Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent from the House on November 8, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on rollcall No. 635.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7454, which extends the authorization of the FAA and its related authorities for another 2 months.

Back in the July, the House engaged in a thorough and collaborative process to pass the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act.

This bipartisan bill, which passed by an overwhelming 351-69 vote, will protect the safety of the flying public and ensure the future of U.S. aviation.

While I am pleased we are moving closer to passing a longer term bill, we will not be done before the current authorization expires on March 8. We need more time for negotiations between the House and Senate to reconcile the two bills and produce a final comprehensive bill.

I want us to remember that Chair Graves and I will continue to fight for House priorities in the final bill to ensure that House Members' voices are heard while we address longstanding issues in our aviation system.

Madam Speaker, I support the short-term FAA extension bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this extension. We will get a bill by May 10, and we can all vote ``yes'' on that, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Timothy Arnade for his distinguished career and significant contributions and accomplishments at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

After 41 years of federal service, including 29 years with FHWA, Mr. Arnade retired from FHWA on December 31, 2023. A dedicated public servant, Mr. Arnade began his career serving in the Peace Corps. Throughout his time with FHWA, Mr. Arnade served with distinction and operated at a consistently exceptional level. From July 7, 2008, through his retirement, Mr. Arnade served as Team Leader for Congressional Affairs in FHWA's Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs.

In this capacity, Mr. Arnade led a team that responded to all Congressional requests that came to FHWA. This included thousands of requests for technical assistance on individual pieces of legislation, spanning numerous committees and both authorization and appropriations law. Mr. Arnade also played a pivotal role in numerous Federal-aid Highway Program reauthorizations, including the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21); the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act); and most recently, the transformational Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law).

Mr. Arnade is a national expert in the areas of transportation safety, infrastructure, innovation, and accountability. All those who interacted with Mr. Arnade--Congressional and Committee staff, state and local governmental officials, FHWA and U.S. Department of Transportation leadership, and his peers in other modal administrations--readily acknowledge his dedication to the safety and improvement of our nation's infrastructure and the American people who use it. He brought a remarkable ability to communicate in a clear, effective, and timely manner with Member offices and Congressional Committees on complex transportation issues. This ability served him particularly well in times of infrastructure emergencies when responsiveness and communication are most critical.

Providing quality customer service is an inherent part of the responsibilities of any congressional and intergovernmental affairs specialist. Mr. Arnade's superior work ethic and professional drive to deliver high-quality, on-time service to Congress and others was exemplary among his peers. Mr. Arnade is well known among his colleagues for his availability, responsiveness and dedication, routinely working beyond traditional work hours to respond to Congressional inquiries. These efforts contributed to the development of high-quality legislative solutions and reinforced FHWA's reputation for providing exceptional technical assistance to Capitol Hill.

Mr. Arnade exemplifies the highest standards of public service and embodies FHWA's spirit of professionalism and customer service. Over the years, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, other congressional committees, Members of Congress, and their staff have relied on Mr. Arnade's legislative and highway policy expertise, quick and helpful responses, and cheerful demeanor. Mr. Arnade's colleagues at USDOT and FHWA depended on his tireless efforts and his never-wilted spirit. Mr. Arnade will be missed at FHWA. However, his legacy will live on in the customers he served, the staff he mentored and trained, and the colleagues he influenced.

On behalf of the Committee, my colleagues, and our staff, I thank Mr. Arnade for his steadfast public service and his support for Congress and extend our well wishes to Mr. Arnade on his retirement.

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

I rise in opposition to this resolution. On the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we know that investing in infrastructure means jobs for American workers and economic growth.

Our goal is for taxpayer dollars to deliver returns at home, not just for those who travel on the roads and bridges but for the women and men who build our highway infrastructure.

The Biden administration shares that goal and has made Buy America one of the centerpieces of its infrastructure policy as we build out modern transportation systems that are cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible.

There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for strengthening Buy America, rebuilding the U.S. industrial base, and creating jobs.

We saw the result of this broad support with the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL, which included a new domestic content requirement for all Federal infrastructure spending.

Congress should be focused on supporting implementation of these new Buy America and domestic content requirements so we can maximize the return of our infrastructure investments and support job creation.

Instead, we are here today debating a resolution that would undercut the BIL and the administration's aim to bolster a domestic EV charger supply chain.

Federal highway and transit programs have had Buy America standards for decades. These standards have insured that any investment in U.S. infrastructure is also an investment in U.S. workers.

Since 1983, all manufactured products have been exempted from Buy America under the Federal highway programs.

Under this policy, EV chargers funded by the Federal Highway Administration would not have been required to be built in the U.S.

Further, there would have been no requirements for those chargers to include any domestic content beyond the iron and steel components.

If this policy had been applied to the $7.5 billion for EV charging included in the BIL, we would have supported jobs overseas instead of jobs for U.S. workers. The Biden administration took action to make sure that would not happen.

