FedEx is going all electric, but he says there is no place to charge them.

We have to meet this challenge, and part of this bill is EV challenging on the backbone of the national highway network.

We are also going to put significant funds into safety. We are having huge

problems with safety: growing deaths in pedestrian, cycling, and others. We have to promote those modes, make them safe. More people will use them. We are making a major investment there, fossil fuel free.

This bill is going to focus on bringing things to a state of good repair. 47,000 bridges on the National Highway System need substantial repair or replacement, and an infinite number of off-system bridges. We are creating a new program for off-highway-system bridges; a new program for rural bridges; a new program for the 10 most economically significant bridges in the country, including ones like the Brent Spence Bridge, which is going to collapse or be closed in 8 years, connecting Kentucky and Ohio.

Those things are in this bill. If we don't do this bill, then we are doomed to an even more inefficient and decrepit future.

We are going to make historic investments in transit, helping to address, as I mentioned, the $100 billion state of good repair backlog. We are closing the last loopholes in transit.

We are going to get two Chinese companies--predatory Chinese companies out of here, making electric buses and rail. And we are going to make all of that stuff in the United States of America and create one heck of a lot of jobs. Maybe we will even export electric buses to the rest of the world.

Then beyond that, you know, we are going to be a leader in the clean energy economy. That is the future. It is the future. It is the business case. It is where the corporations are going, except parts of the fossil fuel industry. Even ExxonMobil is talking about spending $100 billion on carbon capture and sequestration; even ExxonMobil.

But there are other parts of the fossil fuel industry that are, like, ``No, you stick with us. Stick with fossil fuel. Don't allow them to do this electrification stuff. Don't talk about climate change. Carbon pollution doesn't do anything.''

No, none of that is true, and we have to deal with it.

It offers opportunities to communities of all sizes: urban, suburban, and rural. There's a 50 percent increase for rural transit, $37 billion from the Surface Transportation Program suballocated to local communities, not the biggest cities. We create several new multimodal discretionary grant programs, including the Community Transportation and Community Climate grants, for local government applicants.

For the first time in a decade, we provided bipartisan member- designated projects. 109 Republicans applied for projects. Everyone was offered $20 million under very strict guidelines agreed to by the majority and the minority. We cleaned that up.

Some people are saying: Well, this is bad; it is poor.

No. Does the Federal DOT or your State DOT know what you need most in your district? What your city needs? What your county needs?

You know better, but sometimes they just ignore it. They are focused on the capitol; they are focused on the biggest cities; they are focused on Washington, D.C., who knows what.

So we have those projects in this bill.

Someone said: Well, if the Republicans won't vote for it, are you going to strip them out?

I said: No. These are meritorious projects that have gone through a vetting process. They will stay in. This is helping local communities.

Now, I also have to say that we have had issues with the DBE-- Disadvantaged Business Enterprise--program at the Department of Transportation. Discrimination is still a barrier for many to get into constructing and maintaining our Surface Transportation Program.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a more comprehensive statement about the need for this crucial program, along with a list of several key studies on discrimination used to help inform the reauthorization of the DBE program. It includes a historic $95 billion in rail investment. That is about a 500 percent increase.

We are going to begin to join city pairs so people can get off the highways.

Virginia is doing a great project. Instead of putting two more lanes, which would be immediately congested, for $12 billion on I-95, they are going to build a rail project with a new bridge over the Potomac River, partnering with CSX for half the cost, and reduce congestion more and give people a better commute. We need to be looking at that model around the country.

The bill includes $32 billion for Amtrak. It also has money for a new program, PRIME, the Passenger Rail Improvement, Modernization, and Expansion program, a $25 billion competitive grant program for States and localities to launch high-speed and intercity rail development.

It tackles big rail projects that need significant investment to get off the ground. The $25 billion Bridges, Stations, and Tunnels, or BeST--I mentioned the Baltimore tunnel earlier--directed grant program funds bridges, stations, and tunnels that have total project costs of $500 million or more, which cannot just be carried by local communities.

I previously mentioned robust safety programs.

It also includes the first reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund since 1987.

When I was a county commissioner, we got a 75 percent match from the Federal Government to build a system that is still serving a community twice that size today. Today, if we went to the Federal Government for a match, they would say, ``Sorry, we don't help you with wastewater.''

Wastewater does not observe city limits. It does not observe county lines. It does not observe State lines. It does not observe international boundaries. It is a national problem, and our communities need help.

I was on a statewide call with county commissioners, 75 percent of them Republicans. They are begging--begging--in these rural counties for help with wastewater and drinking water. We have to step up to the plate on that. This will be the first reauthorization in many, many years.

We are going to move forward with this bill, and every part of this bill is backed by the strongest Buy America requirements, labor protections, and new investments in worker training safety. I wish some of the other departments of the Federal Government, particularly the Pentagon, would follow our model to create more jobs in America.

It is not enough just to transform it. We need to ensure our investments create good-paying jobs, revitalize American manufacturing, help us compete in the clean energy economy, and lead the world once again, as we were the envy of the world in the 1970s and up to about the early 1980s.

This is a chance to reform and rebuild our infrastructure for the future. It is an opportunity to improve safety, equity, and access for all Americans. It is an urgent call to confront the existential threat of climate change and leave a better world for future generations.

This is a transformative bill that will improve mobility, economic competitiveness, and the quality of life in communities across the country. Infrastructure is calling, and Congress must finally answer the call.

Chairman Peter DeFazio Statement for the Record on DBE Program and Disparity Studies Submitted to the Record INVEST in America Act, General Debate, June 30, 2021. I include in the Record:

The INVEST in America Act once again reauthorizes the

critically important Disadvantage Business Enterprise, or

DBE, program at the Department of Transportation.

Unfortunately, even with the DBE Program, discrimination

still haunts us in the market to construct and maintain our

federal surface transportation system. We hear about it from

constituents and others who work as contractors in the

transportation industry. We've read about it in personal

statements submitted by women- and minority- small business

owners from across the country. And we see it reflected in

mounds of statistical evidence compiled by my Committee. This

evidence includes many thousands of pages of rigorous

statistical analysis demonstrating clear disparities between

the capacity of minority- and women-owned businesses to

compete for federal dollars, and the utilization of that

capacity by federal contractors.

