Madam Chairwoman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democrat whip and…
Madam Chairwoman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democrat whip and former member of the Appropriations Committee.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Grothman
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chairwoman, this program saves lives. HOPWA provides long-term housing assistance, permanent support of housing, homelessness prevention, and support of services to one of the most vulnerable populations--low-income people with HIV.
Housing is the greatest unmet need for people living with HIV, and HOPWA is the only Federal funding dedicated to directly addressing this need.
Multiple studies have shown the lack of stable housing is the most significant factor limiting the use of antiretroviral medications regardless of insurance, substitutes, and other factors. Housing interventions improve stability and access to care. Let's be clear. If passed, this amendment will harm people's access to life-saving treatment.
Let's get down to it. It is not lost upon me that among all the programs in this bill that support people with chronic diseases and other disabilities, this is the only one that has been singled out.
This is a disease that can affect anyone, but HIV disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the LGBTQI+ community, young people, and people who inject drugs.
It seems to me in an effort to deny resources to LGBTQI+ people in this country, this amendment will worsen health inequalities, exacerbate the opiate epidemic, and otherwise do irreparable damage to our Nation's public health.
It is difficult to overstate the cruelty of this amendment and the damage it would do to public health and to one of our most vulnerable populations.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'', and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Madam Chairwoman, I am prepared to close.
Madam Chairwoman, research conducted in my home city of Chicago showed that homeless individuals living with HIV had significantly improved health outcomes and transmission risk when provided with HOPWA assistance, and substantial cost savings were achieved by reducing healthcare costs for this population.
For people with HIV, housing is healthcare. That stability is healthcare. It means the difference often between life and death.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'', and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment.
In FY23, we provided funding for a new grant program in the community development fund to support communities that are taking active steps to remove barriers to the construction of new housing.
This is just one piece of the puzzle to help address the affordable housing crisis that American families are facing. This shortage is especially harmful to seniors and people with disabilities, who make up nearly half of the lowest income renters.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support and vote for this amendment.
Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment and its attack on the resources of Democratic and Republican mayors, Governors, and county officials who rely on this to close the gap in funding for housing and infrastructure needs in their communities.
CDBG investments reach every corner of every district. In Wisconsin, the cut to the State would be from $27 million to $13 million; in Chicago, it would be from $75 million to $37 million; and Sheboygan-- yes, Sheboygan--would go from $865,000 to $432,000.
These investments reach every corner of every district. These funds remain one of the most important resources for State and local governments to rehab affordable housing, upgrade essential infrastructure, promote business redevelopment in distressed areas, and provide services such as job training.
In fact, in fiscal year 2022, the largest share of CDBG program funding was for projects that support rehabbing single-family housing, critical water and sewer improvements, and street improvements.
In Chicago, programs supported by CDBG include lead poisoning prevention, homeownership counseling, and home accessibility repairs for seniors and people with disabilities.
The program also provides high impact, high return on investments for taxpayers, with over $2.4 billion leveraged across CDBG projects in 2021. From 2005 to 2022, CDBG facilitated the creation and retention of 521,000 jobs, contributed to infrastructure benefiting approximately 609 million individuals, assisted over 980 million constituents through public services, and met the housing needs of nearly 1.8 million households.
This amendment is representative of a larger problem with the Republican appropriation proposals--cutting spending, but only on the backs of low-income and middle-class Americans, and divesting in programs that support job creation and curb the housing affordability crisis, all while making it easier for billionaires and corporations to cheat on their taxes.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, the remote work agreements addressed in this amendment, where they exist, have been thoughtfully negotiated by OMB, labor unions, and management and have been in place under Republican and Democratic administrations.
To impede on that process with a provision would be yet another Republican overreach that fails to take into consideration any special accommodation employees may need related to remote work.
This prohibition, which fails to address circumstances under which remote work arrangements may be beneficial to the taxpayer or a necessary accommodation for an employee, is not a serious approach to policymaking.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, this amendment makes drastic, indiscriminate cuts from programs in transportation and housing without any regard for the merits of the programs contained in the bill or the people and communities involved across America that would benefit from these programs and rely on them to keep air traffic moving and roofs over their heads.