First, it deemed that the general manufactured products Buy America waiver would no longer apply to EV chargers.

Further, the administration created a new, stronger standard for domestic content in EV chargers. Under the new policy, and for the first time, all federally funded EV chargers must be manufactured in the U.S.

The new policy also includes domestic content requirements for all components, not just those made of iron and steel.

The domestic content requirements ramp up over time to allow manufacturers to expand their capacity in the U.S.

The policy is working. Since 2021, private companies have announced $500 million in investments across the country in EV charging manufacturing facilities, according to the Department of Energy. The investment is creating jobs in an emerging and growing industry.

This is exactly how Buy America policies are supposed to work. You cannot change course overnight on a 40-year-old policy. You need to give time to the private sector to prepare.

That is exactly what the administration is doing. Beginning on July 1 of this year, all federally funded EV chargers will be assembled in the U.S. and will have at least a 55 percent U.S. content--consistent with the Build America Buy America policy included in the BIL.

This approach is a win for U.S. workers, the private sector, and all Americans will benefit from a more sustainable transportation system.

While this new standard is technically called a waiver, it meets the industry's current needs with greater precision and has a much stronger Buy America policy than the broad waiver it replaces.

Unfortunately, this resolution before us today would erase that progress. If we repeal the new Biden administration approach, EV chargers would once again fall under the broad general manufactured products exemption from Buy America.

We would lose the requirement that all federally funded EV chargers be built in the U.S., we would lose the domestic content requirements for components not made from iron and steel, and we would create uncertainty for the private sector who have based their investments and job creation on the new Buy America standards.

Many Members of Congress share the same goal of the strong Buy America standards. Repealing a Buy America waiver may sound great, but this resolution would actually weaken Buy America.

Some may argue the Biden administration could just repeal the general manufactured products waiver. In fact, the administration is in the process of reconsidering that waiver as we are required under the BIL.

It is a complex process to reconsider a 40-year-old policy that applies to hundreds of products ranging from traffic cameras to the changeable message signs that we see every day on our highways.

That process is going to take time to get it right and should not be used as a rationale for weakening Buy America standards that exist today.

The reality is that this resolution would weaken Buy America at a time when we are making record investments in EV chargers.

In fact, this week I expect the Federal Highway Administration to announce hundreds of millions of dollars

in funding to strategically deploy publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure in communities and along vital travel corridors.

EV charging investment is already paying dividends for communities and creating jobs. After launching the first federally funded EV charging station, Mike DeWine, the Governor of Ohio, said electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and we want drivers in Ohio to have access to this technology today.

This resolution before us today would slow down similar investments across the U.S. and create incoherent industrial policy.

It is not just my opinion. This resolution is opposed by the women and men of the United Steelworkers, the AFL-CIO, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers--those whose jobs will actually be affected by this policy.

The United Steelworkers said this resolution is shortsighted and misguided and would undercut American manufacturing, both near and long term.

The resolution is also opposed by the Zero Emission Transportation Association and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association whose members include EV charger and component manufacturers.

In a letter of opposition, these associations said that if this resolution were enacted, it would cause major disruption of major infrastructure projects across the country.

We know infrastructure investment creates family-wage jobs for U.S. workers. The Biden administration's approach to Buy America delivers on that promise.

I urge my colleagues to support Buy America and to reject this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by first going back to a point someone made by starting their comment with saying, ``since the Biden administration has come in.'' I want to quickly make some points on that.

Since the Biden administration has come in, unemployment has dropped precipitously. We have seen continued economic growth in the United States. Manufacturing jobs have increased.

We have passed legislation to bring $35 copays for Medicare enrollees and have seen the private sector now adopt $35 copays for their enrollees for diabetes medications.

Since the Biden administration has come in, we have passed the PACT Act to support veterans needing healthcare.

Since the Biden administration has come in, although there is still work to do, I recognize inflation has dropped 65 percent.

There are a lot of things that have happened during the Biden administration, including the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law, which today is putting women and men to work around the country building next-generation infrastructure, next-generation bridges, roads, and highways and next-generation transit systems, spreading broadband around the country and closing the digital divide in so many communities, as well as supporting the adoption of electric vehicle use around the country.

It was noted that 14 percent of vehicles sold last year were electric vehicles. I didn't know it was that high. I thought it was a little lower than that. I am glad it is that high. It shows an increasing adoption of electric vehicles in the United States.

To support that, the administration, through the BIL, is now beginning to implement the distribution and deployment of federally funded electric vehicles to complement what is already being done in many States around the country supporting electric vehicle deployment, including in my district.

The city of Mount Vernon has received a grant to put in electric vehicle charging stations at their new Library Commons project, a project I supported and will continue to support, so we need to break the EV bond that the United States has with China and start by rejecting this resolution, because, when we buy America, we are going to say good-bye to our bond with China.