These studies represent thousands of pages of complex

rigorous analysis by many different authors in every region

of our nation. And while the findings are better than in the

early days of the DBE program, we still have a long way to

go. I'd like to just highlight a tiny fraction of the

information found in these studies:

Just so my colleagues don't think I am picking on their

states, let me start with Oregon. The 2016 ODOT Disparity

Study found that women- and minority-owned firms only won 61

cents on the dollar of what we would expect given their

availability on state and federally funded highway contracts.

Non-minority women, African Americans and Native Americans

did even worse at 52 cents, 58 cents and 49 cents

respectively.

In Texas DOT spending, women and minority owned firms as a

group won only 60 cents on the dollar of what we might have

expected for state-funded transportation projects given their

availability in the market. Non-minority women, African

Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native Americans all did

worse. Indeed, African Americans won only 22 cents on the

dollar and Native Americans won only 18 cents on the dollar.

The numbers were even worse when considering only federal

funds--32 cents on the dollar when considering Federal

Highway Administration contracts alone.

For Maryland, which has had one of the more robust and

continuously operated DBE programs in the nation, DBEs still

get only 70 cents on the dollar of combined federal and state

transportation funding. For African Americans, the number is

50 cents, for Native Americans it's 43 cents and for non-

minority women, the number is 56 cents.

Sadly, in the transit industry, things are not much better.

For instance, an analysis of contracting for the Los Angeles,

California, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, found that

firms owned by women and minorities make about 74 cents on

the dollar of what we would expect given their representation

in the marketplace. For non-minority women, the number was 59

cents and for African Americans it was 51 cents.

These same troubling statistics are repeated in cities and

states that spend some of their budgets on surface

transportation and similar construction, architecture, and

engineering projects. For instance, the 2018 study for the

Nashville, Tennessee area found that women- and minority-

owned business enterprises got 54 cents of every one dollar

in construction prime contracting; Asian American firms were

at 25 cents on the dollar; and firms owned by Hispanic

Americans earned only 1 cent of every dollar of what we would

expect given their marketplace representation.

There's no doubt that things are better today than before

the DBE Program--more firms owned by women and minorities get

work than they did forty years ago. But the progress has been

slow, halting, and exceedingly fragile. One of the powerful

things about the disparity study evidence we have collected

is the diversity of approaches and analyses these documents

provide. Some studies, for instance, not only study

disparities in the public and private surface transportation

markets, but they also attempt to analyze what might occur if

the DBE program no longer existed. One interesting example is

found in the LA Metro study where they compared the

participation of minority- and women-owned firms on contracts

that had goals to encourage diverse participation and those

that did not. The results are stunning. On contracts with

goals, participation occurred at almost the level we would

expect given the presence of minority- and women-owned firms

in the marketplace and firms owned by minorities and women

earned 96 cents on the dollar--on contracts without goals,

they earned 53 cents on the dollar. The numbers are even more

startling for certain subgroups. On contracts with goals,

non-minority women actually exceeded parity (something that

regularly occurs for firms owned by non-minority males, but

rarely happens for firms owned by women and minorities). But

on contracts without goals, firms owned by non-minority women

earned only 37 cents on the dollar. Firms owned by Hispanic

Americans approached parity on contracts with goals (98 cents

on the dollar), but on contracts without goals, they earned

only 59 cents on the dollar. African American owned firms

earned only 64 cents on the dollar even on contracts with

goals, and on contracts without goals the number plummeted to

30 cents on the dollar.

Tragically, the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated the need

for the DBE program. Preliminary data on the pandemic's

economic devastation shows a massively disproportionate

impact on small businesses in minority communities. An

article by Dr. Robert Fairlie published last year by the

Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, uses

statistics from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey

to illustrate just how devastating the COVID-19 pandemic has

already been for firms owned by minorities and women. His

analysis examines the drop in ``active businesses'' comparing

the numbers from mid-February 2020, just before the effects

of the pandemic became clear in the United States, to mid-

April, when the economy in much of the country had shut down.

During that time, all businesses experienced economic

devastation--but because of discrimination, the devastation

was far greater for businesses owned by women and minorities.

For instance, during this period the number of active

businesses owned by whites dropped 17 percent, but the number

of businesses owned by African Americans dropped 41 percent.

For Hispanic businesses, the number was 32 percent and for

firms owned by Asian Americans the drop was 26 percent. These

numbers are not just troubling, they are staggering, and the

pandemic is still not over.

Now, more than ever, as we prepare to spend billions of

federal dollars on transportation projects, it is urgent that

we ensure the process of awarding federal transportation

contract dollars is not discriminatory, and that minorities

and women are allowed to compete on an equal playing field

for those dollars.

Below is a list of dozens of disparity studies held on file

with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

demonstrating the continued need for this essential program:

State and Local Disparity Studies From 2015-2021

Alaska

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Study, Final Report & Final

Appendices, Prepared by the Alaska Department of

Transportation & Public Facilities Civil Rights Office

(2020).

Arizona

Arizona Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Final

Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2020).

Arizona Department of Transportation Disparity Study

Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2015).

California

Caltrans Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research and

Consulting for Caltrans Department of Transportation (2016).

City of Oakland 2017 Race and Gender Disparity Study,

Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2020).

LA Metro 2017 Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research &

Consulting for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (2018).

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Disparity

Study Volumes I-II, Prepared by Miller Consulting, Inc.

(2017).

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability,

Utilization, and Disparity Study for the San Francisco

Municipal Transportation Agency, Prepared by Rosales Business

Partners LLC (2015).

Colorado

City and County of Denver Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC

Research & Consulting (2018).

Colorado Disparity Study, Final Report, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research (2020).

Connecticut

Connecticut Disparity Study: Phases 1-3, Prepared by The

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering for the

Connecticut General Assembly and the Government

Administration and Elections Commission (2013, 2014, 2016).

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business

Development Comparative Analysis: Minority and Women-Owned

Business Assessment, Prepared by CRP, Inc (2019).

