Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-Aid Highways, Highway Safety Programs, and Transit Programs, and for other purposes; 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 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 Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 508, to provide for further consideration of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act under a structured rule.

The rule makes in order 149 amendments and provides en bloc authority to the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule also allows for consideration of concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of July, and provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not apply for the remainder of the 117th Congress to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020.

Lastly, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 30, 2021.

Madam Speaker, our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes, and our public transportation systems are suffering drastically from reduced ridership during the pandemic. With these challenges comes a great opportunity. Our country can use this unique once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine and rebuild our community in America's transportation systems and build back better.

As a former member of the California Air Resources Board and a former chair of both the State Assembly Transportation Committee and the State Senate Transportation Committee and a former member of the Bay Area's MPO, I have spent my career focused on the transportation sector and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants to help fight against climate change.

In my 30 years of public service, never has the time been more ripe to seize this opportunity to reimagine and reinvest in America's transportation infrastructure.

The INVEST in America Act offers a new approach to Federal transportation policy by emphasizing fixing our existing roads and bridges first and making record investments in passenger rail, public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure, and zero-emission options while creating safer, more connected communities for all Americans. This bill would also help create millions of jobs that cannot be exported.

Thanks to strong Buy American provisions and labor protections, including Davis-Bacon, the work will be fueled by American workers, manufacturing, and ingenuity, with targeted investments in rural and underserved communities.

Madam Speaker, our country badly needs the investments outlined in this bill. Over 40 percent of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. In fact, our roads have a D rating, and American motorists are forced to pay over $1,000 every year in wasted time and fuel as a result of our failure to act.

In my own State, California's infrastructure does not fare any better. We have a C-minus rating overall, with a D rating for roads and a C-minus for bridges and transit, in spite of California voters voting over and over again to tax themselves to invest in our infrastructure.

Not only is the problem of crumbling infrastructure a detriment to our economy, but it is dangerous to public safety. Over 36,000 Americans die on our Nation's roadways every year. The INVEST in America Act directs $343 billion to roads, bridges, and safety programs, with record levels of investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, complete streets planning and smarter road design, and safe routes to schools.

This transformative bill also directs Federal investments in transit and rail and reimagines our national transportation policies. Public transit is essential to everyday living in communities across the country, providing access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and childcare.

Currently, there is a $176 billion transit backlog, and transit ridership, of course, is declining because of COVID-19. These issues, if not addressed, stand to further increase congestion, hamper the economy, worsen air quality, and disproportionately affect underserved communities.

The INVEST in America Act provides $109 billion for transit to create a safe and reliable transit system that ensures every American, including those

in economically disadvantaged and underserved neighborhoods, can get to essential services, as I have said, like jobs, healthcare, and childcare.

Importantly, this effort takes every opportunity to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. Climate change is the defining challenge of our time, and transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions. The INVEST in America Act takes bold steps to build the clean infrastructure and transportation sector of the future by reforming existing programs and launching new initiatives to reduce carbon pollution.

For example, it invests $8.3 billion in highway, transit, and rail projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it holds States accountable for their performance by measuring annual progress.

Moreover, under the Clean Corridors program, a program that I was proud to author, it invests $4 billion in electric vehicle charging and alternative fueling stations. This infrastructure along designated corridors will help reduce range anxiety and help America shift to the next generation of clean vehicles.

To further address climate change and equity, this bill increases funding and incentives for transit-oriented development, ensuring that more Americans have access to walkable and transit-supportive communities, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, improving their quality of life and their ability to be at home with their family.

Finally, this bill invests in safe drinking water infrastructure by replacing dangerous lead piping and treating PFAS in our water supply. It will also help ensure that all families can afford a safe and reliable water supply.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. Now is the time for transformative investments in our transportation systems and our infrastructure to improve our roads, bridges, railways, and transit systems to support American workers, to address equity and environmental justice, and to fight boldly against the climate crisis.

That is why I proudly support the INVEST in America Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing this dialogue respectfully.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a very distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania on his kind observation about my own personal health.

Just in regards to this debate, as somebody who went into the ICU on the first date in the State of California that the Governor of California actually required shelter in place, and I was then put on a ventilator for 4 weeks at the same time that the country was dealing with this pandemic, maybe I have a little unique perspective.

So evidence-based research maybe is in the mind of the beholder. I trust my doctors. I know they are human, and I know evidence-based research is the reason I stand here in front of you, Madam Speaker, by following the doctors.