I would ask my colleagues, all Members, to reject S.J. Res. 38, to support this waiver, to give our private sector the time to develop what it needs to do to support the broader economy in the United States and the broader future of American transportation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Chief Master Sergeant Chloe Rainey-Fluellen, United States Air Force, and her work as the Department of Defense (DoD) legislative fellow detailed to my office for 2023.

In 2022, Chief Master Sergeant Rainey-Fluellen was selected to represent the Air Force as a DoD legislative fellow.

The DoD legislative fellowship program provides superior servicemembers with valuable legislative experience and an understanding of how congressional actions affect DoD's budget, roles and missions, force structure, military projects, and quality of life.

Over the past year, Chief Master Sergeant Rainey-Fluellen has been essential to my office and the defense portfolio. She has crafted and coordinated National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendments in line with my priorities and the needs of Northwest Washington communities.

I rise today to acknowledge that November is Native American Heritage Month. My district includes sovereign tribes whose people and culture contribute greatly to our region and nation: the Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Nation, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.

November is also a time to honor the women and men for their service in the United States Armed Forces. This Veterans Day, I honor the women and men from Native communities in northwest Washington who have fought for freedom, their homeland and their culture. More than 140,000 American Indian and Alaska Native veterans live in the United States today, including approximately 5,000 American Indian and Alaska Native veterans in Washington. Historically. Native peoples have answered the call to serve at the highest per capita rate of any population, embodying the values of bravely and sacrifice.

The Tulalip Tribes' proud history in the U.S. Armed Forces exemplifies the tradition of Tribal service. During the Vietnam War, approximately 42,000 American Indians--one out of every four eligible Native people--served in the U.S. Armed Forces, including 39 members of the Tulalip Tribes. My friend, Mel Sheldon, Jr., was one of these servicemembers. In August 1969, soon after graduating high school.

Mel enlisted in the U.S. Army. Thanks to his high aptitude, Mel advanced to Warrant Officer Flight School where he learned to fly helicopters. Arriving in Vietnam in October 1970. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Sheldon volunteered to fly dangerous scouting missions as a member of Charlie Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division. CWO2 Sheldon routinely exhibited bravery in combat alongside his fellow soldiers, accruing more than 900 hours of fjyjng time, including 600 hours flyjng scouting missions, before returning home in fall 1971.

Not yet 21 years old and after more than two years in the Army, Mel had a difflcult time transitioning home. As he put it, ``I wanted to feel proud of serving our country,'' but, like many Vietnam veterans, he did not feel welcomed or acknowledged upon returning home from an unpopular war. To Mel and the many veterans who felt this way-- including Tribal veterans, let me say how proud we are of their service and how grateful we are they returned home to serve their community for all these years.

After his Army service, Mel put his G.I. Bill benefits to use and furthered his education, attending Skagit College and then the University of Washington, where he earned his bachelor's degree in political science. His military service and education prepared him for a career as a commercial fisherman and, later, as a member of the Tulalip Tribes Board of Directors. Mel served for six years as Board Chairman, during which time he focused on protecting Tribal sovereignty and diversifying the Tribes' economy.

Today, the examples of Mel Sheldon, Jr. and proud Tribal veterans from my district and our country are an inspiration to current and future generations. Mr. Speaker, I raise my hands to Mel Sheldon, Jr., to the Tulalip veterans and to all Native women and men who served in the United States Armed Forces and who continue to serve their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Weber who recently retired after a 47-year career at the Port of Everett. A native of Marysville, Washington, Jim began working at the Port's marina as a seasonal employee while attending Marysville- Pilchuck High School. Jim did whatever needed to be done--pushing a broom, checking moorings and taking meter readings. Four years later, he landed a full-time job with the maintenance team. Over the next 43 years, Jim worked his way up at the marina--from maintenance journeyman to maintenance foreman to operations director. His hard work and

dedication earned him great respect among his colleagues and everyone he encountered at the Port.

Jim's storied career paralleled the growth of the Port of Everett. When Jim first started working at the marina in the 1970s, the Port hosted fishermen, mill workers and log tug crews; its central marina was home to fewer than 1,000 slips. Over the next 50 years, Jim played a central role in the transformation of the Port from an industrial waterfront into the largest public marina on the West Coast, helping to design, build, maintain and upgrade many of the marina's facilities, as well as the Jetty Landing boat launch, Jetty Island docks and Boxcar Park. Today, the new and improved Port is the ``jewel of Snohomish County,'' a place where people can work, shop, go out to eat and enjoy the outdoors, thanks to the hard work of people like Jim Weber. Jim was involved in and had time to enjoy many of the great events the Port offers throughout the year, including Wheels on the Waterfront, Sail-In Cinema, Holiday on the Bay, waterfront concerts, Opening Day of Boating and fishing derby events.

