Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition. Madam Chair, we are going to use $100 million, to use the Senate's number, to influence what should be a local decisionmaking process on zoning for affordable housing. We all support affordable…
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chair, we are going to use $100 million, to use the Senate's number, to influence what should be a local decisionmaking process on zoning for affordable housing.
We all support affordable housing. That is not really the issue. The issue is who is going to make the zoning decisions within each and every location and jurisdiction throughout this country. We don't believe that it should be the Federal Government imposing its will on local government in those zoning decisions. That should be up to the locals.
Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, let me reiterate that Washington bureaucrats ought not be getting into the zoning business of local jurisdictions across the United States with $100 million to influence folks to make decisions that may not be in the best interests of those in the community.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, the CDBG program is one of the few opportunities that the Federal Government has where we actually take taxpayer dollars and send them back to the State and local governments to use the way they see fit.
That is the reason I rise in opposition to this amendment. This will cut $13 million just from the State of Florida and a little over $4 million just from my district alone.
Madam Chair, having been in local government as a sheriff for 12 years, I can say that CDBG was a tremendous opportunity to help public safety in the way that our community needed assistance. It wasn't a mandate down from bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. It was an opportunity to take tax dollars, return them to the taxpayer, and allow their elected representatives to decide how best to use that money.
For that reason, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I ask all my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that across the board 57 percent--and it does look like we are going above the 2023 numbers, but actually we had to start off with a cut of about $8 billion to fill a hole that was caused by last year's Democratic budget gimmicks and the disasters of the Biden economic plan.
We reduced wasteful spending funding across 19 different DOT and HUD grant programs. We have right-sized spending for transportation infrastructure. We have prioritized two things in this bill: transportation safety and housing assistance for vulnerable Americans. That is where the focus lies.
We have cut significantly from the 2023 numbers. Cutting this bill through indiscriminate across-the-board cuts really abdicates our responsibility to make sure that we are protecting the priorities of this Nation in transportation safety and housing for America's most vulnerable.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of this amendment. The gentlewoman has been leading on this topic for quite a while through the REINS Act. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the two areas that most threaten our democracy right now, and that is rulemaking in executive orders that absolutely go around our Article I authority here in this body.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I would love to see it in every bill that we pass in appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me reiterate the point that was just made that this is such a break from the norm in the evaluation of these antitrust analyses going forward. DOJ has had that responsibility.
I particularly thank the gentleman for really staying on top of this. This is clearly an overreach by the Biden administration, and I thank the gentleman for that.
Mr. Chairman, I fully support the gentleman's amendment. In fact, in the underlying bill, we have included in section 126 a prohibition on the Department of Transportation from imposing requirements on State and local governments to prove emission reductions as a condition of receiving funds.
Nonetheless, the gentleman's amendment is even more comprehensive, which I support, because it would cover programs across this entire bill and several of the Biden executive orders that would harm our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.