H.Res. 1232

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1232 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Monday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1232, for three measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 8294 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, makes in order 190 amendments, provides en bloc authority, allows the chair the ability to offer up to five pro

forma amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8373 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, self-executes a manager's amendment, and provides one motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8404 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested votes on suspension bills this week and deems passage of House Resolution 1230.

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three important bills--one that is part of the regular process of funding the government for the next year, and two that are emergency measures to respond to the ongoing assault by an extremist rightwing minority against Americans' individual rights and liberties.

The first bill is a package of bills called the minibus. This package of six annual appropriations bills provides funding for the Federal Government for the next fiscal year for a wide array of important government programs: Food and farming, transportation, housing, conservation and environmental protection, veterans programs, community development, and general operations of the Federal Government.

Thanks to the strong leadership of House Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations, today's bill makes major investments to meet the needs of Americans at this difficult point in time. When we talk about these huge budget bills each year, it can be overwhelming, so let's look at some concrete examples of how these bills are going to benefit our country.

This budget bill will increase funding for veterans' healthcare by $20 billion, helping the VA to meet the health needs of our Nation's veterans. In addition to funding traditional health services for veterans, this bill will expand mental healthcare, including suicide prevention, improve women's healthcare, homeless assistance programs, substance use disorder programs, and invest in medical research to address veterans' unique health needs.

With the lack of affordable housing being one of the major issues impacting our communities across this country, this bill will increase funding for housing by $9 billion and provide 140,000 more families and seniors with stable, affordable housing. It will get lead and radon out of public housing units and incentivize the construction of thousands of new units of affordable housing.

This bill will provide a $7 billion boost for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, which is funding for our national parks, our land and water conservation programs, and for enhanced enforcement of our environmental protection laws so that Americans of all ages and backgrounds--and our children--can have clean air to breathe and water to drink, and enjoy the natural wonders that our amazing country has to offer.

This bill provides a $2 billion increase for programs that support public health, rural development, and fight hunger. Vital funding for SNAP and WIC will increase access to healthy foods for the 40 million Americans who rely upon our Nation's antihunger programs, improving their health and lowering the cost of living for those in need.

Funding for the FDA under this title will improve the safety and availability of baby formula. It will strengthen oversight of our food and drug safety laws and support supply chains for critical drugs and medical devices.

Funding for rural development will provide grants and low-cost financing to expand broadband and fix water infrastructure in rural communities, promoting community and economic development.

The bill also provides an additional $4 billion in funding for government operations so that our Federal agencies can do the work that we all rely upon. Among other things, this boost will help the IRS improve its processing times and provide more taxpayers with help when filing. A stronger IRS will also be able to better enforce our tax laws to make sure that billionaires and large corporations pay their fair share.

This funding will more than triple the Election Security Grants program which provides funding to the States to secure our Federal elections by purchasing new technology and keeping ahead of bad actors who try to attack our elections. This funding has helped to make the U.S. elections so secure that anyone who says the 2020 election was stolen is either a liar or a fool.

This funding will encourage economic development by funding the Small Business Administration's lending programs and the Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions. Combined, these programs are often the main source of financing for minority and women-owned small businesses, many of which are increasingly leading the way in creating jobs and economic opportunities.

The minibus also makes major investments in our servicemembers by increasing funding for housing and childcare on military installations.

This funding will provide more childcare services for the 1.2 million children of Active-Duty servicemembers, as well as the ability to construct and remediate thousands of substandard units of military family housing.

Finally, this year's appropriations bills build on last year's successes with community project funding, which allows Members of Congress to better represent their districts and exercise Congress' responsibility to direct Federal spending, rather than delegating it.

Community project funding allows Members to support smart, high- impact investments in their districts in a way that is transparent and ethically sound. I thank the Appropriations Committee for their work to responsibly reinstate this opportunity.

Because of these rule changes, I have been able to bring millions of dollars back to my district for a variety of locally backed efforts ranging from mental health programs to community centers to workforce development. This year, I am proud to have secured funding for 15 projects totaling $20 million for Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, obviously, I could keep going on about the amazing things that this bill will do, but all together the minibus is a strong investment in our country that will help working families, small businesses, and local communities, as well as helping to fight inflation, create jobs, and support economic development.

Funding the government is Congress' primary responsibility. It is right there in the beginning lines of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, that Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

With the consideration of these six appropriations bills this week, and the other six later this month, House Democrats are meeting their responsibility to the American people by passing a budget on time.

I say House Democrats because I am concerned that my Republican colleagues may follow their recent practice of refusing to work in a bipartisan manner to fund the government or to solve problems for the American people, and then voting against this bill when it comes to the floor.

Of course, over in the 50-50 Senate, where 10 Republican votes are needed to pass a budget bill, the Senators have not even begun consideration of any appropriations packages. Just like last year, House Democrats are passing funding bills on time while Republicans in the Senate are holding up the process for months by slow-walking negotiations and refusing to compromise.

Last year, this obstructive behavior by Senate Republicans meant that Congress didn't pass its 2022 budget until we were halfway through that year. That meant by the time the Federal Government received its 2022 funding, it only had 6 months left to use it. That is irresponsible. That is not good business, and it is not sound government.

At every turn, the filibuster and stonewalling by Republican Senators squash every single legislative initiative that comes their way.

Madam Speaker, this rule also brings two other critically important bills to the floor. Today's rule also provides for consideration of the Right to Contraception Act, a bill that would codify fundamental privacy rights relating to purchasing, using, and providing contraception; and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the right to same-sex marriage in Federal law.

These are two basic freedoms that the overwhelming majority of Americans support, and that most Americans are surprised to learn are now under threat from an extremist rightwing minority in our Supreme Court and many Republican State legislatures across the country.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, we immediately saw a number of States implement or try to pass abortion bans. The practical and tragic consequences of those decisions are growing every day with women and girls unable to get the healthcare they need, whether it is a 10-year- old rape victim in Ohio being denied medical care in her home State or a women with an ectopic pregnancy in Missouri whose healthcare providers are withholding what is standard medical care because they fear prosecution under these laws.