Mr. Speaker, Jim Weber's accomplishments are many, and his commitment to the Port of Everett is remarkable. As Jim told the Everett Herald in a recent article, he plans to dig his toes in the sand a bit and buy a few more classic cars in retirement. Congratulations to Jim on a well- earned retirement. We hope to see him showing off his newest classic car at Wheels on the Waterfront.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc.

It includes a number of provisions that will improve the bill, including:

A proposal from Representative Manning to advance the recommendations of the Youth Access to the American Jobs in Aviation Task Force, particularly on increasing access to information and enhancing collaboration;

A proposal led by Representative Rouzer with bipartisan support to prohibit the Department of Transportation from purchasing drones from foreign adversaries, including Russia and China;

A proposal led by Representative David Scott to increase the FAA's community outreach to aviation-impacted communities;

A proposal by Representative Sherrill with bipartisan support for the FAA to study national security implications of unmanned free balloons and the technical feasibility of having an electronic emitter on board;

A proposal from Representatives Thompson and Vasquez requiring the DOT to study the loss of commercial air service in small communities and providing recommendations for restoring that service; and

A critically important proposal from Representatives Yakym and Titus to ensure maximum air traffic controller hiring for the next 5 years.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I recommend that folks vote for this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chair, I don't know that I could add much to Chairman Graves' comments. He clearly is a leader--if not the leader--on aviation in this Congress. He has more expertise on the vagaries of the general aviation airplane market, and I stand behind his comments.

Mr. Chair, I will address a comment made earlier by the proponent of the amendment, and that was the implication that this bill seems to be only about this issue when we should be dealing with air traffic controller staffing, pilot staffing, or manufacturing.

I have said that this bill is not about issue A, issue B, or issue C. This bill is a whole alphabet of issues that we have to deal with with the FAA.

In fact, this bill does address air traffic controller staffing by requiring the FAA to staff up to the maximum number, according to the staffing model that the FAA has.

It makes investments in the aviation workforce with aviation workforce development programs to increase the amount of talent in the pipeline for pilots, maintenance workers, and manufacturing workers in aviation.

It makes critical changes and improvements to accessibility for people who are wheelchair-bound or need to use mobility aids when they travel.

To imply this bill is only about one issue, and this particular issue, is not an accurate description at all of this legislation nor of the work of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to bring this bill to the floor to get the FAA reauthorized.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to make sure that goes on record as part of this debate, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Representative Perry.

As Representative Perry knows, he is showing great leadership on the T&I subcommittee that oversees public building use, economic development, and emergency management. In fact, we had a hearing last week with a couple of witnesses to discuss the very issue of office use space with the General Services Administration.

There is quite a bit of agreement on the committee right now about the fact that we have a problem of empty office space and there is not a good alignment between the use of the space and telework policies. We are trying to get the GSA, the General Services Administration, to take a look at that hard and come up with a better balance.

Representative Perry is leading that effort, and I congratulate him for that. It is because of his leadership on that that we have some bipartisan agreement approaching that issue.

That said, the FAA telework policies that are under fire from this amendment existed prior to COVID-19, and they exist today. The FAA itself--as many agencies are--is trying to find that new balance post- COVID. I continue to support the agency's ability to establish and revise, as needed, their commonsense telework policies.

We have achieved a bipartisan, commonsense approach to dealing with and overseeing FAA telework coming out of this pandemic, and I urge Members to reject this amendment, which will take us backward.

Section 802 of the underlying bill addresses the core concern that Representative Perry has presented in this amendment, that the FAA should review the agency's telework policies. The underlying bill ensures FAA considers in its review aviation safety, employee training, the global leadership of U.S. aviation and performing oversight responsibilities.

Creating additional burdensome requirements on the FAA, as contemplated in the amendment, to get OMB approval for any telework policy changes will hinder FAA's ability to adapt to changing conditions.

This bill has already given the FAA a lot of things to do, and it doesn't seem to make sense to give them more to do when they are already, essentially, trying to get done what the spirit of the underlying bill is asking it to do.

This amendment would also undercut the FAA's existing collective bargaining agreements and force it to take up valuable time renegotiating these agreements when it should be focusing on its critical safety work.

Additionally, this amendment upgrades the FAA's ability to create a competitive workplace so we can attract people into the FAA and attract new talent.

For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I am opposing the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I retain my commitment to working with Representative Perry in his role as the chair of the subcommittee to continue looking at how we can get the GSA to best balance the use of federally owned office space and leased space with the Federal employee workforce.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, first off, I want to be clear. I think government unions should be legal. They are legal in the United States, and I am very pleased they are legal so those unions can represent the women and men who go to work every day on behalf of the taxpaying public to do their job in service.