I want to be clear up front about what this bill would mean. It would result in mass evictions. It would decimate funding for Amtrak operations and rail safety, and it would bring air traffic to a halt. Hundreds of thousands of families would be evicted upon losing rental assistance. The hiring of air traffic controllers would halt, towers would be forced to shut down, and air travel would become at best unsafe and at worst impossible. Funding for Amtrak would be decimated even further than it already is in the base bill, significantly reducing operations.
The amendment trivializes the Appropriations Committee's process and disregards the consideration of Member requests that committee members put into writing bills.
It will result in unimaginable draconian cuts to the very programs Republicans claim to support in their districts to their constituents and which provide critical, basic housing and safety needs. This includes: the FAA's air traffic control operations; Amtrak's operation and maintenance; the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program, which supports rail safety; housing assistance programs for the elderly and people with disabilities; housing rental assistance vouchers for which cuts would result in mass evictions across the country; all programs that support Tribal housing and infrastructure needs; the Continuation of Care program, which
supports hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans, domestic violence survivors, and youth; the popular Community Development Block Grant program; Community Project Funding, which Republicans and Democrats alike requested to address transportation and housing challenges; and critical investments in port infrastructure.
This amendment would even cut the small amount of defense spending included in the T-HUD bill for critical maritime security programs.
It would not encourage DOT or HUD to do more with less. Simply put, it would force our constituents to do less with less. This is particularly galling, because the bill rescinds enforcement money that will ensure wealthy individuals and corporations pay their taxes, which actually increases the deficit due to lost revenue.
Is it really more important to give the wealthy a tax break rather than provide housing, roads, bridges, trains, and safety services from which all citizens benefit?
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I could roll the tape of what I just said last time to respond because these are indiscriminate cuts, but that is not particularly helpful.
If we are here to make a point, let's make this point. If this is all about reducing the debt, let's not kid ourselves that we are going to accomplish this beating the hell out of nondefense discretionary. Let's go back to the Simpson-Bowles discussion and the debt commission that took place back then.
The conclusions they came up with on a bipartisan basis was that anything to be serious had to be big, had to be balanced, and had to be bipartisan. But balanced meant cutting across all the lines.
Now, what we have learned, if you spend any time in this House, is that there are sacred cows. If we are talking to our left and our right, what I would say to my friends on the right is that you got your sacred cows, too. Right now they are mooing everywhere because you are not touching them, and therefore, you are not serious about dealing with the debt.
If you are, let's remember Simpson-Bowles did come over here one time under the late Mr. LaTourette and our friend, Mr. Cooper. Under Cooper- LaTourette, which was some feigned attempt to do this on a big, balanced, bipartisan basis with no sacred cows, it got 36 votes.
If we are serious about this, let's talk about the commission and let's talk about all things. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to con the American people that we are serious about this, pounding on housing and transportation. It won't get the job done, and it will do a lot of damage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this grant program will provide critical resources toward making community charging stations for electric vehicles available and accessible. Oh, by the way, it will make EVs more popular.
By increasing EV charging stations in communities across the country, we are modernizing our infrastructure, working toward our emission reduction goals, and creating good jobs in the process.
Ensuring that charging stations are visible and accessible in our communities addresses concerns many drivers have when considering making the switch to electric.
By prioritizing funding to projects in rural communities and low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, this program will help blue and red States.
We have heard from State departments of transportation and private partners, like gas stations, who want this funding to build their customer base to bring consumers into their convenience shops. This is a Federal investment in partnership with industry.
Additionally, this Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program is an authorized program, funded through the Highway Trust Fund. Authorizers, on a bipartisan basis, have authorized funding to be used for these purposes.
This funding is wanted and is another important step in the Nation's efforts to battle climate change, meet emission reductions goals, and meet the automobile industry where they are at.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the administration or any administration from finalizing any rule or regulation that has a significant impact on the economy. This is just another example of bad policy riders aimed at tying any administration's hands when carrying out the duly enacted laws by a Congress.
It will stop the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development from finalizing rules that keep Americans safe on the roads, in the skies, or in their homes.
This amendment has little to do with an appropriations bill, and it has less to do with supporting American infrastructure, advancing transportation safety, and addressing our housing shortage.
Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I would suggest that this legislation comes from that same denial caucus that if you don't like history then change it or ignore it; if you don't like facts and you don't like science, then you ignore it.
You do that at great risk, Mr. Chairman.
We have had epidemics and we have had pandemics in our past, and we will have them again. If we are not prepared, then we risk people's lives.