These tragic stories will continue, and they will get worse. This is the world we live in in the aftermath of the extremist Dobbs decision. But the impact of the Dobbs decision does not end with abortion care. The extremist rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path. They have shown us the harsh reality of judicial review--no objectivity, no textualism or originalism, this is just politics by other means.

The majority in Dobbs and others who hold this minority view are pushing a rightwing agenda that can be summed up as this: for all their talk about States' rights and individual freedoms, the rightwing majority is going to uphold the rights they support and take away the rights they oppose.

The two bills we consider today respond to the immediate threat articulated by Justice Thomas in his concurrence in the Dobbs decision--that he wants to overturn decisions that protect rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, et cetera. It is not just Justice Thomas, Justice Alito has joined him in similar concurrences; and, of course, he wrote the majority decision in Dobbs.

Rightwing legislators and Members of Congress are saying exactly what they want to do and introducing bills to do exactly this--to undermine the right to contraception and to undermine the right to same-sex marriage. These are not hypotheticals but very real threats.

In response to this insanity, the House must vote this week on the Right to Contraception Act and the Respect for Marriage Act. The Right to Contraception Act would prohibit States from banning or restricting possession, sale, purchase, transportation, use, prescription of contraception, including birth control, IUDs, condoms, and other products that aid in family planning.

The Respect for Marriage Act will codify the current law of the land and protect the thousands of same-sex marriages and families across this country, who are now justifiably afraid that their families are under attack. I can't tell you how many constituents, colleagues, friends, and their children that I am hearing from in the wake of this decision and in the wake of Justice Thomas' explicit threat.

Both of these bills will protect rights enjoyed by Americans that are now being threatened by the Supreme Court minority view and their co- conspirators in the Republican Party. I am glad we are bringing these bills up for a vote so we can see who is going to vote for them and who is going to vote against them.

I am confident that House Democrats will provide the votes necessary to pass the bills. It is time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms, or will they vote to let States take those freedoms away?

Today we will find out. Then we will see what our colleagues in the Senate will do. We are going to put these bills up for a vote, and the public can see, on the record, how their Representatives and Senators respond. At least everyone will know where their elected officials stand.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, these appropriations bills are not going to make inflation worse. It is a bad-faith argument. Inflation is bad. It is

eating away at family paychecks not just here in America but all across the globe.

My colleague cited the recent inflation figures here in the U.S.-- they are worse overseas. The economic shocks in supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and then exacerbated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine are hitting hard--yes, here at home and all across the world. There are things that we are doing to bring those prices down, and economic indicators show that prices are starting to come down. It doesn't deny the real pain that we are all feeling right now.

Second, which spending would he have eliminated? Would it have been the funding to develop vaccines and therapeutics? Maybe the funding to keep people in their homes during the pandemic? Would it be the funding that supported small businesses over the last several years, or maybe it is just the paycheck protection funding?

I think it is a hollow argument, and I think it is also worth noting that we are not seeing any alternative solutions.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so happy that my colleagues are rising to condemn political violence, but I find it disingenuous and maybe even a little one-sided when they only condemn political violence that they disagree with.

This previous question condemns violence, as my colleague just said, by the radical left but not the radical right. They are conveniently ignoring decades of violence, harassment, and even murder of abortion care providers and harassment of those seeking such care on a daily and weekly basis.

Why are they surprised by this political violence on this topic when this is a model that the anti-abortion forces have utilized for decades?

Also, on a more practical note, I am stunned that my colleague is seeking to reduce funding for the IRS. Any responsible Member of Congress who prioritizes constituent services knows that we receive hundreds and hundreds of calls every year, particularly in recent years, from people who are struggling to get a response from the IRS, who are struggling to get their much-needed tax refund, and who are struggling to get payments or straighten out difficulties. Why is that? It is because the IRS has been underfunded for decades.

The IRS is facing a crisis with retirements and with the inability to attract talent given the tight labor market. We need to fund the IRS again so that billionaires and large corporations pay their fair share.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I know we are running short on time, but I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Today's rule is a testament to the hard work and leadership of the Appropriations Committee led by Chairwoman DeLauro. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and their staff to prepare legislation that meets the needs of everyday Americans; to grow our economy from the bottom up and the middle out, rather than relying, once again, on the failed trickle-down economics of the last 50 years.

Given the draconian consequences of failing to pass a budget, I encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to move quickly in negotiating a final budget bill so we can fund the government on time. It is the responsible thing to do.

We cannot afford to govern from CR to CR, or to pass a budget bill halfway through the fiscal year.

And I am also incredibly grateful to my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee for stepping up to present legislation to protect fundamental American freedoms that have been placed at risk by the rightwing majority of the Supreme Court in overturning Roe v. Wade.

I urge all of my colleagues to protect the right to contraception with the act of that name, and to repeal the statutory ban on same-sex marriage by approving the Respect for Marriage Act in its floor consideration.

At a time when Americans' rights are under attack by a well-funded, extremist minority which has seized control of the Supreme Court and some State legislatures, it is more important than ever for elected Members of Congress to use their legislative powers to protect and expand Americans' personal and fundamental freedoms.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1232

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 1233) expressing the sense of the House

of Representatives condemning the recent attacks on prolife

facilities, groups, and churches. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without

intervening motion or demand for division of the question

except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 1233.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8294.

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

Over this last year, Congress began to restore our investments after the years of disinvestment that working families, the middle class, and vulnerable people believe was wrong. Spending has favored the biggest corporations and special interests, which got heard first in Washington. But hardworking Americans are still paying high taxes and have not seen a pay increase in years.