In that vein, too, there is no indication that FAA employees are en bloc not showing up to go to work. They may not be going to the workplace because we have telework policies in place. That does not equate--it does not equate to people not doing the work that we ask of them. In fact, this bill, the FAA reauthorization bill, the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in the American Aviation Act, asks the FAA to do even more to improve the already gold standard that we have in U.S. aviation in the United States.

We are giving the FAA employees plenty to do, and our committee will commit to ensuring that the FAA does just that through our oversight responsibilities.

Mr. Chair, with my remaining time I do want to thank the chair of the full committee, Sam Graves, for his leadership to get us to this point. We are on the verge of passing a comprehensive, bipartisan, negotiated- in-good-faith, important, policy-based bill, I presume in a bipartisan manner, which may not make the news because it wasn't exciting enough for the news. We pride ourselves on being a boring committee and a workhorse committee, just trying to get our work done, and Sam Graves, in my view, deserves all the credit for that work and the great work of his team to make that happen.

I thank the team standing behind me on the committee staff, as well for their work to help make this happen. They are a critical part of ensuring that we got to this point today.

Should we pass this bill, we have some work to do with the other body and White House, but I expect that we will do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3935, the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, introduced by T&I Committee Chair Graves, Aviation Subcommittee Chair Graves, Ranking Member Cohen, and myself.

I extend my thanks to the chairman of the full committee, Sam Graves of Missouri, and the Subcommittee Chair Garret Graves of Louisiana, for their commitment to a bipartisan effort done in good faith to get this bill done that protects the flying public and secures the future of the U.S. aviation system.

In my home State of Washington, the aviation sector is a powerful economic engine that creates good-paying jobs and supports local communities in the Pacific Northwest.

This bill delivers for my constituents as well as for all Americans across the country. It advances American leadership in aviation safety and innovation, strengthens and diversifies our aviation workforce, expands consumer protections and accessibility, and fosters environmental sustainability in aviation.

Although the U.S. aviation system is the safest in the world, the last few years have shown there is still work to do. The rise in runway near misses at some U.S. airports expose a vulnerability for the flying public. This reauthorization will help prevent these events by expanding ground surveillance and detection capabilities to all large and medium hub U.S. airports.

Further, unruly passengers continue to pose a threat to flight crews and other frontline workers. This bill better protects workers by creating a task force on preventing assaults against airline personnel and enforcing a requirement that airlines establish employee assault and response plans.

Recent flight cancellations and delays have shaken the confidence of passengers in the U.S. aviation system. To get us back on the right course, this reauthorization requires airlines to create resiliency plans to address mass flight disruptions. It also takes steps to make passengers whole by requiring airlines to develop policies to cover food and hotel expenses due to flight disruptions.

The bill also supports the administration's push for family seating by requiring airlines to establish policies allowing passengers to sit next to their young children if adjacent seats are available.

For too long, passengers with disabilities have experienced inexcusable barriers in air travel from challenges with boarding the aircraft and inaccessible onboard lavatories, to damaged and mishandled wheelchairs and mobility aids.

This bill paves the way for safer and more dignified air travel for this particular community by directing the DOT to create a roadmap for airlines to reduce damage to mobility aids and to improve training for airline personnel and contractors on assisting passengers with disabilities.

Climate change is a growing threat to millions of Americans and the infrastructure we rely on. This bill makes groundbreaking investments in sustainability, increasing Federal funding for the Airport Improvement Program from $3.35 billion to $4 billion and dedicating a minimum of $150 million to airport environmental and noise programs.

It also allows U.S. airports to use these funds for alternative fuel infrastructure and environmental resiliency projects and works to mitigate the impacts of aviation noise on local communities.

It directs the FAA to review and revise Federal aviation noise standards and to seek feedback from neighboring communities as well. Furthermore, the bill requires the FAA to take certain actions to reduce undesirable aircraft noise when implementing or revising a flight procedure. These actions build the foundation for a cleaner future for our aviation ecosystem.

To secure American leadership in aerospace innovation, we must provide a clear and predictable framework for emerging industries to scale safely while ensuring the needs of communities are addressed.

From drones to electric or hydrogen-powered aircraft, advanced aviation technologies have clear economic and societal benefits.

In Washington State, drones will soon be used to deliver critical medical supplies in the Tacoma area, helping to reduce barriers to care for patients. This reauthorization also requires the FAA to issue proposed rules for drones to safely scale in this country, providing regulatory certainty to a growing sector, ensuring their safe integration into our skies, and creating U.S. jobs.

It will also help State, local, and Tribal governments acquire drones for infrastructure inspection and repair to help workers do their jobs more safely. It also extends a program that I championed to fund State and community efforts to plan for a future with advanced air mobility operations and infrastructure.

Our talented and dedicated U.S. workforce is the backbone of American aviation and makes the Nation's leadership in aviation safety and innovation possible.