This amendment would prohibit the Department of Transportation and its agencies and public transportation operators from complying with any Federal law or regulation that requires an individual to wear a mask on public transportation or transportation hubs such as airports or any other circumstances.
Let's be clear: There is currently no Federal mask requirement in place for users or employees of public transportation, yet this amendment would leave the Federal Government ill-equipped to implement evidence-based policies that protect the health and safety of the public and of essential workers in the event we are faced with another public health emergency such as a dangerous new COVID-19 variant or another even more deadly pandemic.
In the event of a public health emergency where evidence shows that the use of face masks can prevent transmission and deaths, we must be able to respond quickly and allow agencies like DOT and CDC to provide guidance and measures that protect healthcare workers, caregivers, grocery store employees, retail workers, and so many other Americans who rely on public transportation for essential travel.
This sweeping amendment is unnecessary and puts us all at risk. New variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be and will be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause even more severe disease than the original strain. We saw that in the great influenza of over 100 years ago.
Our Nation's public health officials need to have options available to them to protect our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this form of denial is the same sort of denial that didn't believe in vaccinations when it deals with COVID and when the vast majority of those in ICU units were unvaccinated, risking other people and putting other people's health at risk.
For this and so many other reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would disrupt the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ability to enforce rules and regulations when vehicles are not in compliance with current Federal law.
For my colleague concerned about vendors who have been selling pulsing brake lights, it is my understanding that the issue is now in litigation. We should not be impeding on or presupposing the outcome of the matter that has been referred to the courts.
My colleagues may disagree with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's longstanding interpretation that high-mounted brake lights must be steady burning, not pulsing, but this is not an appropriations issue.
If my colleague feels strongly that NHTSA should be considering new regulations related to the potential benefits of these lights, they should work together through regular order, which would be through the appropriate authorizing committees.
This amendment, as written, would not just address the pulsing light issue. It would impact the NHTSA's ability to conduct compliance investigations involving all high-mounted stop lamps and prevent them from gathering information related to compliance test failures.
In 2021, there were over 1.7 million rear-end crashes involving light vehicles, which resulted in almost 3,000 deaths and over 475,000 injuries. This amendment adds an unreasonable restriction on NHTSA's ability to conduct research and improve public safety on the Nation's roads. We cannot tie their hands to carry out their safety mission.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this is very similar to a recent amendment discussed by the gentlewoman from Florida, and for the reasons stated as to that amendment, we oppose this amendment, as well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, we now enter the theater of the absurd.
Again, for the second day in a row, let's have two White people talk about
racial equality in the United States because we know so much about it from having, oh, so much experience, but here we are.
The reality of the situation is, this isn't serious, but it is the new normal. If we don't like people, we will pay them $1. If we disagree with them, we will cut their salary. At some point in time, we have to recognize the fact that we are going to disagree. We are probably going to, for most of the rest of our lives, live in a divided government, so when we disagree with the administration or the administration disagrees with us, is the notion, well, we just won't pay them anymore because it will make a good sound bite or theoretically help us raise money because it sells well at home. However, it doesn't do anything for our constituents.
The reality is, public servants who are doing their jobs and carrying out the policy of the administration they serve should be commended, not demonized. Our government is dependent on being able to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service.
Despite what has been said, the fact of the matter is, some of the best and brightest out there sacrifice to go back to public service or stay with it when they could do much better in the private sector. Who is going to be willing to do that if their names are dragged in the political mud because someone disagrees with them?
The Secretary is a dedicated public servant. This is not how we solve policy differences. We shouldn't make this personal. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gee, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were just pounding the gavel to break the monotony, but I appreciate that.
I have to be honest, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this argument is worthy of the dignity of this House, that people who take the highest level of government function, Cabinet-level positions--and again you can disagree with them, Mr. Chairman, all you want, but to make this so personal and to take their orientation to task because you personally don't like the other people or their orientation, when it is absolutely none of your business, where has the Republican Party gone?
How has it gone from a party that said: We are going to let people live their lives; we are not going to intrude on them at all; we are going to let them live personally, and the worst thing government can do is inflict their own beliefs upon them?
That is exactly what the toxic atmosphere of language like we just heard is all about. It is not what we are as a country. Part of that personal freedom extends to everyone, even if they happen to be Secretary of Transportation.