The spike in the cost of living, gas prices, and rent are blows to so many. That has guided our priorities, and it has guided these bills.

In the Appropriations Committee, we were determined to put together bills that ensure we offset the rise in prices produced by blocked supply chains, the greed of oil companies, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

H.R. 8294, the package of the six 2023 appropriations bills before us, provides the critical funding America needs. Instead of catering to big corporations and the wealthy, we uphold our commitment with this legislation that helps lower the cost of living, creates American jobs, gives working families a better shot, and supports small businesses. As we do so, we tackle our Nation's and the world's toughest crises.

We reach some of our most vulnerable Americans by funding the programs that keep roofs over the heads of millions and keep food on the tables of millions more. We strengthen nutrition assistance through WIC, food stamps, and child nutrition programs like school meals. We increase access to affordable housing with rental assistance programs and improve the safety and living conditions of those in public housing. We also expand opportunities for families with support for homeownership programs.

These bills help invigorate rural communities as we expand broadband, strengthen water programs in rural areas, and invest in single-family home loans.

We support Native Americans and honor the Federal Government's responsibilities to Native families by investing in strong and resilient Tribal communities, including through housing, education, and healthcare programs.

We also transform the ways we meet the needs of our veterans, who deserve and who have earned our support, including the 9.2 million veterans who rely on the VA for their healthcare, by increasing funding for medical programs. For the first time ever, we put VA medical care into its own funding category so that funding for veterans does not have to compete with other critical programs.

Supporting those who protect us also means protecting servicemembers and their families and communities all over our Nation. We invest in our national security and improve our military readiness through robust investments in critical military installations at home and abroad and in the well-being of our servicemembers and their families.

At the same time, we also make our communities safer by supporting victims while fighting crime, violence, and corruption.

This package strengthens our capacity to work for all Americans. We ensure the IRS has the resources to crack down on big corporations and the wealthy who do not pay their fair share and provide better customer service to families navigating the tax system. We protect consumers with more funding for critical consumer protection agencies by strengthening our food safety

infrastructure, including oversight of the baby formula industry.

We do this while bolstering economic development in distressed communities and strengthening our economy and our economic growth by supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs as they pursue the American Dream. We create jobs and put Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure. We help small businesses grow and thrive, foster the green energy jobs of tomorrow, and support a skilled and growing workforce.

We confront the existential threat of climate change and strengthen our resiliency on various fronts, including by investing in cleaner, safer, and more affordable American energy, advancing climate science, conserving our land and water, expanding environmental enforcement, and embracing stronger environmental justice efforts.

Finally, with inclusion of nearly 2,700 community project funding requests totaling over $6 billion, we are directly meeting the needs of Americans everywhere in ways that will have a profound and lasting impact.

When taken together, this package meets the moment at a time when so many want to see critical changes in our priorities. It reaches every corner of our Nation to give hardworking Americans, the middle class, and the vulnerable a better shot. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

I thank the subcommittee staff, led by our clerks, for all of their work: Christina Monroe with the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Martha Foley with the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Scott McKee with the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Matt Smith with Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee; Rita Culp with the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and Jenny Neuscheler with the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

I also thank all the subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their efforts and their dedication to these efforts. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Pingree is not here today, but I specifically thank her for her work. This bill makes transformative investments in our environment, and this is in large part because of her relentless advocacy.

Madam Chair, I urge support for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

These investments in the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are critical to protecting and supplying communities in every district of our Nation.

Our bill increases funding for regional commissions which promote economic development in economically challenged regions and distressed counties across our country. Our bill will strengthen the foundational components that underpin every aspect of decent life in our Nation and represents a strategic investment in America's future, without question.

Madam Chair, I thank the staff who worked tirelessly to put this bill together: Scott McKee, Brian Smith, Will Ostertag, Daniela Todesco, Eric Lipka, John Howes, and Angie Giancarlo.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would say that Chairman Price, this will be the last time he brings an appropriations bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I think I speak for all of us when I say that his honesty, his integrity, his commitment to the legislative process and making it work for the people, not only in his district but all over the United States, is really pretty extraordinary.

I quote from Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman who was elected to the House of Representatives, when she said that public service is the rent you pay for space on this Earth.

David Price has paid that rent over and over and over again.

Madam Chair, it gives me great pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Transportation, and Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say, I thank the ranking member (Ms. Granger) for her commitment and her dedication to the Appropriations Committee and the process, a place where she has spent a number of years in the various subcommittees, and it is an honor to work with her in this effort.

I applaud the funding bills that help the middle class, working families, and small businesses, in what are desperate times. And that is what these bills do is to provide that kind of assistance to these families. I am proud to support these bills.

I listened to my colleagues about inflation, what they failed to mention, which has been really demonstrated, is that we are looking at oil companies who have consolidated; and what they are doing is buying back their stock, instead of lowering the price of gas.

They now have 26 million acres of Federal land in which they could deal with extraction, and they have the permits, but they refuse to do it. They are in the business of buying back their stock, thereby increasing inflation by keeping gas prices high.

We have the same situation in the meat industry with meat, poultry, and pork, which is continuing to raise the price because of the consolidation.

I would just mention one other thing. In the recommendations to vote ``no'' on this package, it just is interesting to look at what my colleagues view as not wanting to do; that is, to provide an increase for the Internal Revenue Service. Why is that money provided to the IRS? It is really to look at those corporations who are not paying their fair share of taxes.

So they are not much interested in seeing them pay their fair share of taxes, or the wealthiest of individuals who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

They also do not want to provide money for women, infants, and children for food. They don't want to provide money for food security, for people who are on the food stamp program.

They don't want to do anything for domestic manufacturing on clean energy, which could lower the cost of energy. So, there is a bit of disingenuousness on what we are doing with the cost.