This reauthorization is a jobs bill. It helps build the economy from the middle out and bottom up and diversifies the aviation workforce, recognizing how critical that effort is to our Nation's long-term economic success.

It makes robust investments in the FAA's aviation workforce development program to upskill the next generation of pilots, maintenance technicians, manufacturing workers, and other critical professions.

This will help local businesses, like Aviation Technical Services in Everett, Washington, to expand their apprenticeship and training programs and compete in the rapidly evolving global aviation sector.

The bill also creates the Willa Brown Aviation Education Program and establishes a National Center for the Advancement of Aerospace to support and promote aviation workforce development opportunities for everyone.

Crucially, it requires the FAA to hire the maximum number of air traffic controllers, as well as to adopt the most appropriate controller staffing model to meet growing airspace needs.

I will spend my final bit of comments on the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. This bill also reaffirms and strengthens the U.S. Department of Transportation's DBE program. As we increase investment under this bill and dedicate Federal dollars to airport projects, it is imperative that we ensure the process of awarding Federal transportation contract dollars allows for full participation on a level playing field by minority-owned and women-owned businesses.

The committee has accumulated evidence attesting to systemic discrimination that women and minorities face in attempts to establish, grow, and operate construction businesses, including those seeking contracts for airport construction projects and airport concessions across the country.

This evidence includes testimony at a hearing titled: ``Driving Equity: The U.S. Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program'' held on September 23, 2020, since the passage of the last bill.

We have received and reviewed disparity studies, testimony, and other evidence, including statistical analyses containing numerous disparity studies conducted since 2018, the Department of Justice ``Report on Lawful Uses of Race or Sex in Federal Contracting Programs,'' and the DOT's own report on DBE goal attainment. These studies and reports continue to demonstrate that race- and gender-neutral efforts alone are insufficient to address the problem.

The evidence demonstrates that discrimination across the U.S. poses an injurious and enduring barrier to full and fair participation in airport-related businesses of women businessowners and minority businessowners and has negatively affected firm formation, development and success in many aspects of airport-related businesses in public and private markets.

The evidence provides a clear picture of the inequality caused by this discrimination that continues to plague our Nation and a strong basis that there is a compelling need for the continuation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program to address race and gender discrimination in airport-related businesses.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record 65 studies and reports spanning communities in 25 States showing significant disparity between the use of DBE and non-DBE subcontractors. The full text of each report is held on file electronically with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

[July 19, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record evidence received by

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the

compelling need for the continuation of the Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise (DBE) program.

This statistical evidence includes 64 disparity studies

conducted in 25 states since 2018, showing significant

disparities between the use of DBE and non-DBE subcontractors

in publicly financed, airport-related construction and

concession contracting and in publicly financed, non-airport

construction contracting that involves many of the same types

of subcontracting opportunities available on airport

projects.

The submission also includes reports prepared for and by

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department

of Commerce, including a report analyzing over 200 disparity

studies produced by state and local government agencies

between 2010 and 2021 and other evidence related to

disparities faced by minority business enterprises in public

and private contracting markets; and DOJ's 2022 survey of

evidence documenting the compelling interest to remedy the

effects of discrimination in government contracting.

This evidence demonstrates a strong basis that there is a

compelling need for the continuation of the Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise and Airport Concession Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise programs to address race and gender

discrimination in airport-related business.

The full text of each study and report is held on file

electronically with the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

Alaska

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Study, Alaska Department

of Transportation and Public Facilities, Final Report and

Final Appendices, Prepared by MGT Consulting Group (2020).

Arizona

Arizona Department of Transportation 2020 Disparity Study,

Final Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research LLC

(2020).

California

2022 Caltrans FTA Disparity Study, California Department of

Transportation, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2022).

Availability and Disparity Study Report 2021, California

Department of Transportation, Prepared by BBC Research &

Consulting (2021).

North County Transit District 2022 Disparity Study Final

Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2022).

2020 Disparity Study, City of San Diego, Prepared by BBC

Research & Consulting (2020).

Colorado

2020 State of Colorado Disparity Study, Final Report,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research LLC (2020).

2018 Disparity Study, City and County of Denver, Final

Report, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2018).

Delaware

2022 Disparity Study, State of Delaware, Prepared by MGT

Consulting (2022).

New Castle County, DE 2022 Public Works Procurement

Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by Keen Independent

Research LLC (2022).

Florida

City of St. Petersburg Disparity Study Final Report,

Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2021).

2019 Disparity Study, City of Tallahassee, Leon County, and

Blueprint, Prepared by MGT Consulting Group (2019).

Hawaii

Hawaii Department of Transportation 2019 Availability and

Disparity Study, Final Availability and Disparity Study

Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).

Illinois

City of Chicago Disparity Study for Construction Contracts

2021, Prepared by Colette Holt & Associates (2021).