Mr. Chair, I apologize to the Secretary and all the public servants who have to go through this disgraceful kind of treatment.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is not worthy of this body. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, my friends across the aisle can turn a blind eye to the wildfires, smoke-covered skies, life-threatening heat waves and extreme weather we now face nearly every day somewhere in this Nation.
We have seen the impacts of climate change in real time, and yet this amendment would hamstring our ability to meaningfully address the accelerating threat of climate change. Ignoring climate change in our approach to the transportation sector would be particularly egregious and irresponsible. It is, quite frankly, not an option.
Our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse emissions than any other sector of our economy. This means that our approach to transportation investment can and must be one of the biggest parts of the solution.
Climate change also makes our roads, bridges, railways, and public transit more vulnerable to damage from extreme weather. We have to recognize our climate reality in order to make our infrastructure more resilient and less costly. Instead of rebuilding the same old infrastructure after disrepair, we should be investing in climate- conscious, cost-effective solutions that ensure we build back stronger in order to equip our infrastructure to withstand the test of time and future disasters.
This is a matter of practicality, risk mitigation, and human safety. It also presents a tremendous opportunity to boost our economy by investing in new technologies and creating new jobs.
The Department's Climate Change Center is the agency's hub for research, policy analysis, partnerships, and action on climate change. I suppose some of my Republican colleagues are targeting it because they don't believe climate change is real and, unfortunately, we cannot have a productive debate when one side chooses to ignore scientific evidence and consensus.
Mr. Chairman, it is the functional equivalent of standing in the middle of an expressway, closing one's eyes, and saying there are no trucks. Trucks are coming. This is disheartening and puts our future at great risk.
I wholeheartedly support the Department of Transportation's efforts to create comprehensive approaches to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gases and improve the resilience of the transportation system. I believe the American people support the cost savings, clean air, new jobs, and healthy environmental future that will come with working to achieve our climate goals.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, stating the obvious, that the Department of Transportation's only purpose is to make sure that our roads and our rail systems are safe. The underlying bill, as proposed, dramatically reduces all the funds that do that and makes our rail systems and our highway systems far less safe.
To say that in the middle of a discussion on an amendment that has nothing to do with that is ridiculous, and it is a further reason I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very similar amendment to what has been considered before. Those agreements addressed in this amendment, where they exist, have been negotiated by OMB, labor unions, and management and have been in place under Republican and Democratic administrations.
Again, this kind of sweeping prohibition, which fails to consider or address circumstances under which remote work arrangements may be beneficial to the taxpayer or a necessary accommodation for an employee, is not a serious approach to policymaking.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, let me begin by saying that the sponsor of this amendment, I believe, is on the T&I Committee, which has jurisdiction over aviation and rail. This is an amendment which would be better off being moved forward as an authorizing proposal rather than going forward as an appropriations amendment.
This amendment makes it plain as day that the Republicans are happy to put the interests of big corporations ahead of protecting the American people from corporate greed that increases costs, reduces quality of service, and limits options. Specifically, it prohibits any funds for conducting a competitive analysis of mergers, which raises concerning implications for both airlines and rail.
The Department of Transportation is required by law to certify to Congress that an approved airline merger is in the public interest and provide an analysis of the effects of the merger on competition in the domestic airline industry. Congress itself has set forth in law a list of factors that are considered in the public interest, which includes several related to competition.
Yet, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Transportation from complying with that requirement and from even conducting an analysis or considering factors Congress has specifically identified as important, shirking all responsibility to the public interest.
At the same time, this broad amendment would implicate all T-HUD agencies, also impacting competition in the rail industry and our understanding of competition in the housing market.
The Surface Transportation Board has authority over railroad corporate
mergers and acquisitions and similarly may approve such mergers only when it finds them to be in the public interest. This requires evidence that the proposed merger will affirmatively enhance competition, efficiency, and quality of service.
This amendment ties the hands of the agency with exclusive merger jurisdiction involving railroads, even as the number of Class 1 railroads has fallen from 40 to 6 since 1980.
Further, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be prevented from conducting any competition-related analyses to inform our understanding of rental markets, even as Americans face rising rents and corporate landlords are caught price-fixing.
Competition is critical to protecting consumers from corporate greed and fostering a flourishing market economy, something we should all fight for.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this misguided amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how to phrase this, but I would ask the sponsor of this amendment, through the Chair, a question.