I am proud to support these bills. I urge my colleagues to support the six-bill appropriations package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chairwoman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

While I have offered this en bloc amendment for the purposes of legislative efficiency, I strongly oppose it. This en bloc amendment makes severe and harmful cuts to the minibus.

The draconian cuts are indiscriminate, they are harmful, and they seek to overturn long overdue investments. I urge all Members to oppose this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Service and General Government.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, if my colleagues on the other side were so interested in really reducing inflation, I would hope that they would be supportive of the child tax credit, which none of them have supported, which, in fact, the majority of the people using the child tax credit are dealing with food, with clothing, with school supplies, with rent, but all of these expenses have gone up, and the money has run out.

They can't find their way clear to support a child tax credit, and that

lack of action from the Congress to renew the child tax credit is trouble, it is big trouble for these families, especially as the costs of life continue to swell due to inflation.

Let's look at the cost of inflation and why we have inflation and take a look at what the oil companies are doing with price gouging. What we ought to do is to do a windfall profits tax on people who are making money hand over fist and refuse to lower the price of gasoline at the pump because they are buying back stock to take care of themselves and their stakeholders.

That is a portion of what is causing inflation and the rise in the cost of living. If you were genuine about that, you would look at these matters as well as just talking about inflation and not looking at the root causes of it today.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 45 seconds. The en bloc amendment includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic and Republican colleagues. I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chair of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 45 seconds.

The amendments en bloc includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic colleagues. It reflects our shared values of investing in the American people to create good-paying jobs, grow opportunity, and provide a lifeline to the vulnerable.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

I oppose these amendments en bloc. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. What does the Davis-Bacon Act do? It protects the government as well as workers in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction to which the Federal Government is a party, in excess of $2,000, contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics.

The House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. We should not be attacking working-class people, men and women who work every single day for a decent paycheck, and their wages haven't been increased with the cost of inflation. We should defeat the amendment before us today, and we should move on to more important matters.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies for appropriations.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just remind my colleagues, this body has rejected this amendment on a bipartisan basis time and time again.

Speaking about inflation, we know that wages have not kept up with inflation, and working people are struggling, living paycheck to paycheck. Why are we dealing with an amendment that would try to curtail wages and prevailing wages for workers every day who go on a job and put forth all of their efforts to be able to get a decent wage to take care of their children, to be able to deal with inflation?

It speaks loudly of my colleagues who refuse to believe that we need to have wages increase to help people fight inflation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, a champion for freedom from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). There is a lot to talk about here today, but I have to comment on what he just led in with and this violence that we supposedly all decry. It is a bit of a double standard, isn't it?

These care pregnancy centers are a vital institution in our country. They are in all 50 States. There are over 2,700 of these centers doing vital work every single day. They help millions of American women every year. They employ and work with over 10,000 medical professionals.

Do you know what their singular goal is?

It is to help women who are in difficult pregnancy situations, to help care for their unborn children. Who in the world could be opposed to that?

You know what?

Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke for a lot of our colleagues on the other side last week. She came out and shrieked they needed to be put out of business in her State. They needed to get rid of these centers. It is just incredible.

In the debate on the rule here on this floor in the last couple of hours, I went down the litany of all those 50 occurrences--at least the ones we know about, and there are more--where violence has been perpetrated against these centers--these people who are doing extraordinary work down in the trenches to help their fellow man.

I ran out of time, I could not list all of them and all of the vandalism and the destruction and the Molotov cocktails and the hatred that is spray-painted on the sides of these facilities that are funded, by the way, by churches and nonprofits and individuals who care about the sanctity of every single human life in America. Yet, there is just complete silence on the other side. That is a really sad statement about where we are.

I used to be legal counsel for a number of those care pregnancy centers, so I speak to this with personal experience.

Let me get to the issue of the day. This bill is just another superfluous exercise. This bill is completely and clearly unnecessary.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The sponsors of this bill know that. They

know that we are in a very divisive time in the country, and they are doing this anyway.

This bill is not only unnecessary; it is more of the same. It is yet another effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court. As Mr. Jordan explained, they have been doing that in earnest. Senator Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme Court and infamously called down the whirlwind on Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. By the way, it led to a planned assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, all the lawless protests on their lawns, threatening their children, and doxing the addresses of Supreme Court Justices' children. It is just unconscionable. It is against the law, the plain letter of the law, yet crickets from the other side.

They want to delegitimize the Court. They tried to pack it. They want to put four liberal Justices on the Court because they are concerned about the conservative majority right now. It is a lawless approach and a lawless response to the lawlessness of the radical left. So, this is another effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

It is also a continued disregard, an utter and total disregard, for the regular order in this body. I will explain in just a moment why that is so perilous in a situation like this with a bill like this.

It is also more desperation to focus on anything other than their policy failures, which Mr. Jordan articulated here a few moments ago.

Nonetheless, there is this bill before us today. Clearly, it is about simple fear-mongering. This is a partisan bill to make partisan arguments and to run ads in an election cycle. Do you know why we say that, Mr. Speaker? Because, as Mr. Jordan said, in the Dobbs opinion, which supposedly precipitated all this, it is clear if you read the opinion that this is not only an unnecessary piece of legislation, but it is divisive and misleading, and they know it. Because why? Anybody can read the opinion for themselves. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, of course, and he clarified it.

I am a constitutional law attorney. I used to litigate cases about the Constitution, what it means, and how it should be applied. I did that for 20 years before I got to Congress. Scarcely is there ever language this clear written in a Supreme Court opinion.

Let me give you the quote again, Mr. Speaker, in case anybody missed it, in case you didn't see it or you didn't want to see it. Justice Alito said in the majority opinion: ``And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.'' He continues: ``Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

Does everybody hear that? I will say that again: ``Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because abortion is a unique area of the law. Abortion is about taking the life of another unborn person, another person, so the Court recognized that this is different and distinct, and everybody knows that. Everybody recognizes that, even Justice Clarence Thomas, whom they have worked so hard to demonize.