District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business

Development Disparity Report Framework and Recommendations,

Prepared by CRP, Inc. (2019).

2015 Disparity Study for Washington Suburban Sanitary

Commission, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. (2016).

Florida

Minority, Women, and Small Business Enterprise Disparity

Study for the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida and

Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency, Prepared by MGT

Consulting Group (2019).

Palm Beach County Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason

Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2017).

Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida

Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd.

(2017).

Georgia

Atlanta Housing Authority Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research (2017).

Atlanta Public Schools Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research (2017).

City of Atlanta Disparity Study Summary Report, Prepared by

Keen Independent Research LLC (2015).

Fulton County Small Business Study, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research (2016).

Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study,

Prepared by Griffin & Strong, P.C. for the State of Georgia

(2016).

Hawaii

Hawaii Department of Transportation 2019 Availability and

Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research

(2020).

Idaho

Idaho Transportation Department Disparity Study, Prepared

by BBC Research & Consulting (2017).

Illinois

Chicago Transit Authority Disparity Study, Prepared by

Colette Holt & Associates (2019).

Illinois Department of Transportation Disparity Study,

Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2017).

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Disparity Study

Construction and Construction Related Services, Prepared by

Colette Holt & Associates (2015).

Indiana

City of Indianapolis and Marion County Disparity Study, BBC

Research & Consulting (2019).

City of South Bend Disparity Study, Prepared by Colette

Holt & Associates (2019).

State of Indiana Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research

& Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration

(2015-16).

State of Indiana Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research

& Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration

(2020).

Kansas

City of Kansas City Construction Workforce Disparity Study,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).

City of Kansas City, Missouri Disparity Study, Prepared by

Colette Holt & Associates (2016).

Kentucky

Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd.

(2018).

Louisiana

City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge Disparity

Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).

City of New Orleans Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research (2018).

Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton

Rouge Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research

(2019).

Maryland

Business Disparities in the Maryland Market Area, Prepared

by NERA Economic Consulting for the State and Maryland and

the Maryland Department of Transportation (2017).

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Disparity Study: Volumes

I-III, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland

Department of Transportation (2018).

Massachusetts

Business Disparities in the DCAMM Construction and Design

Market Area, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset

Management and Maintenance (2017).

City of Boston 2020 Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC

Research & Consulting (2021).

Minnesota

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study City of Minneapolis,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study City of Saint Paul,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Hennepin County,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Airports

Commission, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Council,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Mosquito

Control District, Prepared by Keen Independent Research

(2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota Department

of Administration; Prepared by Keen Independent Research

(2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota Department

of Transportation, Prepared by Keen Independent Research

(2018).

2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota State

Colleges and Universities, Prepared by Keen Independent

Research (2018).

Missouri

City of St. Louis Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason

Tillman Associates (2015).

Missouri Department of Transportation DBE Availability

Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).

Saint Louis County Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin &

Strong P.C. (2017).

Montana

Availability and Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen

Independent Research LLC for the State of Montana Department

of Transportation (2016).

Nevada

Nevada Transportation Consortium Disparity Study, Prepared

by BBC Research & Consulting for the Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern Nevada (2017).

New Jersey

NJ Transit Disparity Study, Executive Summary & Appendix,

Prepared by The Roy Wilkins Center for Human Relations and

Social Justice, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs,

University of Minnesota (2016).

New York

City of New York Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT

Consulting Group (2018).

State of New York MWBE Disparity Study, Volumes I & II,

Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2016).

North Carolina

City of Asheville, North Carolina Disparity Study, Prepared

by BBC Research & Consulting (2018).

City of Charlotte Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research

& Consulting (2017).

City of Winston-Salem Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT

Consulting Group (2019).

Durham County/City of Durham, North Carolina Multi-

jurisdictional Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin & Strong,

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2021.

Hon. Peter A. Defazio,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Defazio: I am writing you concerning H.R.

3684, the ``INVEST in America Act,'' which was ordered to be

reported out of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on June 10, 2021. Prior to this, I submitted a

jurisdictional claim letter for a sequential referral on this

bill on June 7, 2021 and the Office of the Parliamentarian

found this claim to be valid.

As a result of cooperative consultations with the Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology (``Science Committee'') and

in the interest an expedient consideration of H.R. 3684

before the House of Representatives, I will waive formal

consideration of this bill. I take this action with a mutual

understanding between our two Committees that by foregoing

consideration of H.R. 3684, the Science Committee does not

waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in

this, or in similar, legislation.

Furthermore, I humbly request a letter confirming this

understanding and that this exchange of letters be included

in the bill report to be filed by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure as well as included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill.

Finally, I ask that you support the appointment of Science

Committee conferees during any House-Senate conference

convened on this legislation.

Sincerely,

Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Chairwoman, Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the chair of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson), the chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, and a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), a new and esteemed member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids), the vice chair of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from their side that we should have worked with them. They offered an alternative. They have talked a lot about how we are not putting money into bridges and highways. We are putting in $333 billion, and they put in $310 billion, and I am not even sure that they included anything on safety. They had zero on rail--zero--and status quo for transit. That is a 21st century transportation bill?

As I mentioned earlier, we have built 35,000 lane miles in the hundred largest cities. Guess what? They are running out of space. They have to tear down neighborhoods to build any more, and it is not working.

Congestion is six times worse than it was 35 years ago. Americans waste $170 billion a year in congestion. Business wastes time in congestion.

We need to solve these problems, and we have to look at new ways of solving these problems. What we have been doing since Dwight David Eisenhower was great at the time. It doesn't work in the 21st century.

They continue to deny the threat of climate change or even the existence of climate change. I tried to say: Okay, you can't acknowledge climate change. Trump won't let you do that, and fossil fuel contributors won't let you do that. How about this? You acknowledge that there is a business case to be made.

GM is going all electric, all electric in 2035. Where are they going to charge? You have four companies making 80,000-pound tractor semis. Fred Smith, FedEx, going all electric in the near term--no place to charge them except at fleet headquarters. They have to be able to charge on the road.

But, no, we shouldn't invest in EV charging. We should just keep doing the same thing. We should keep polluting the atmosphere.