I think of what the Speaker is doing and what the President is doing, and that is following evidence-based research and statistically protecting Americans. We know if Americans get vaccinated, we know if we are sensitive to distances around us and masking, we still have challenges. And for somebody like myself, who has an underlying health condition, I am particularly sensitive to this. Not everybody is in the same position vis-a-vis their medical risks.

So with all due respect, the debate is always a good one, but from my perspective I wish that people would keep in mind that this pandemic is not done until the evidence-based research indicates that it is done. I know everybody wants to get back to normal. I know I do too, as well, but I would like to be able to enjoy this wonderful existence that we all are allowed to do as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Just briefly on the points that were just brought up. As somebody who represents a county that has four refineries in it, those four refineries produce much of the refined CARB-certified fuel on the West Coast and in California. Also, a county that is headquarters to the second largest energy company in the United States, Chevron, this isn't about ending the fossil fuel industry.

It is about the transition from that energy source to a new, cleaner, renewable, alternative fuel energy source. It is about being independent and being mindful about what our global competitors are doing; what the Chinese are doing to get ahead of us in this energy source.

So with all due respect, as someone who knows the benefit and also the dangers and the opportunities to the fossil fuel industry, as we have experienced it in this country, those four refineries only employ people, as required by State statute, who have graduated from State- approved apprenticeship programs, the best apprenticeship programs in the world. Each one of those jobs have a multiplier of 14. We like those jobs. We want to keep those jobs.

But we want to meet the reductions we have to have to be leaders in this country on climate reductions, and prepare for a future that isn't dependent on the fossil fuel industry; both for our public health, and our environment, and for our economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

A couple of points. I appreciate the attention to the Clean Corridors Program. Again, this is about preparing for the future, from my perspective. This bill prepares for the future, and it prepares American workers to transition to that future and future generations.

On the Clean Corridors Program, Chinese are already doing this. In December, they produced 100,000 new charging and alternative fuel stations to prepare for the future. The Chinese have over a million of these stations. The U.S. has less than 50,000.

So if we want to talk about energy independence, right on. That is what we want to talk about. We want to prepare America for the future, while we protect the planet.

The State of California gets more venture capital for research and renewables and alternative fuels than the other 49 States combined.

Why is that?

Because we are preparing for the future. We want to be competitive, and we want our workforce to continue to be the best in the world when it comes to energy. And we want to compete against the Chinese so that we are ready to capture these new energy sources. And we are doing it.

It is not only good for the environment, it is good for the economy.

And I would say, as a Californian who has been in the middle of this--and I will agree to being a liberal. I was once described as a liberal Republican under former party affiliations. I don't think there is any such thing anymore, probably.

This is about preparing for the future. And mostly it is about preparing our American workforce to continue to be what they have been for so long, the best workforce, the best workers in the world. But you give them the tools to do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

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

I want to thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. I do appreciate his comments about my personal health and also his collegiality.

His comments about being bipartisan, I completely agree with. But compromise requires, from my perspective--and granted, we do have a different perspective about how we get there and who is giving and how much is given.

I really think this bill is an incredibly important bill for the future of America and American workers and innovation.

As far as changing to renewables and alternatives, that electrical system has to be upgraded. We have seen what has happened because of climate change in the Gulf. We see the struggles we have on the West Coast with fires, all because, as evidence-based research tells us, what we have done with the environment and the benefits we have gotten from fossil fuels over the course of the last decades and century.

But now is the time to change and prepare for that change--not mindlessly. This isn't a radical proposal. This is about preparing for the future.

In terms of the infrastructure that gets those new alternative fuels, hydrogen fuel cell cars, battery electric cars, in California, we have acknowledged that we need to get these cars to be available to everyone, including people from disadvantaged communities. That is why we have changed the tax code to make it easier for everyone to get an alternative fuel car, not just wealthy people, and get the benefits of that.

I want to read a quote from Forbes magazine about infrastructure and electric cars: ``These vehicles use a different kind of fuel and plug into our electricity system, and the good news about that is there are a number of cost-benefit studies,'' numerous ones, ``that are showing this can be really beneficial to all ratepayers, not just the drivers of the vehicles.''

The critical mass of changing helps everybody. It brings down the cost of energy. So, for those rising costs at the pump, there is a bend in the arc that will come sooner rather than later that will help everyone, as opposed to the opinions by my colleague and some of his other speakers today.