If you look at page 119 of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, you can see it for yourself. Justice Thomas said: ``The Court's abortion cases are unique . . . and no party has asked us to decide `whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised' . . . Thus, I agree that''--and he quotes Justice Alito--nothing in the Court's opinion ``'should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.'''

That language is so clear. Anybody in this country can read that and understand obviously and plainly what that means, every civics student, every child. But, apparently, our friends on the other side don't like that language, or they don't want to see it, so they have manufactured this crisis, this demeaning and divisive debate, trying to reopen Pandora's box that no one has opened except the Democrats.

This is crystal clear. We ought to take a moment to remember, too, what did not happen after the Obergefell ruling that did happen after the Dobbs ruling. Did anybody harass Justice Kennedy at his home after Obergefell was handed down? No. Did conservatives--those who adhere to the Judeo-Christian heritage of the country, Evangelicals, and Catholics--did anybody vandalize businesses to promote their own viewpoints? Absolutely not. Did Republicans call to abolish the filibuster and add Justices to the Court? No, because we respect the institutions of this Nation.

But that is exactly what we are seeing from the left: a death threat on a Justice, endless protests outside the homes of the Justices, threats on their children, and threats to pack the Court.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an extraordinarily divided time, and reopening this policy, which is under no threat of any legislative or judicial body anywhere, seems more like an attempt by Democrats to stoke fear before the November elections rather than bringing the country together.

Mr. Speaker, we could use an effort to bring the country together right now. To that end, since the Democrats refuse to discuss what Americans are most concerned with, I will take just a moment, since we have the moment here, to walk through the failures of the Democrat policies. It is a quick summary. I won't take long on it.

I have been doing townhalls back in my State of Louisiana, and I can tell you what the people are concerned about, Mr. Speaker.

They are concerned about soaring prices in the grocery store, at the gas pump, and their mortgages.

They are concerned about uninhibited illegal immigration at the border and the utter lawlessness that threatens the very sovereignty, safety, and security of our country.

They are deeply concerned about rising crime in our cities.

They are concerned about the stunning incompetence at the most basic functions of government from the Biden administration.

These are what I am hearing back home as I travel the district holding townhalls and talking to constituents. Those constituents sent us here--the voters, the people--to be their Representatives and to work on their behalf, to work on behalf of them and their ability to provide for their families with little government overreach into their lives.

From economic failures at home to failures on the border, the Democrats have time and time again refused to work with Republicans on how to address the issues at hand. Today is just another example. It is just more of the same. Here we go, from one vote on an unnecessary bill that is only being used as a distraction from those failures that I referenced to a vote on a spending bill that will only make those failures worse.

I mentioned that part of the problem here, too, is the Democrats are rushing this bill to the floor outside regular order. They just completely defied regular order. They released the text for this bill only hours before its consideration in the Rules Committee last night. Democrats have held no legislative hearing and no markups on this bill.

We serve on the Judiciary Committee. This would have been within our jurisdiction. They didn't bother to bring it to a committee.

I remember from civics class that they taught us that this is how a bill becomes a law: You go through the process; you go to the committee. We shouldn't even teach that to kids anymore because it doesn't happen here anymore.

But that recklessness, that carelessness, and that defiance of the rules, order, and tradition here have real consequences because one of the consequences in the language of this bill, just one by way of example, is on page 3 of this private right of action clause. It raised a lot of eyebrows. We didn't have time to analyze that, debate it, and thoughtfully talk about that approach. Would that declare open season on religious persons and institutions? I don't know. It is a question a lot of people are asking today, scratching their heads, but, again, we had no opportunity to delve into that, to talk about it, and debate it. Nothing. So, they present this bill, and they drop it on the country.

Again, I just would reiterate, in summary, people back home ask us, there

are lots of problems with things that are going on there, but this particular bill, what is the problem?

I just summarized it by saying that it is unnecessary, divisive, and misleading. What is worse is that the proponents of the legislation know that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have just been treated to a master class of misinformation. The Speaker also just said, ``Can you believe they are going after contraception?''

Give me a break. She knows that is not true. There is not a single Republican even talking about that or any of these other categories of the law. This is designed to divide the country. This bill is a shameful effort at that.

Mr. Nadler, when we were talking about our concerns about the care pregnancy centers being under assault, to make his case that pro-lifers are violent, he referenced the terrible murder of Mr. Slepian, an abortion provider, in 1998. That was a quarter century ago.

We are talking about the last 11 weeks. We have had 50 care pregnancy centers vandalized, attacked with Molotov cocktails, spray-painted, threats being made to Supreme Court Justices. There is no equivocation here at all.

Mr. Cohen implied that the conservative Justices misled the Senate in their confirmation hearings. We have got the receipts on that. It is demonstrably untrue.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs, said during his 2006 confirmation that Roe was `` . . . an important precedent of the Supreme Court.''

``It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time.''

But he declined to call the ruling ``settled law.''

Justice Thomas, in 1991 in his hearings, he declined to comment on his views on Roe at all. He said, ``I do not think that at this time that I could maintain my impartiality as a member of the Judiciary and comment on that specific case.''

Justice Gorsuch, 2017 confirmation hearings, he said Roe was `` . . . a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases.''

``So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.''

However, he refused to signal how he would rule in future cases on abortion.

Justice Kavanaugh, 2018 confirmation hearings, echoed Gorsuch by saying that Roe was an ``important precedent,'' but he indicated during his confirmation that he would be open to overturning ``settled law,'' including

Roe, citing a long list of past Supreme Court cases.

Justice Barrett, she was much more reserved on the Roe precedent.