Chicago Transit Authority Disparity Study 2019, Prepared by

Colette Holt & Associates (2019).

Indiana

2019 Disparity Study, City of Indianapolis and Marion

County, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2019).

City of South Bend Disparity Study, Prepared by Colette

Holt & Associates (2019).

2020 Disparity Study, State of Indiana Final Report,

Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2020).

Kentucky

2022 Disparity Study, Lexington-Fayette Urban County

Government Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research &

Consulting (2022).

Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

Disparity Study, Final Report, Prepared by Mason Tillman

Associates, Ltd. (2018).

Louisiana

City of Alexandria LA Disparity Study, Final Report,

Prepared by Keen Independent Research LLC (2022).

City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge Disparity

Study, Final Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research

The Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act is a long-term, comprehensive, and bipartisan reauthorization that cements a safer, cleaner, greener, more innovative and accessible future for the U.S. aviation system.

I will end my opening comments by again thanking Chair Sam Graves and Subcommittee Chair Garret Graves for making sure that they are reaching out to the Democratic side of the aisle to ensure that we could have a bipartisan and collaborative bill put together. I thank Subcommittee Ranking Member Cohen for his leadership as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and for all of the staff for their hard work, as well.

Particularly, I thank the minority staff of the Subcommittee on Aviation: staff director, Brian Bell; professional staff, Alex Menardy; counsel, Adam Weiss; and our FAA detailee, Liz Forro, for the hard work and the countless hours they have spent crafting this legislation with their majority counterparts.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chair, I will conclude by saying that we encourage Members to support this. This is a bipartisan bill negotiated in good faith. It is a very substantial bill, and I think it is a product that we can certainly be proud of to move forward on.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment reflects bipartisan agreement on a variety of technical fixes and good policy worthy of inclusion in this bill.

It includes language from Representative Schrier of Washington State to focus FAA's aviation workforce development efforts on transitioning veterans to the civilian workforce, an amendment that the committee worked together on with Representative Gooden to make happen.

It requires the FAA to develop a process to restrict drones from flying over large outdoor gatherings. It clears unnecessary red tape for the FAA to issue airport improvement grants and ensures our air traffic controllers are consulted on major policy changes, protects information or data reported by pilots or engineers through voluntary safety reporting requirements, and includes language from Representative Stanton of Arizona to require the Secretary of Transportation to propose a rulemaking to improve seating accommodations for individuals with disabilities.

Finally, it expands FAA's counter-UAS testing authorities to consider the impacts to the safety of the National Airspace System beyond the airport environment.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc.

It includes a number of provisions that will improve the bill overall, including:

A proposal from Representative Brown of Ohio to ensure passengers on air carriers and foreign air carriers have the right to free drinking water on any flight longer than an hour;

A proposal from Representatives Carbajal, Yakym, and Davids directing the FAA to test the use of mobile technologies to deliver air traffic control clearances to general aviation pilots and part 135 operators;

A proposal from Representatives Ciscomani and Stanton to prioritize air traffic control staffing at towers with strategic traffic and safety considerations;

A proposal from Representative DelBene to expand the FAA's Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment to conduct research on hydrogen, supporting increasing efforts to decarbonize the aviation sector;

A proposal from Representative DeSaulnier to create a task force on human factors safety to harmonize disparate human factors work being done currently across the aviation community;

A proposal from Representative Donalds encouraging the FAA to embrace the use of drones for helping workers to conduct safer, more efficient infrastructure inspections; and

A proposal from Representative Eshoo to ensure community voices are heard on aircraft noise issues.

Mr. Chair, I support this en bloc, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers on the en bloc, so I will close by asking Members to please support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc. It includes several provisions that will improve the bill overall, including amendments from Representatives Lee, Hoyle, Gottheimer, Lynch, and others.

I support this en bloc and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I have no other speakers on amendments en bloc No. 2, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc. It includes several amendments that strengthen the bill, including:

A proposal from Representative Magaziner to ensure AIP funding can be used for cybersecurity projects;

An amendment from Representatives Meng, Norton, Johnson, Nadler, and Raskin to ensure overflight community feedback is considered as the FAA updates its aircraft noise policies;

A proposal from Representative Neguse of Colorado to ensure the FAA directly interviews residents from communities impacted by aircraft noise as part of its community engagement efforts;

Several proposals from Representative Pettersen of Colorado to address community noise concerns, in-flight emergency medical kits, and pilot mental health;

A bipartisan proposal from Representatives Porter and Westerman to audit and improve the FAA's responsiveness to congressional requests--I just can't imagine who couldn't support that; and

A proposal from Representative Pressley to study transit access to airports.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support en bloc No. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would create an apprenticeship program for individuals seeking to become commercial pilots.

I do want to say I am very pleased to be able to support many of Representative Donalds' amendments to the bill, working in a bipartisan manner.