But they do believe in resilience. We have to build up Louisiana and other places, Florida, to deal with sea level rise. Why is the sea level rising? We have to deal with extraordinary, unprecedented climate events. We have to deal with those in rebuilding our infrastructure. ``Oh, no. Why is that happening?'' ``Don't worry about that.''

We will do that, but we will not go to the root cause.

We are doing all three. We are rebuilding resilient; we are rebuilding America and creating jobs. We are making the country more efficient. And we are dealing with climate change. This is the 21st century. Deal with the threats of the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 508, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 3.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendments en bloc, which provides for the consideration of 19 amendments.

The amendments contained in this en bloc amend various provisions of the bill. They would strike some of the highest priorities in a bill. We just heard an impassioned speech from the gentleman from Louisiana, talking about Louisiana sea-level rise, sinking, and all that, and wanting to take on China and the world economy.

Well, guess what?

They are building the future. That is EVs and AVs. And they want to strike all of the provisions in the bill that will provide for electric charging.

So Fred Smith, no liberal Democrat going all electric with FedEx. GM, going all electric. Four truck manufacturers making 80,000-pound capable tractors. No charging stations in America.

Oh, that is not supposed to be the future?

That is the future. That is the future.

And we also--yeah, we deal with climate change. And I know you don't believe in climate change on that side of the aisle. That is fine. I wish you lived up where I do. You might just get a sample of what the future is like.

Now, this strikes the Fix-It-First requirements that prioritize state of good repair.

Oh, great. Let's go lay down more lane miles; 35,000 lane miles, the hundred largest cities in America in the last 25 years, and congestion is six times worse. It is called induced demand. Don't provide transit alternatives. They kill transit. They kill rail. We are just going to build more highways. We are going to pave over the entire city.

How much of it are you going to knock down?

It is not going to work. It didn't work. It hasn't been working. So it is time to do something different.

It is time to fix what we have, the Eisenhower legacy, 47,000 bridges in the National Highway System in desperate need of repair or replacement, tens of thousands in rural areas and counties, new programs in this bill to deal with those rural areas and counties.

They take out the $4 billion Clean Corridors program, as I said, for EV charging and hydrogen fueling.

Madam Speaker, $8.3 billion for carbon pollution--they don't believe in carbon pollution because the parts of the fossil fuel industry that are enlightened are big contributors, and Donald Trump says we can't believe in climate change. So, okay, got to take that out.

It prohibits any expenditures out of the highway trust fund, except for road and bridge construction. That means no safety.

We are having record numbers of pedestrian and cycling deaths, and this bill is going to make it safer for people to use alternative modes in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

I am building a bike lane on a highway in a rural area that is heavily trafficked by bikers to a winery in my district where there have been fatalities. But, no, none of that. None of that in the bill. We don't care about the pedestrian deaths. We don't care about the cycling deaths. We don't care about safety. None of that. None of that is in their proposal.

They say we are not doing enough on highways. We are doing more than $20 billion more than they are on highways and bridges. But, oh, we are ignoring the problem. No, we are not.

They eliminate the Capital Investment Grant Program in its entirety.

They allow the transfer of rural and small urban transit funding to highways. I represent a very, very large district, bigger than a number of your States, and I have a lot of rural areas and small cities, and they want to have some options for transit. You would eliminate that. Okay.

It eliminates rail funding: no Amtrak, no passenger rail.

Highways are funded at a lower level than we do, and that is going to take care of the problem. That is kind of laughable.

These are just some of the really bad ideas in this amendment. This is not the path to the future, not the path to the 21st century. It is the path of the failed policies of the late 20th century that don't work anymore.

We also need to hold States accountable. I know some States don't like that. They don't want to be held accountable. They don't want to fix it first. They don't want to be held accountable for fossil fuel pollution. If you don't believe in climate change, you don't care: What is the problem with fossil fuel pollution?

So this is ``Groundhog Day'' on their side of the aisle. Let's bring back the failed policies of the 1990s and the early 2000s. Yes, they were bipartisan, but they didn't deal with 21st century problems.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of time on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who is the Chair of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, you can look back at history at highway bills and infrastructure bills, and all of these bills passed this House with strong bipartisan support. Seventy-five, 80 percent, 90 percent of the Members of Congress have supported these bills. You can look back, Mr. Speaker. For decades this has happened.

Why is this bill moving in an entirely partisan manner? Why is there not bipartisan support?

And the answer is really simple: Because this bill is not infrastructure. It

is not solving road problems and traffic problems that are plaguing this country.

What this bill does is it puts billions of dollars into things like EV charging stations. So if you are an American that owns the 0.6 percent of vehicles out there that are electric vehicles--the majority of which make over $160,000--the great news for you is you are going to get billions of dollars in federally paid-for subsidized charging stations.

The process needs to be fixed for delivering projects. This bill doesn't do it.

Why is it we are building projects around the country that have been around for decades?

It is because the process is flawed. It takes decades just to get a project approved, but don't worry, Mr. Speaker, because this bill fixes it for bus shelters.

This bill should be bipartisan, as has been done for decades. We need real traffic solutions, real investments in infrastructure, and unfortunately, this bill doesn't do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to repeat what the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said: This bloc of amendments consists of 42 amendments.

All you Americans that are at home right now, your Member of Congress that you elected to come up here to debate, to influence, to fix the crisis we have in transportation and traffic right now, you get the choice to either support or oppose 42 different amendments, some of which may be good, some of which may be awful.

This is what democracy looks like right now under this Democrat majority, where the individual Members of Congress aren't even allowed to effectively represent their constituents.

This bill, including this amendment, simply adds more money to a bad system. The average American, Mr. Speaker, all they need to do is think about that road project, that traffic jam, they have in their community. All this bill does is puts more money in that very system that resulted in those problems in their community. It doesn't fix it.

In fact, it even diverts money from what should be infrastructure into things that have absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure, which, just to give an example of that, includes art. That is where your transportation dollars are going, art infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is so fundamentally flawed, this process is so fundamentally flawed, I urge rejection of this entire bloc.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard people talk about how this bill is going to help address climate change, and we have heard people try to suggest that our side doesn't care about it. The facts actually paint a very different story.