Mr. Speaker, in her confirmation hearings in 2020, she said she was committed to obeying ``all the rules of stare decisis,'' promising that ``if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the Court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors.'' ``I promise to do that for any issue that comes up.''

She said that she had to remain neutral on it as an umpire, as they all did.

The record is clear. The quotes are there. Anybody can Google this. What they are presenting here on this floor is not true. It is demonstrably untrue, and they are doing it for partisan purposes. Every time they talk, they reaffirm our position on that.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from my home State of Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order three pieces of legislation, including H.R. 8294, a bill to fund 6 of the 12 appropriations bills.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want to just say I am extremely grateful to Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman DeLauro for all the hard work that they put in, and also the committee staff. I know a lot of effort went into this legislation.

Unfortunately, the product before us was flawed from the very start. House Democrats drastically underfunded our national defense while providing major increases to the same social programs that have already received trillions of dollars in funding under the Biden administration.

It is clear that the Democrats' out-of-control spending has been the key driver to inflation. Don't take my word for it. Larry Summers, former economic adviser to President Biden, went so far as to call the American Rescue Plan ``the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had in the last 40 years.'' Again, that was Larry Summers, Democrat adviser to the President.

You know what? He was right. Last month, inflation hit 9.1 percent. That is the highest inflation rate in my lifetime. It is the highest inflation rate since 1981.

President Biden's inflation crisis has cost the American worker over $3,000 in annual income, and the skyrocketing cost of goods and services will cost the average American family over $6,000. That is what is so nefarious about inflation, it hits the working class and those on a fixed income the hardest.

Yet, the Big Government Democrats with their reckless spending policies have these six bills before us today included in the package. The six bills included in today's package received a total increase of 11 percent over the previous fiscal year with some accounts, like the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Personnel Management, receiving double-digit and triple-digit percentage increases, which will, of course, fuel additional inflation.

Keep in mind, the Defense appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations Committee had just a 4.4 percent increase. Additionally, instead of addressing record-high gas prices, Democrats are pushing this partisan Green New Deal initiative that will only worsen Biden's energy crisis.

Under this measure, offshore oil and gas activities are restricted and oil and gas inspection fees are increased. This is just going to drive up the cost of energy for working families.

H.R. 8294 also includes numerous far-left, radical, liberal policies like allowing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, and keeping our critical and strategic minerals in the ground. Alarmingly, it includes provisions that threaten our national security, including allowing for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. It also fails to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and complex, and provides incentives for illegal immigration.

Further, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8373, which goes far beyond supporting access to contraception. Let me just be clear about this point. Not a single State in the Union, not a single general assembly in any State is debating considering making contraception illegal.

This poorly drafted bill has extreme provisions that could harm the health of women, send taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, and force people to violate their religious and sincerely held beliefs.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania asked me which programs I would cut funding from as if this were some kind of checkmate in floor debate. It is not because the answer is very obvious. I have an extensive list of where I would cut.

Just for starters, let's look at some of the increases in the appropriations package and, of course, where I would cut.

We have a 20 percent increase for the Environmental Protection Agency. That could be cut.

We have a $1 billion increase for the Internal Revenue Service. That could be cut right there.

There is a 30 percent increase for the Federal Trade Commission. That could be cut. Don't take my word for it. Not one but two of the Commissioners of the FTC said that they don't even need this increase. There is money that you could cut right there, Madam Speaker.

There is a 12 percent increase to maintain and improve Federal buildings. I don't know if anybody across the aisle has been paying attention, but most of the people in these Federal buildings have been working remotely from home for the last 2 years. Yet, we need to increase funding to Federal buildings that are literally sitting empty as people work from home?

Then, we have a lot of bad ideas regarding climate. $100 million is provided for the President's proposal to use the Defense Production Act authorities to accelerate domestic manufacturing of select clean energy technologies. That can be cut.

While we are talking about the shift to clean energy technologies, let's just be honest about who benefits from this. It is China because they are the ones who are selling the rare earth elements that are going into things like solar panels. By the way, they are bringing more nuclear power plants online and more coal-fired plants online while we hamstring our economy and our energy sector with these absurd climate change proposals.

I have more, actually, but for the sake of time and brevity, I will save them for later if the issue comes up.

Additionally, this notion that inflation is a worldwide issue, I am not sure when they stopped teaching economics in school, but we are the world's largest GDP. If we have inflation, then the world has inflation because we literally export it. That is just how economics works.

To blame Ukraine, Ukraine might play a part in this, but who is to blame for Ukraine? It is President Biden. It was the weakness and vacillation--his surrender in Afghanistan--that emboldened Putin. It was the vacillation. It was the ``minor incursion'' comment that he had that gave Vladimir Putin the green light to invade. Had he just been more resolute in our national security, then we could have deterred this invasion. So, he owns Ukraine, as well.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina brought up Dobbs. I want to quote the actual decision because I think a lot of the points in Dobbs were taken out of context. The Court made it clear in that decision that the decision on abortion should ``not be misunderstood or mischaracterized . . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

The Court went out of its way to state that they are not concerned about contraception, despite the gentlewoman from North Carolina saying otherwise.

But let's go back to Dobbs. Since the point of the leak of the Dobbs draft Supreme Court decision, there have been 70 violent attacks and threats on churches, pregnancy centers, and pro-life organizations.

These attacks consist of vandalism. They consist of destruction of property, arson, and even included protesters breaching the Arizona State Capitol, forcing legislators to evacuate.

Radical pro-abortion groups have proudly declared ``open season'' on pro-life pregnancy centers while these organizations are providing critical resources to pregnant women, infants, and families.

Republicans want to protect public safety. We want to ensure pro-life organizations can continue helping women and babies in need. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H. Res. 1233, a resolution affirming the importance of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, condemning the violent attacks by far-left extremist groups, and calling upon the Biden administration to use all law enforcement authorities to uphold public safety and protect the rights of pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson). The vice chairman of the Republican Conference and sponsor of the resolution is here to explain the amendment.