I believe he referred to the Secretary of Transportation's name. I wasn't sure I heard that correctly. If the Chair could ask that the sponsor repeat how he referred to the Secretary of Transportation. Acoustics aren't always great here, so I want to make sure I got it right.
Yes, well, I would reserve the balance of my time, and I would ask the question through the Chair.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, but I would still like to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I assume that the answer is that the sponsor doesn't want to repeat what he may have said. I just didn't hear it.
At this point, I am prepared to close, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
Mr. Chair, let me close by saying this. I gave the gentleman from Kentucky an opportunity to clarify his pronunciation of Secretary Buttigieg's name. I have the belief that he purposely mispronounced it to disrespect him. If he wants to correct that by correctly pronouncing it, I would yield the time to him.
As they say, it speaks for itself.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, we simply oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, do we really want to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods because we disagree with them?
These public servants are doing their jobs, carrying out the policy of the administration they serve. They should be commended, not demonized.
Our government is dependent on them in our ability to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service. We shouldn't be penalizing public servants who are representing the administration they serve based on these policy disagreements.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague is already trying to undo the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included funding to improve and expand ferry service in rural and urban communities across the country.
These funds allow places like Georgia, Representative Buddy Carter's district, to acquire ferries and install charging stations to build on the innovation necessary to protect our waterways, reduce costs, and lower emissions.
These projects allow communities to work within and across States where waterways are shared and there are mutual benefits to advance technology. These funds also support the use of alternative fuels, which include, but is not limited to natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity.
Innovation should be championed by the Federal Government rather than discouraged, and our industry partners should be able to trust that we will stand behind bipartisan goals to create this pilot.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, it can only be described as disgraceful to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods.
Our government is dependent on their skills and their dedication to the job to help this country go forward.
Ms. Gordon has been a strong advocate for and a hands-on practitioner working to expand access to homeownership and wealth building for millions seeking the American Dream.
If you have an issue with the policy, let's discuss that and not penalize her and other public servants.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to yet another attack on scientific consensus and on evidence-based approaches to addressing our climate reality.
This amendment would prohibit any agency funded in this bill from considering the social cost of greenhouse gases in budget formulation, procurement processes, or environmental reviews. It is an unconscionable denial of reality.
The social cost of carbon is simply an estimate, in dollars, of the economic costs or damage that will result from emitting one additional ton of greenhouse gases into the air.
Climate change has tangible and measurable economic impact on a myriad of aspects of our economy from agriculture to healthcare to infrastructure and energy use.
When heat waves, drought, or extreme storms affect crop yields, that loss costs our economy and disrupts our food supply.
When smoke from wildfires and extreme heat or cold cause illness and death or homelessness increases due to extreme weather displacing people from their homes, that costs our healthcare and emergency service systems.
When hurricanes, flooding, and mudslides destroy critical infrastructure, supply chains are disrupted, and time and money must be spent to rebuild.
We know, beyond a doubt, that greenhouse gas emissions lead to increased atmospheric CO2 which leads to a warming climate which leads to more extreme weather and rising sea levels.
In 2022, the cost of climate and weather disasters in the United States totaled more than $165 billion. In every decade since the 1980s, the average annual cost of these disasters has increased substantially.
The amendment before us would prohibit agencies from considering measurable and tangible economic costs when making policy and spending decisions. It would literally prohibit accounting for reality.
This is a whole new level of climate denialism, not just a personal denial of overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus, but a sweeping prohibition on ever acknowledging and considering certain evidence that Republicans would rather ignore.
This is, of course, particularly egregious in the case of the Department of Transportation, given that our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse gases than any other part of the economy.
I can't overstate the recklessness and cynicism of enacting a prohibition on accounting for reality into the law.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit HUD from continuing to carry out an existing rule that ensures that all individuals have equal access to many of HUD's core shelter programs in accordance with their gender identity.
I am not sure why my colleagues are so intent on targeting such a vulnerable population, but I find it unconscionable.
This amendment would do serious harm to our efforts to protect one of the most vulnerable populations, LGBTQ youth, who comprise up to 40 percent of the homeless youth population and who are 120 percent more likely to experience homelessness than non-LGBTQ youth.
These young people are at an incredibly high risk of abuse on the streets. A study by True Colors United found that among homeless transgender youth: 75 percent had been victims of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; 25 percent had been victims of intimate partner violence; and 20 percent had been victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking.