Matt Stanberry, the managing director for the advanced transportation program at the trade group Advanced Energy Economy, says: ``As you increase electricity sales for charging the vehicles, it has the effect of driving down rates for all ratepayers because it spreads the fixed cost of the system out across a larger volume of sales.''

Madam Speaker, this is about preparing for this new energy future. Whoever gets there first, as a country, as always in our history, has a predominant role in foreign affairs and the leadership on this globe. The Chinese are trying to beat us to that. We can't let that happen. We talk about global competitiveness. We need to get the infrastructure in. Yes, they need to do a better job at reducing pollution, traditional pollutants and carbon.

The Clean Air Act, originally signed by Richard Nixon, and then changed and amended by Ronald Reagan, two Republicans, and the waiver that, unfortunately, previous administrations gave to California through multiple generations, have fueled, pardon the expression, the benefits we have gotten in public health and traditional pollutants. It is fueling today the States that join California, like Colorado, which are pushing this innovation.

Madam Speaker, this is about the future of America and America's excellence and its energy independence and its workforce, staying at home and providing for this energy independence for future generations.

Madam Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order the amendment offered by Ms. Slotkin, which amends the underlying bill to prohibit using transit funds for artwork and nonfunctional landscaping.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

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 myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I also want to say it is nice to see him on the floor in good and improving health.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order 149 amendments to H.R. 3684, House Democrats' progressive infrastructure wish list that prioritizes Green New Deal mandates above actual transportation needs.

Sadly, only 18 percent of the amendments made in order under this rule were offered by Republicans. Compare that with the FAST Act. The FAST Act was the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, which was signed into law back in 2015.

Back then, Republicans controlled the House. Yet, 30 percent of the amendments made in order were amendments offered by Democrats. The bill itself was actually bipartisan, unlike the bill we are debating today. And even with that bipartisan bill, Republicans, when we were in charge, allowed 30 percent of the amendments to come from Democrats. That is nearly double the amount that Democrats are allowing Republicans to offer today.

Democrats went so far that they stripped out a Republican amendment that was actually agreed to in the Transportation Committee's markup. It was agreed to by unanimous consent.

Mr. Gimenez from Florida offered an amendment during the committee consideration of this bill, H.R. 3684. Mr. Gimenez offered an amendment that would prohibit civil penalties in the bill from being used to publicly finance political campaigns.

For example, under this amendment, civil penalties for violating rules on transporting animals could not have been used to contribute to a politician's campaign coffers. It is actually unfathomable that the majority accepted that Republican amendment, an amendment that is good for transparency and good for taxpayers, only to then strip it out in the Rules Committee print.

Madam Speaker, compromise used to be when Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a bill that is actually bipartisan. That is compromise. Today, though, compromise is being defined as liberals and socialists coming together to pass a partisan piece of legislation.

During his inauguration, I sat there and listened to Joe Biden say: ``With unity, we can do great things.'' I don't know if the House Democrats missed that memo or if they weren't listening like I was at the inauguration. Or maybe Joe Biden was saying that unity is when liberal activist groups come together.

With today's rule, liberals are doubling down on the partisan approach to government, and it is not just me saying this. According to the majority's own press release, this bill moves further left than finding compromise.

Madam Speaker, I 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 good friend from New York talked about investment, but I would like to remind my liberal colleagues that this bill ties $1 out of every $2 into Green New Deal mandates. And the infrastructure that is being talked about in some parts of this bill is actually defined as art.

So let's just keep the facts in perspective and remember that these words actually do have meaning.

Madam Speaker, included in today's rule is a provision that prevents consideration of joint resolutions terminating COVID-19 mandates.

Right now, America is the most COVID-resilient country in the world. We are the most resilient in the world, thanks to President Trump and Operation Warp Speed. It is time for us to return to normal because President Trump, by putting science over political science, gave us the ability to return to normal.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) to discuss his resolution that would terminate the COVID-19 emergency mandates.

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

Madam Speaker, water is certainly infrastructure. What is not is art. While the majority places restrictions on building roads--again, roads actually are infrastructure. While there are restrictions on roads, there is no restriction on using Federal transit money for art. Essentially, this bill defines art as infrastructure.

Let's talk more about roads which are, as I define, actually infrastructure.

The so-called infrastructure bill actually bans construction of new roads. The bill also prioritizes urban areas at the expense of rural and suburban communities. There are massive increases in transit and rail funding, yet, again, there are restrictions on the building

of roads--the transportation mode rural Americans use the most.