My friends on the other side of the aisle came in and tried very hard to force legislation that would mandate reductions in emissions in the power sector. That was going to significantly drive up energy costs. Thankfully, Congress didn't enact it.

But do you know what actually happened? By letting innovators innovate, by Congress not coming in and forcing regulatory mandates and forcing and choosing different types of energy technologies, the United States has reduced emissions more than the next 12 emissions-reducing countries combined.

Is it because of Congress' actions? No. It is because Americans are innovative, and Americans innovated their way out of this. We have been leading the world.

What this legislation does is it goes back, and it fails to learn from the lessons of the past. It tries to force technologies.

Right now, electric vehicle sales represent 2 percent of sales. Consumers don't want them.

In my home State, we drive pickup trucks and put our boats behind them. But don't worry, because according to Car and Driver, you are going to get to pull your boat 100 miles, and then you get to stop at a charging station, paid for by this bill. You will then get to sit there for 45 minutes, potentially get your truck up to 80 percent, and you can maybe then drive another, I don't know, 70 miles or so. It is going to be great.

This is crazy. This is absolutely crazy. Americans need traffic solutions. We need traffic solutions. We had 325 amendments submitted to this bill to try to improve it. Mr. Speaker, 149 of those were accepted, and 105 of those were Democrat amendments, not even giving Republican constituents across America the opportunity to be able to be represented.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this partisan, failed process that, for the first time in decades, has failed to yield a bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my friends talk about how it has been innovation that has led us to emissions reductions. I find it fascinating and certainly look forward to that discussion.

But, Mr. Speaker, right now, just a few months ago, the United States was entirely energy independent. We produced all the resources that we needed to power our economy and to power our transportation sector.

What this bill does is begins forcing everything, manipulating markets in a direction that doesn't work.

Don't take my word for it. Let me give you examples about the State of

California that has tried to do the very thing that this bill does. The State of California currently has electricity prices that are twice those of my home State.

I ask the American citizens, Mr. Speaker, which American is asking to have their electricity bills doubled?

By the way, when you increase demand for electricity, the price goes up even higher. When you try to electrify the entire vehicle fleet, then prices go up.

Do you think they got a plan for this?

There is a study in this very amendment that tries to study how you are going to incorporate vehicles into the energy and transportation sector. They don't even know how they are going to do it, yet they are charging ahead boldly under this en bloc amendment.

Another great one in here: During the committee process on this, I offered an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to establish national centers of resilience. I got a commitment from the chairman saying: Yes, we are going to work with you on this.

They didn't work with us. But all of a sudden, when we filed our amendment, that one is discarded, and one pops up from a Democrat Member with our idea. It is now going to be in this en bloc for consideration.

This whole process just doesn't reflect democracy. I can't say it enough, Mr. Speaker: Decades and decades of bipartisan support, strong support, representing the leadership on how you negotiate legislation and bringing traffic solutions and transportation solutions to America.

In this case, there is no bipartisan support. This is a failed effort that fails to address the needs of the American public. It diverts funds that need to go to traffic solutions to things that, quite frankly, are going to play into China's hands and cause the loss of jobs. We need to be exporting American innovation, not exporting jobs to China, as this bill does.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, but being in opposition, I reserve the right to close.

Madam Speaker, recognizing that I have the right to close, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who made a statement about how our national labs innovated us into this emissions reduction leadership role we play in the United States.

I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain to us about those innovations and how that contributed to emissions reductions.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I couldn't have asked the gentleman to make my point any more than he just did.

This bill attempts to force or manipulate markets in a direction that is simply not consistent with the resources, the workforce of America.

The gentleman is exactly right. He is exactly right. It is our natural gas revolution that has resulted in the United States leading the world in reducing emissions. It is not a result of someone coming in and forcing people to drive electric vehicles. It is not a result of forcing people to put solar panels on their homes. That is not it. It is the transition to natural gas.

As a matter of fact, the natural gas from the gentleman's home State, according to the National Energy Technology Lab in the gentleman's home State, has a 42 to 47 percent lower emissions profile than Russian gas, which is effectively what this bill forces to happen, more dependence on Russian gas.

A year ago, we imported zero barrels of Russian oil--zero--into the United States. This month, we are on a trajectory to import 7 million barrels, 7 million barrels of oil from Vladimir Putin. Thanks. This is crazy.

This bill just continues building on that. I really don't understand, Madam Speaker, what the gentleman is going to tell his own constituents when they are no longer employed. Folks say: Hey, don't you worry. We are going to get new clean energy jobs.

Madam Speaker, what has happened every single time we have developed new technology that wasn't tied back to America's resources? China steals the property. They steal the intellectual property. They steal the inventions and sell it back to us at a cheaper price--by the way, at the same time, causing greater environmental consequences using child enslaved labor.

Madam Speaker, what I urge is, let's apply cancel culture to the countries that my friends across the aisle are actually promoting right now, to China and Russia.

Let me say this again. This bill attempts to take California's model and apply it nationally, doubling the electricity prices in my home State.

Guess which State had the eighth worst emissions growth in America? Is it the State that carried all this out? No. It is California. Guess which State is the most dependent State on foreign energy? It is California.

I can't say it enough. We need to be exporting our innovation, not exporting our jobs. This is a flawed bill. It is an entirely flawed strategy that is being forced on American citizens under this legislation. People have the option right now to buy electric vehicles, and they are not doing it. It is 0.6 percent of the vehicles today.

Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, traditionally what would happen in an amendment grouping like this is that Republicans and Democrats would sit down and decide which group of amendments everybody agrees on. There are actually some really good amendments that are included in this en bloc, some of which address some fundamental problems in our transportation system.

For example, there is an amendment in here by Congresswoman Mace. What that amendment does is after much research, the Department of Transportation couldn't even tell us how much money is being invested in roads and bridges. Couldn't even answer the question. Congressional Research Service couldn't. Government Accountability Office couldn't. We have tried for months to get an answer.

So this commission is a study to look at that, to give us feedback to understand where the dollars are going to help inform us on how to do a better job governing.