In addition, LGBTQ youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide. Transgender youth also have high levels of HIV/AIDS, mental health problems, and substance abuse disorders.
When these young people arrive at a shelter, they are not a safety risk to others. They are desperate for help. We should be doing everything that we can to make sure these alternatives exist to living on the streets, and then when they ask for help, they are not turned away.
Frankly, it is not that difficult to help these people who need assistance while respecting their identities.
More than 300 domestic violence and sexual violence organizations have signed a national consensus statement agreeing that it is appropriate to serve transgender women alongside other women.
This amendment is not based on the facts. In reality, transgender women are particularly vulnerable to abuse in housing systems themselves. One survey found that over one-half of transgender respondents who stayed in a shelter in the past year were verbally harassed, physically attacked, and/or were sexual assaulted because of their gender identity. We should be doing more to protect this population, not less.
To ensure continued progress toward ending youth homelessness, we cannot roll back rules that ensure basic equal access rights and protect transgender youth from discrimination and violence when seeking shelter.
This amendment would lead to increased numbers of unsheltered homeless LGBTQ youth.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, NHTSA has issued a proposal to update fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks, and that proposal is going through a public comment review period. Why would we stop that?
Fuel economy standards aren't new. These standards spur the auto industry to innovate in improving fuel economy to the benefit of consumers and the environment.
The administration's July proposal increases these standards to advance energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and save families money at the pump.
The rule is going through the rulemaking process, and constituents and concerned parties can and should weigh in, but let's be clear about what improving fuel economy standards can do. This rule would save consumers more than $50 billion on fuel over vehicles' lifetimes. It would reduce our dependence on oil, saving more than 88 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050. It would prevent more than 900 million tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of taking more than 233 million vehicles off the road from 2022 through 2050.
By increasing fuel economy standards, we would be decreasing costs for Americans at the pump, which is something my colleagues claim to be so concerned about, but how dare such an improvement come with positive benefits like carbon emission reductions.
I support the administration's proposal to go through the rulemaking process to improve fuel economy standards to reduce costs for drivers, promote American energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, which would very broadly prohibit funding for transit-oriented development, ``so-called'' because that is what it is called, is yet another example of vague and sweeping overreach.
Communities in all of our districts rely on flexible HUD and DOT funding to close the gap on critical housing, transportation, and community infrastructure projects. Yet, this amendment would limit a recipient's ability to locally pursue different projects to determine where and how the community wants to invest.
Cities, towns, and suburban areas may pursue transit-oriented development, which is simply an approach to urban development that aligns housing, commercial, and transit development for a variety of reasons unique to that community.
If a community wants to pair housing and transit development to save costs, reduce traffic congestion, increase access to essential goods and services, attract businesses, or connect Americans to good jobs, the Federal Government should not prohibit them from doing so.
Mr. Chairman, I find this place amusing in that we are for States' rights until we are not. We are Federalists until we are not. Apparently, it just depends on where you stand on an issue rather than whether they really believe in local jurisdictions having control over their own destinies.
No program in the underlying bill requires that funds be used for transit-oriented development, and there is no reason to adopt a restriction that prevents the use of funds for one particular approach to urban development.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the reality of the situation. I live in a transit-oriented development. I can walk 15 seconds outside my front door, get on the Red Line, and go downtown in Chicago, and I do. Many people do.
There is a reason we encourage transit-oriented development. It actually gets more people to ride transit, which is a good thing because they are not burning gasoline, not creating more climate change. It is better for the economy. It gets people to their jobs quicker and safer. If they want to do this, and it is an option and works the way that it actually does from personal experience, great.
What I said about people being for States' rights and not being for States' rights when it is inconvenient, I am implying that this amendment does just the opposite of what my father's Republican Party used to say, which is we are not going to dictate to local governments how they should function, how they should operate. This is a page out of the opposite book, and it is a horrible idea.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chair, according to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System and Crash Report Sampling System, heavy vehicles are involved in about 77,000 crashes a year, resulting in over 500 fatalities and almost 34,000 injuries.
NHTSA estimates that the proposed rule would prevent over 16,000 crashes a year, saving over 100 lives and reducing over 8,000 nonfatal injuries annually once all vehicles covered under this rule are equipped with AEB.