Madam Speaker, since his first day in office, President Biden has declared a war on blue-collar workers. He has also declared a war on the American energy industry. Thanks to liberal Democrats and the fantasy of the Green New Deal, energy costs for Americans are skyrocketing. It is evident at the gas pump where prices heading into the Fourth of July weekend are the highest they have been since 2014.

Now, Republicans and conservatives believe that America should be energy independent. That is good for American families, it is good for the economy, and it is certainly good for national security.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Jeff Duncan's Protecting American Energy Production Act.

This legislation, which I am a proud cosponsor of, would prohibit the President from declaring a moratorium on fracking without congressional approval.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is here to explain this amendment and is the bill's author and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina such additional time as he may consume.

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

The gentleman from Oregon said that he ran for Congress to make everyday Americans more financially secure. If that is the case, this bill is not going to do any of that, and here is why. There is a little thing called inflation, which is a tax from an economic perspective.

This bill's massive price tag, which is just under $550 billion, that price tag relies heavily on deficit spending, which further fuels inflation and increases the costs of goods, like food and gas, that everyday Americans need. That is the true cost--just one of the true costs of this bill, which will hurt blue-collar workers.

Now, if you are a member of the Zoom class, if you are a woke yuppie that is staring at screens all day, not actually working for a living, well, you can take your $100,000-plus income and buy an electric vehicle.

But let's talk about electric vehicles. Although the gentleman from Oregon thinks they are the wave of the future, this bill provides $4 billion for electric vehicle charging stations, but only $1 billion for the Rebuild Rural grant program that helps people who are likely living in rural areas, making less than $100,000.

And why I am focused on $100,000 is because 70 percent of electric car owners earn at least $100,000 a year. Again, the electric vehicles are not going to do anything really for the environment, but it sounds good if you are a woke yuppie sitting at home.

Further, this empowers China, which China is the world's greatest polluter. If you take all the emissions of the United States, all of the EU, and Japan, added together, we still collectively don't emit more than China does. And we rely on China for 80 percent of our critical minerals that we need to actually make an electronic vehicle.

So, again, scoring cheap political points, hurting blue-collar workers, and doing zero to actually improve the environment.

But talking about radical policies: Radical progressives, including Members of this very body, have called for a Federal ban on fracking. Again, more of the war on blue-collar workers.

So, apparently, Democrats and liberal Progressives don't care about American workers. These blue-collar workers, these guys that are working the oil and gas pads of southwestern Pennsylvania, they rely on fracking for jobs. In fact, a fracking ban would cost 7.5 million jobs by 2022.

They must not care. Democrats must not care about American families either because household energy costs would increase over $600 per year, while household incomes would fall by $5,400 a year annually.

My good friend, my fellow Member from Pennsylvania, Congressman Fred Keller, knows just how devastating a

fracking ban would be to our State and national economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) to explain this.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California, who I do consider a friend, was talking about electric vehicles. I think there is a disconnect with where that electricity comes from.

The drywall is not producing electricity when you plug in an electric vehicle. The electricity is being manufactured in a plant. So even if you had 100 percent electric vehicles, the source of the electricity is still coming from some kind of fossil fuel. That is the reality. It might upset some folks, but that is just the reality of electric vehicles.

Even if we were to go to a 100 percent renewable clean energy for all of our energy needs, even if we were to cede that part of the argument, you still need petrochemicals. You still need oil and gas for petrochemicals that we use for everything.

If you are one of the individuals who is lucky enough to earn over $100,000 a year and can afford a Tesla, I want you to look at the dashboard on your Tesla and thank an American fracker because I can guarantee you that dashboard is not made with hemp. It is made of petrochemicals.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, Democrats are bringing a hyperpartisan bill to the floor. They are blocking Republican efforts to actually improve measures for the Americans who don't make $100,000 a year, who can't afford a Tesla.

This is not me saying that. You can look at the numbers. You can follow the money.

Let's just look at the numbers. In 2015, when House Republicans were in charge and had another package that was an infrastructure package, 30 percent of the amendments were Democrat amendments. This time, only 18 percent of the amendments are Republican amendments. Clearly, this is far from a bipartisan bill.

Follow the money. It is no surprise that, under this bill, congressional districts in blue States would get almost double the funding for transportation projects compared to districts in red States.

Madam Speaker, while liberals and progressives push the Green New Deal fantasy on Americans, and while we do things like define art as infrastructure, House Republicans will continue to fight for investment in roads, bridges, and real transportation that will help real Americans and drive our economy.

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

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.