There is an amendment here that I want to say thanks to my friends across the aisle for that has to do with the resilience of materials of roads.

And again, there are good amendments, but, Madam Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. We are supposed to sit down and try to come to common ground and decide which amendments make sense and we all agree on and help to expedite this entire process to go from 325 amendments, hopefully, to a much shorter number, not by having unilateral control and someone unilaterally deciding they are going to let these amendments go and these not and design a group of amendments to intentionally fail, despite the fact that there is good policy.

So I will say it again, I think there are some good amendments in here. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their particular amendments and why they are good policy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a leading member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), one of the hardest working members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the leader of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I have the right to close so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I believe we have the right to close, so I am going to reserve.

I am opposed to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, there are a number of amendments in here that I fully support. This whole process is a flawed process.

I have heard the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) bring up the coastal Louisiana and the loss of land. The ranking member of the committee talked about the loss in coastal Louisiana, and it is extraordinary.

We have lost 2,000 square miles of our coast. It is like taking the State of Rhode Island and wiping it off the map, which is why I care so much about this issue; and it is why I care that we actually provide solutions, not rhetoric. And let me explain.

Madam Speaker, the dirty little secret that my friends across the aisle will tell you is that the highly celebrated Paris accords that they are all out there advocating for and saying this bill is going to advance this Green New Deal and Paris accord commitments, the Paris accord results in an increase in global emissions. that doesn't fix what is going on in my home State. It doesn't do anything. It makes it worse.

As a matter of fact, in negotiations, Secretary Kerry conducted-- allows China to increase emissions another 50 percent between now and 2030. China today emits more than every developed country combined.

So these are the people who we are being asked to trust what happens to the people that I represent in coastal Louisiana?

Absolutely not.

Let me say it again. It is as a result of what we have done, as a result of what innovators have done that have resulted in the greatest reduction in emissions in world history. And don't take my word for it. That is a quote from the IEA's executive director--International Energy Agency's executive director.

Madam Speaker, these are flawed strategies. It is proven.

Who has cornered the market on rare earth and strategic minerals?

China has.

So who is going to be responsible for manufacturing the batteries?

China.

Who has made 80 percent of the global investment in battery technology and in manufacturing?

China.

Madam Speaker, I represent people from America, and that is who I am going to fight for. That is who I am going to defend. I am going to defend our land and prevent it from eroding and disappearing because of flawed policies. I am going to defend their tax dollars to prevent them being wasted on things that clearly play into China's hands.

Madam Speaker, I can't say this enough. I want to export American innovation or ingenuity, not our jobs, not our economy. This bill is fundamentally flawed. And representing the greatest loss of coastal wetlands in the United States, I won't stand for this type of behavior that squanders dollars and actually exacerbates the problem of coastal land lost and sustainability, and ecological productivity in my home State.

Madam Speaker, I urge that we stop this; that we start this bill over again; and as we have done for decades, that we come together in a bipartisan process, just like I know my friend from Oregon would be saying right now if roles were reversed.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the INVEST in America Act marks an important first step forward on President Biden's jobs agenda. This legislation invests in surface and water infrastructure to create jobs, revitalize the economy, and improve public health.

I appreciate all the hard work that Chairman DeFazio and the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have done to make our transportation sector greener and more equitable.

I am proud of the important drinking water legislation and vehicle safety legislation that is included in this bill that came out of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, the drinking water provisions of this bill combine two pieces of legislation, the AQUA Act of 2021, authored by Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Tonko, and the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program led by Representatives Blunt Rochester, Katko, Dingell, and Tlaib.

Safe drinking water is one of our most fundamental human rights, yet right now, there are millions of Americans across the country who cannot trust that the water coming out of their taps is safe. That is simply unacceptable, and it is why the INVEST in America Act invests $117 billion to address drinking water infrastructure safety and affordability.

The legislation increases authorizations for drinking water programs by more than $80 billion, including funding to replace lead service lines nationwide. There is no safe level of lead exposure. It comes with tremendous human health risks, and that is why we must replace the lead service lines that deliver our water and ensure every home is safe from lead contamination.

The legislation also funds water resiliency programs, school drinking water safety programs, and Tribal water programs. Investments in drinking water infrastructure have a proven track record of creating jobs while improving public health protections. Requirements included in this bill will ensure those jobs and those health benefits reach environmental justice communities.

The bill will also improve drinking water safety by repairing the broken standard-setting process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We all know that we need to do more to ensure the safety of our drinking water. This bill would make targeted changes and set deadlines to empower the EPA to set the protective drinking water standards that our communities need.

Madam Speaker, the bill provides assistance to low-income families so they can afford their water bills. Financial hardship should not stand between any family and basic access to water. This bill creates two water assistance programs similar to the successful Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, better known as LIHEAP.

We also authorize funding to reduce or eliminate customer debt and prohibit water service shutoffs for 5 years for the participating water systems. These funds will give families peace of mind that they will continue to have access to safe, clean, and affordable water.

The legislation also includes auto safety reforms that mandate proven safety technologies that could save 20,000 lives per year. In 2020 alone vehicular crashes resulted in over 42,000 deaths. The INVEST in America Act includes a bold vision of safety and innovation that will save lives, boost domestic manufacturing, and strengthen our industrial base. The safety reforms will deploy existing proven technologies that can have immediate lifesaving effects such as crash avoidance systems, drunk driving prevention technology, and it will put an end to children dying in hot cars.

It also includes my Five-Stars for Safe Cars Act, legislation modernizing the five-star safety rating for the 21st century, providing consumers with

meaningful comparative information about the safety of vehicles.

Now, in addition to our water and safety provisions, Madam Speaker, there are several important amendments that will strengthen the bill even further.

Particularly, I urge support for an amendment from Energy Subcommittee Chairman Rush that will supercharge electric vehicle infrastructure and electric vehicle deployment. It also encourages the domestic manufacturing of electric vehicle and infrastructure components.

I also urge support for Representative Dingell's clean energy technology accelerator amendment that incorporates her bipartisan legislation with Representative Young and provides financing for clean energy infrastructure.