The rule is going through the rulemaking process, and constituents and concerned parties can and should weigh in, but we shouldn't stop the process altogether. I support the administration's proposal to go through the rulemaking process and appreciate that NHTSA is looking into ways of making our roads safer.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Keynesian economics, I guess, aside, the gruel belongs wherever the gruel belongs, but public safety belongs to everyone else. It is not just the trucking industry, it is the people who are involved in those injuries, as well. We need to be concerned about them.
The rulemaking process has existed under every American President during our lifetime. It is part of the democratic process. It should be respected. If people want to participate, fine, that is the way it should operate.
Mr. Chair, for all those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, no one remembers who Edward Everett is. He spoke for a couple hours at Gettysburg. That speaks for itself.
There really doesn't need to be much in response to those who deny that climate is an existential threat, so I will just say two lines.
According to the data collected by NASA, the past 9 years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. The 10 warmest years on record in world history have all occurred since 2010 in recorded temperatures.
We have to address that reality, and the fact is, our transportation infrastructure is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of our economy. It needs to do the most to reduce that threat, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we were quoting Dickens before. There is a line in Shakespeare. I will let somebody else fill in the rest of the lines. ``It is a tale . . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.''
We are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change. We are the last generation that can do anything about it.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, just for reference, the last statement made--this is the first administration in my lifetime that has passed a comprehensive infrastructure bill of this magnitude.
To suggest that it is going the opposite direction while supporting a bill that guts much of that effort belies comprehension.
I sometimes wonder what people will think in the future when they ask us, dad or granddad, what did you do in Congress?
The best you can say is I cut a dedicated public servant's salary to a dollar because I disagreed with them.
Ms. Trottenberg has an extensive, 25-year-plus public sector career in all levels of government, including stepping up to serve as acting administrator for the FAA to help ensure this country and our global partners could continue to rely on the safety of our national airspace system.
We again should not be penalizing public servants who are representing the administration they serve based on policy disagreements. I can't imagine our Founding Fathers thinking this would be a good idea, but it is, I guess, the new normal.
It is no reason to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, it is clearly our responsibility to hold people accountable. There are a number of ways to do that: call them to testify, question them all day long, say whatever you want in public within reason. It is quite another thing to make it so they can't do the job because you are only paying them a dollar a year. It is outside the realm, the barriers here, of what we are supposed to be about.
At some point, we went outside the norms. I have come to believe that norms are almost as important as the Constitution. You don't treat people this way.
They couldn't imagine that we would do this to each other. They had that foundation that is so critical, and the law is almost as critical.
I am starting to believe that the way we treat each other is the most important norm. If we can't act with a baseline sense of decency and respect that nobody's going to work for a dollar a year, respectfully, you are just messaging and insulting other people and disrespecting the dignity of this House.
We can and we must do better.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, again, it has to be pointed that there is a level of being completely ridiculous that two straight White men are debating all the issues of equality and equity as if we have faced them all our lives. We can't be the judge or the jury in this country on who should be served by the Federal Government.
While we are probably not the best people to speak on the issue, let's try to make clear what I think my colleagues are really saying. What they are really saying is they don't like diversity, and they absolutely don't like inclusion. They don't want to address discrimination against people of color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities.
They don't want to build a Nation that supports people at the greatest risk of homelessness. Not caring allows them to ignore this insurmountable problem, but it doesn't make it less real.
It is not radical to want to build a country that is welcoming to all people from different backgrounds, but they do want you to believe that our country has reckoned with its history of discrimination.
They want you to believe that these issues are things in the distant past. They are wrong. They are attempting to legislate away those who look, think, or feel differently. That is not American. That is authoritarianism.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, again, in a moment of self-awareness, we are a bunch of straight White guys talking about social justice.
When did a social justice agenda become a bad thing? Again, who am I to say, but weren't the leaders of the civil rights movement leading a social justice agenda?
Does anyone imagine that that notion that we read about, as you go down to the archives, toward a more perfect union, does anyone think that we have met that and that housing and transportation have to be fundamental toward the ends of that agenda that we talked about?
In the end, wasn't Lincoln saying that 87 years ago--every once in a while, we have to ask ourselves did we really mean it when we said that we were all created equal?
We have to ask ourselves that today. We still have a long way to go, and it runs through all our systems, including our transportation and our housing systems. It is not a bad word.
Someone needs to stand up to you when you do this. It is wrong. This amendment is wrong. This bill is horrible because of these things.
I oppose it, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.