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

There was an--I don't know if you want to call it an allegation--an insinuation that the only time I speak to condemn violence is when it is violence that I don't agree with.

I want to be clear about something. I condemn all acts of political violence. I have been very consistent on that; so have my colleagues across the aisle.

Great example: The first time I ever spoke here on the House floor was in support of a resolution rejecting white supremacy, and I talked at length at that time of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting that occurred in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania.

As you know, I am from the South Hills of Pittsburgh. I have a lot of friends that actually attend that synagogue. And again, the first time I spoke on the House floor was to condemn violence.

So I just want the Record to reflect my consistency on this issue and the consistency of my colleagues.

I wish my friends on the left would condemn violence that the left has done. It seems that they cherry-pick their own outrage.

But let's just get back to economics. Again, there was this notion floated that inflation is not as bad here as it is internationally, and this is a global problem. Again, it is a global problem because we are the world's largest GDP. We are exporting inflation.

But even with that said, inflation is far worse here than it is in the developed world. Our inflation, by reference, is 9.1 percent. Japan is at 2.4 percent. The U.K. is at 9.1 percent; they are the same as we are. Italy is at 8 percent; Canada, 7.7 percent; France, 5.8 percent.

Again, all those countries I listed, those nations in the developed world have inflation that is lower than where we are, with the exception of the U.K., which is the same. In Brazil--I should say this about Brazil. It is at 11.9 percent in Brazil.

So this idea that everybody is experiencing inflation, and that we have it easier, is just not accurate when you look at the numbers.

Now, I gave a list of what I would cut from the budget. It wasn't an exhaustive list, and neither is this, but I just want to give a few more examples.

$75 million is allocated for public housing, energy efficiency and climate resilience upgrades. That could be cut. There is 75 million right there.

Funding for the FDA--and let's not forget, the FDA was the agency that failed to prevent the infant formula crisis. The Democrats are rewarding the FDA with a 10 percent increase. That can be cut.

And what is so insulting about a 10 percent increase to the FDA is, at the same time Democrats want to increase the funding to the FDA-- again, the agency that led to the baby formula shortage--you have farmers and ranchers that are struggling to make ends meet and to actually harvest food because of the rising food costs and fertilizer costs, and there is no increase to them.

And I think one of the most outrageous items that can be cut is the $90 million that is going to The Presidio park, a park that is in an incredibly affluent area of San Francisco, arguably, one of the wealthiest areas in the entire United States. Yet, that park is getting $90 million, when those around that park can fund it.

And again, what is so insulting about this is we are not even giving allocations to places like Yellowstone and Yosemite that are actually national parks. So those are just some of the areas I would cut.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Since Democrats jammed through their $1.9 trillion stimulus bill last year, inflation is at an over 40-year high; the value of American paychecks has also fallen; and families are paying more for just about everything.

Yet, the rule before us makes in order a funding package that provides double-digit and triple-digit increases for nondefense programs that will further fuel Biden's inflation crisis.

And by the way, while this bill is providing double-digit and triple- digit increases for nondefense programs, the defense budget has only increased 4.4 percent. That is appalling.

H.R. 8294 also is packed with far-left liberal wish list items like taxpayer-funded abortion, rather than policies that will address Biden's economic crisis and fix our supply chains, secure our border, and invest in national security, and bring down gas and electricity costs through domestic energy production.

Clearly, the Democrats' spending and policy priorities are out of touch with everyday Americans. And that is just not me saying that. According to a poll, a shocking 75 percent of Americans are experiencing hardship because of Joe Biden and House Democrats' inflation crisis. And the majority of Americans expect the economy to get worse this year.

This bill, like the Democratic Party, is tone-deaf and out of touch.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for those kind and generous words. And I do rise in strong support of this critical legislation. As chairman of the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, or T-HUD as we call it, I first thank my partner and ranking member, Mario Diaz- Balart, for his cooperative and collaborative relationship this year and for many years prior, including when our roles were reversed.

Madam Chair, the bipartisan work we do in assembling our subcommittee bills reflects an earlier era when the Appropriations Committee presented a united front throughout the process. That era, regrettably, has passed, but the cooperative work remains at the subcommittee level. What we have done has made this a better bill, and hopefully will help us achieve agreement eventually and finalize T-HUD and other bills.

Division A of the bill, the T-HUD section, represents our continued commitment to upgrading our aging transportation infrastructure, addressing our Nation's affordable housing and homelessness crises, bolstering our resiliency in the face of climate change and natural disasters, remedying inequities and disparities in our housing and transportation systems, and prioritizing safety--whether that is eliminating hazards in public housing or improving the certification of aircraft.

Overall, the bill includes $90.9 billion in discretionary funding; that is an increase of $9.85 billion over the current year.

The bill also provides $77.6 billion to fully fund programs that utilize the Highway Trust Fund as part of last year's historic and bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

For housing, we continue to ensure housing stability for five million people by fully renewing all Housing Choice Vouchers and meeting the renewal needs of public housing, homeless assistance grants, and several other initiatives. This is coupled with new investments, including more than 140,000 new tenant-based vouchers for low-income families and people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, over 5,600 new affordable housing units for seniors and people with disabilities, and more than 6,700 new vouchers for veterans experiencing homelessness and youth aging out of foster care.

The bill also provides an 8 percent increase for the HOME program, an 11 percent increase for NeighborWorks programs, and a historic 29 percent increase for Choice Neighborhoods, a program that, like housing for the elderly and for people with disabilities, our subcommittee has brought back into production after they were on life support.

I was able to see some of these life-changing investments firsthand in my own State in Winston-Salem, where I toured a Choice Neighborhood with my colleague, Kathy Manning. And there are more to come.