So, Madam Speaker, the INVEST in America Act is transformative legislation that focuses our investments where they belong: revitalizing and modernizing our infrastructure, creating new, good- paying jobs, and taking a critical step to fulfill President Biden's promise to build back better.

Madam Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), who is a member of our committee and always looking to make everything green.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the author of the AQUA Act, which is the infrastructure piece of the water bill, and the chairman of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), who has been so helpful in putting together the infrastructure and the assistance program in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I ask again how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is the chair of our Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee, and is the author of many of the auto safety provisions in this bill.

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

I respect my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I have to say, I totally disagree that this legislation is not necessary.

We know that America's drinking water infrastructure is failing. Anyone who experienced what happened in Flint, Michigan, or my own State, in Newark, knows that there are all of these lead pipes out there that need to be replaced. Congress has to take bold action to deliver crucial drinking water improvements that communities all around the Nation desperately need.

I heard what my colleague, Congresswoman Tlaib, said, that safe drinking water is a fundamental human right, and that is true. These bills include significant and meaningful investments and reform that will ensure that every household has safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water.

Congresswoman Tlaib and the Michigan delegation, they really brought

home to us, practically speaking, what needs to be done here, both with the infrastructure improvements for drinking water as well as for the assistance for households and those with debt.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. I urge bipartisan support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc No. 3 Republican amendments.

Some of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side earlier said that this water bill was not necessary, and I strongly disagree. A lot needs to be done to ensure the safety of our drinking water. We saw what happened in Flint. In my State, we saw serious lead contamination in Newark.

This bill would provide new resources to address lead and PFAS in drinking

water, including $45 billion for lead service line replacement. But the Rodgers amendment in this bloc would strip these resources out. And, unfortunately, the Hudson amendment would direct the PFAS resources in the bill toward just one set of PFAS chemicals, undermining access to those resources for communities in need.

The underlying bill would provide increased funds for resiliency, to help water systems plan for and adapt to climate change. But the Rodgers amendment would strip out those increases.

The underlying bill provides for deadlines for the EPA to set health- protective standards for PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, and microcystin toxin, which are long overdue. But the Rodgers amendment would strip out those deadlines.

The underlying bill also makes targeted changes to improve the standard-setting process and empower EPA to set standards as needed. The current standard-setting process has been an utter failure. EPA has not been able to complete that process for a single drinking water standard in the 25 years it has been in place. That should be unacceptable to all of us. But the Rodgers and McKinley amendments would strip out the changes this bill makes on standard-setting.

Instead of working with us to improve the standard-setting process, my Republican colleagues seem intent on preserving the status quo, despite so much evidence that this is simply not enough.

Let me turn briefly to the affordability provisions of this bill. This bill authorizes significant new funding to reduce or eliminate customer water debt, recognizing that water debt has become a crisis in this country. Importantly, water systems taking these funds will agree not to shut off customer water access for nonpayment for a 5-year period, offering families peace of mind as we all recover from the pandemic. But Representative Curtis' amendment would strip out that shutoff moratorium and make it harder for EPA to get this assistance out the door.

Last but not least, the drinking water provisions of this bill will establish permanent rate assistance programs for drinking water and wastewater service to help families pay their bills and avoid a repeat of our current debt crisis. These programs have broad support from all kinds of stakeholders.

Safe drinking water is a fundamental human right, and the drinking water provisions we have included in the INVEST in America Act include significant and meaningful investments and reforms to help guarantee that right. The Republican amendments in this bloc would undermine each of these improvements, leaving nothing but the status quo.

It is no longer enough to keep pushing the status quo. We have urgent public health and infrastructure needs that require that we build back better, as the President says. The INVEST in America Act takes significant steps toward repairing our water infrastructure, creating jobs, and protecting public health.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these harmful amendments and pass the underlying bill to affirm that safe drinking water is a fundamental human right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3684.

Here we are again. It is ``Groundhog Day'' for infrastructure on the floor this week. Exactly 1 year ago, I stood here as we took up the majority's first version of its my-way-or-the-highway bill. That bill, just like today's, was developed without working with Republican Members, and it passed mostly along party lines. And then that bill died, forcing Congress to pass a 1-year, short-term extension, something that we all know is extremely costly, and it is detrimental to our States' ability to plan and carry out the improvements that they need.

Unfortunately, the Speaker has ignored the obvious lesson that successful legislating is through partnership, not through partisanship. As a result, today's bill is even worse than last year's failed effort.

This bill is completely unpaid for. It is completely unpaid for, something that I have never seen in a highway bill in my two decades here in Congress. It is all deficit spending, and it is going to continue driving up what is already the highest inflation rate since 2008.

Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. Earlier this year, our committee's leaders met with the President, and we made it clear that Republicans wanted to be a part of a bipartisan bill. I have no doubt that we could have compromised in a way that met many of the majority's goals while still including Republicans' priorities from our own proposal.

Far from being impossible, the Senate committees have managed to do just that. They found common ground on commonsense project streamlining, flexibility for our State and local partners, and equitable treatment for rural America.

However, in order to appease the progressives in their party, the majority showed no willingness to meet us anywhere in the middle. Instead, they moved their bill even further to the left than the one from last year. Ironically, even that won't be enough, as Speaker Pelosi right now is preparing another partisan effort that is going to completely overshadow this bill by pushing through a multitrillion- dollar, tax-and-spend plan using budget reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I will just walk through a few of the things, just a very few of the things that are wrong with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, $1 out of every $2 on this bill is tied up in the Green New Deal agenda. This bill eliminates a ban on spending transit dollars to fund art at train stations or transit stations. It is insane, given the infrastructure needs that we have in this country, that this bill would waste critical infrastructure resources on buying paintings and sculptures for transit stations.

This bill significantly increases the size of government. It creates 41 new programs.

As I mentioned, this bill provides no regulatory reform to make project delivery more efficient and less wasteful.

This bill ties the hands of States that need to build new roads and new capacity. Even if that is their most critical need, it still ties their hands.

These are just a few of the examples of why this bill is bad for the country. I can go on and on and on and on and on. This partisanship was absolutely unnecessary, and it is sad.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have overwhelmingly approved their own pieces of a surface reauthorization. The Senate has also approved a bipartisan $35 billion water infrastructure plan. But instead of following that example or using the bipartisan agreement we had on clean water infrastructure that we agreed to last Congress as the framework, the majority again chose to walk away from bipartisanship.

This bill now includes more than $170 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, which is completely unrealistic, and it is out of touch with the Senate's bill and House Republicans. In fact, everything about this bill is out of touch.

Although the President currently supports a bipartisan infrastructure framework in the Senate, progressives in Congress have already declared that that Senate proposal is dead on arrival without first getting their massive partisan wish list. If they don't get it, they have stated that.

The Speaker and the far left are trying to hold infrastructure hostage in order to get their $6 trillion in other priorities through budget reconciliation.

While the other side says that all the spending in today's bill is supposed to transform our transportation system, it is certainly going to change one thing in transportation, and that is your gas prices. More deficit spending is only going to further fuel inflation and raise the price of not only gas but food and every other necessity.

Voting for this bill is an implicit endorsement of the Speaker's overall strategy to ram through a $6 trillion tax-and-spend reconciliation package, and I encourage Members to vote against this bill and against this partisan process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

(Mr. VAN DREW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

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

Madam Speaker, this bill basically lets the American people down. This is a missed opportunity for partnership, a chance to come together and pass a bill that addresses the real infrastructure needs of all of our communities, from the largest cities right down to our most rural areas.

Members on the other side have said that they don't want another traditional highway bill, but we can't abandon our roads and bridges just to say we want something new. Our core infrastructure has become traditional because Americans depend on it to work, travel, and live.

That is why every highway bill that has become law for at least the last three decades has done so based on bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans sitting down together with their

priorities and putting in the work to find common ground that both sides can support.

We could have found common ground and achieved many of the goals while addressing Republican priorities, as well. That is what the American people want us to do. That is what the President at least said that he wanted, and that is what the Speaker actually said she wanted our committees to do.

But the process that led us here didn't reflect any of those calls to unity. What is even more frustrating is that we did have a bipartisan agreement in place, at least part of it, ready to take up again, and that was the wastewater section of this bill. But the majority, again, blatantly rejected the chance to work together on another infrastructure issue that has been and should continue to be bipartisan.

This bill only reflects the majority's one-size-fits-all vision for what they think our infrastructure should look like. It doesn't reflect the realities of what actually addresses the needs of our communities.

Today, I am going to ask my colleagues to consider this: Does this help your communities? Do you consider art to be infrastructure? Do you feel good about spending $550 billion on a highway bill that restricts communities from building highways? Most importantly, can you ignore the reality of spending more than $715 billion with no pay-fors, no revenue title, just piling more debt onto our children's future and driving up inflation?

For me, that answer is really simple. It is no.

What is worse, progressives are not going to let this bill or any real infrastructure bill become law unless they get their $6 trillion partisan wish list. They are holding infrastructure hostage to achieve their socialist tax and spend agenda.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the majority's partisan process, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 508, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, which provides for the consideration of 42 amendments. The amendments contained in this en bloc touch upon various policy areas in the base bill.

The surface transportation amendments include: increasing funding for the National Scenic Byways Program; creating a climate-safe infrastructure working group to prepare transportation infrastructure for the effects of climate change; requiring a GAO report to Congress on access to nonemergency medical transportation for disadvantaged populations; requiring the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress on the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; and ensuring underserved communities are considered in the expansion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

These are just some of the highlights of the amendments included. I thank my colleagues for offering such thoughtful amendments to improve the surface transportation portions of the INVEST in America Act, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I would just note for my colleague's edification the strong role that the Federal Government and national lab system played in the very energy innovation that he was mentioning in his remarks. It was not done by the private sector alone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Louisiana is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just kind of wrapping up everyone's comments today, I think that this bill is a significant down payment on the future that we are all working toward.

The reality of American history is that the government often works together with businesses to stimulate investments and speed up new markets.

That is what we are trying to do in this bill. That has been true in natural gas; it has been true in public transportation; and it is true in electric vehicles. And that is what this bill is about.

We are very proud to offer all of these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will try to do it in 30 seconds.

The bulk of our emissions reduction has come from the transition from coal to natural gas. Most of the critical science that is behind the shale revolution was developed within the national lab system, particularly at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, proudly located in western Pennsylvania.

Of course, private-sector innovation played a huge role, but there were many key scientific advances that would not have been possible without Federal investment paid for by this very Congress.

That is how we are responsible for many of the emissions reductions that have taken place and that will continue to take place in the future.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 508, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of these amendments en bloc, which provide for the consideration of 21 amendments sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle.

The amendments contained in this en bloc amend various divisions of the bill. These amendments include granting the Secretary of Transportation the authority to reset interest rates on certain existing TIFIA loans for borrowers impacted by COVID-19.

Banning the interstate and international transportation of horses bound to be slaughtered for human consumption.

Allowing States to use their National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grants to educate the public on the safe and proper use of passenger vehicle trailers.

Establishing a new grant program for culvert restoration programs that improve or restore passage for anadromous fish.

Ensuring that Federal funds administered through the TIFIA program are

protected by adequate payment and performance security requirements.

Increasing the Tribal Transportation Program safety set-aside.

Codifying the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success initiative, a DOT program to help rural communities and Indian Tribes.

Authorizing a competitive grant program for States and localities to educate the public on the dangers of drugged driving.

Directing the Comptroller General to study threats facing the U.S. transportation system from ransomware and other cybersecurity threats.

Reauthorizing certain national heritage areas set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2021.

Establishing the Western Riverside County National Wildlife Refuge.

Establishing clear Clean Water Act permit limits for the discharge from PFAS chemicals.

And prohibiting industrial dischargers from secretly using our network of sewers as dumping grounds for these harmful and persistent chemicals.

I look forward to hearing further discussion of these amendments from the various sponsors. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for offering these amendments to improve the INVEST in America Act, and I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I simply rise again to encourage my colleagues to support amendments en bloc No. 2, and I yield back the balance of my time.