Importantly, the bill provides, for the first time, a major investment in our Nation's manufactured housing, by providing $500 million for a new program to preserve and revitalize this essential form of housing that has been too long overlooked. Many of these communities have faced significant infrastructure and resiliency challenges. This bill recognizes the opportunities that will come from direct investments in manufactured housing, a portion of our housing stock that provides for over 20 million people.

On the transportation side, the bill upholds the commitment to respond to transportation needs across all modes: highways, transit, rail, aviation, bike and pedestrian projects, and ports. It invests in the safety and reliability of our passenger and freight rail systems, including a combined $1.2 billion for the CRISI program and the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail. That has been and remains a signature emphasis of our subcommittee.

I am particularly proud of this aspect of the bill as we build out the Raleigh to Richmond corridor, the next step in the Southeast Corridor from Washington to Charlotte and eventually Atlanta. These regional corridors represent the future of passenger rail in this country, and they are critical to reducing congestion and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also provides robust funding for our transit infrastructure, including $3 billion for Capital Investment Grants, or New Starts, to create new transit routes nationwide, and $646 million for Transit Infrastructure Grants to help transit agencies innovate and improve public transit.

Madam Chair, before closing, I, too, thank our staff for their immeasurable contributions to this bill and for guiding the Members and staff on both sides of the aisle through this process.

Starting with our wonderful chief clerk, Christina Monroe, as well as Josephine Eckert, Winnie Chang, Xavier Arriaga, Samhita Subramanian, and Rachel Keyes, along with Leigh Whittaker on my personal staff, and Doug Disrud on the minority side.

Since this is my last time presenting the T-HUD bill, I also want to mention all of the staff who helped me and my colleagues through the subcommittee process since I took on the ranking member and eventually the chairman's role. That includes three previous clerks: Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlisle, Matt Washington; and it includes Angela Ohm, Sarah Puro, Becky Salay, Jenny Neuscheler, and Gladys Barcena at the subcommittee, as well as Laura Thrift, Kate Roetzer, Sean Maxwell, and Nora Blalock from my own staff. A hearty thanks to all of you.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this year's T-HUD will make forward-looking investments in our housing and transportation infrastructure while bolstering safety and uplifting vulnerable populations. It will benefit communities across America and lay a strong foundation for economic growth and resiliency.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to sit up and take notice of this. This is quite an amendment--quite a radical amendment.

It indiscriminately would cut a total of 36 percent from programs in Transportation and Housing without any regard for the merits of the programs, just indiscriminate whacking away.

This is only in the T-HUD section of the bill, and I will limit myself to that. I can't imagine that Members would dream of supporting this amendment.

Investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure will stall. Jobs will be lost. Some of our most vulnerable people, including veterans, children, will be harmed.

This amendment will result in a reduction--I want to stress--in the very programs Republicans profess to support. Let me give you some good examples.

The FAA's Contract Tower Program that enjoyed strong bipartisan support, critical to air safety--whacked away.

NeighborWorks, which supports local solutions to expand affordable housing, increased housing counseling assistance, and strengthens economic development. We increase NeighborWorks under bipartisan urging--slashed.

Community Project Funding. Republicans and Democrats alike have requested these appropriations to address transportation and housing challenges in their local communities. Believe me: If we don't do it, no one will. Those would be drastically cut.

Port infrastructure, another Republican emphasis--cut.

The amendment would even cut the small amount of defense spending included in the T-HUD section of the bill: That would be directed to critical maritime security programs.

Here is what else this amendment would mean the eviction of tens of thousands of low-income households, half of which are elderly or disabled, a growing backlog of roof, elevator, and other critical health and safety repairs to public housing; thousands of homeless veterans, survivors of domestic violence, youth out on the street; and a halt in the production of affordable housing, which already is in short supply.

Roads, bridges, aviation, transit, rail, and port systems across rural and urban communities--having their repair and upkeep halted or slowed, becoming less safe.

The bill before us helps us make progress in rebuilding and restoring our infrastructure. This amendment would take us backward.

It is strange, isn't it, that deficits only seem to matter when it comes to helping people keep a safe roof over their heads and creating a more resilient infrastructure that can withstand the next tornado or earthquake or flood, something every one of our districts benefits from.

This isn't just a run-of-the-mill amendment. I suggest that Members look carefully at what is in it and what it would do and what kind of totally justified criticism they will be subject to if this amendment even comes close to passing. I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. It seeks to waive longstanding prevailing wage requirements that are contained in the Davis-Bacon Act.

This act ensures that workers are paid decent wages while preventing contractors from undercutting competitors by offering wages or setting wages below prevailing levels.

Davis-Bacon helps protect workers. It helps protect the government. Davis-Bacon applies government-wide, but it does particularly apply to the T-HUD sections of the bill. Hence, I strongly oppose it.

I often noted immodestly over these last years when everybody was talking infrastructure--and ``Infrastructure Week'' almost became a punch line--that while everybody else was talking about it, we were doing it. We were doing it on the T-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and in the Congress, year after year, plugging away at our infrastructure needs.

And that is what we have done. We have actually made investments in the annual T-HUD bill, and these investments are practically synonymous with construction. That is what they are about. Construction. Construction workers.

There are countless transportation formula and competitive grant programs, as well as affordable housing programs in the bill that follow Davis-Bacon requirements--have done so happily and productively over many years--and they would suddenly face new standards.

Davis-Bacon has helped construction workers in all trades all throughout the Nation since 1931, and there is no need to abandon it now--although Republicans have been trying to abandon it for a good number of those years.

Instead of actively trying to reduce wages, we should be working to lift up workers and increase wages. The Congress has rejected similar amendments in the past because there is a strong bipartisan support in this body for fair labor standards for construction contracts.

So it is my hope that we stop disrespecting working people. Stop disrespecting working people. Stand up for working people. Defeat this amendment before us today.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose the en bloc amendment.