This one I just couldn't come to a place where I am comfortable, but certainly as a long-time supporter of aviation and STEM-related apprenticeships, I do appreciate the intent of Representative Donalds' amendment. However, it is duplicative of several provisions in the underlying bill that already bolster the pilot pipeline.

This authorization already triples the funding for FAA's Aviation Workforce Development Grant programs, which funds aviation apprenticeship programs. It creates the Willa Brown Aviation Education Program, which could fund apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented communities and creates a National Center for the Advancement of Aerospace, an independently, federally chartered nonprofit entity to administer grants to establish apprenticeships for aviation careers and serve as a centralized resource to provide comprehensive information on aviation apprenticeship opportunities.

I earlier adopted an amendment in the en bloc amendment that was sponsored by Representatives Schrier and Gooden to help veterans transition into the commercial pilot world. Apprenticeships are already well covered in this underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment because it would create an exemption for nonhub airports from the requirement to have at least one individual who maintains certification as an emergency medical technician, or EMT, during carrier operations.

This amendment poses a safety risk that would be detrimental to passengers. Unlike what the proponent said about the Federal Government imposing an employment requirement on an airport, this is actually a single safety standard that applies to all airports, that there be a certified emergency technician to respond to emergencies at all airports.

It is, indeed, a national standard, but one done for safety, especially in support of passenger carrying air carrier operations.

In the event of a medical emergency that occurs at the airport or on a flight, passengers and airport workers should receive care as quickly as possible regardless of where they are flying to. Having an EMT available at the airport could mean the difference between life and death in the event of an emergency.

All passengers should be reassured that even if they are traveling out of or through a nonhub airport, they have the same safety precautions at that airport as they do at all airports in the United States.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as a Member of Congress who represents several small rural airports, including ones that are isolated on islands, I appreciate the argument that the gentleman from Iowa has been making. Yet, given the fact that I have a district with some of the same circumstances, even airports that are isolated on islands, I still believe that there needs to be EMTs available in the event of emergencies at these nonhub airports. I want one safety standard for the country, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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 to the amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the FAA recently issued a final rule on requiring secondary barriers to protect the flight deck in newly manufactured aircraft. The underlying text of this bill creates a rulemaking committee to consider how to apply this requirement to existing aircraft, and this amendment adds a rulemaking requirement to that text.

Secondary barriers are a critical tool to keeping our pilots and flight decks safe and secure in the event of a horrible, horrible intrusion.

Mr. Chair, therefore, I rise to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the FAA to consider the economic viability of commercial air tours over national parks.

In 2022, the National Park Service recorded 312 million recreational visits to our national parks. This number reflects the overwhelming significance our parks have to the American public. They serve as a place of recreation, a place used to teach new generations about conservation and wildlife, and a place to admire the beauty of our great outdoors in the U.S.

National park air tour management plans are in place to help protect the sanctity of our parks from incessant helicopter overflights, which can disrupt both the wildlife and the natural beauty of the parks visitors enjoy.

Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to protect our parks from the noise and disturbance of increased helicopter tours by voting ``no'' on this amendment.

This amendment would require air tour management plans to consider profits in the development of those plans, which would undoubtedly increase the number of helicopters flying above our parks. This runs contrary to the original purpose of these management plans, which is to protect the integrity of the parks.

Helicopter tours are an incredible way to see national parks for the privileged few, but they simultaneously degrade the park experience for the vast majority of other park visitors.

Our national parks were created as a public good, to preserve our natural wonders for all Americans to enjoy. We must not erode that in favor of tour profits and those who can afford to pay.

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

Mr. Chair, before I yield to my good friend, Representative Case from Hawaii, I would note that he is a great American, and I do think that the debates here on the floor of the House are a reflection of being great Americans as opposed to being un-American.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. Chair, there has been a good debate on this bill. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, and clearly, there are experiences where helicopters and helicopter tours do disrupt the wildlife, other visitors, and the people around national parks.

Mr. Chair, I ask all the Americans in this body to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require the DOT inspector general to investigate the FAA's decision to increase the electrocardiogram, or EKG, range that is permissible for pilots.

This amendment follows a change made by the agency last October to increase the allowable range of an EKG result from 200 to 300 milliseconds without requiring further documentation from the pilot.

The FAA's change in the allowable EKG result range was based on scientific data from cardiovascular experts documented in the public domain. Such data shows that an EKG result under 300 milliseconds indicates that the pilot has no real risk of sudden heart failure if there are no other medical issues.

Medical standards and recommendations have always evolved over time as medicine becomes more advanced and health professionals learn new information. The FAA should take advantage of the latest guidance from medical experts to ensure these guidelines for pilots are as safe as possible.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in closing, I will say that the FAA's action, despite some claims, was not taken in response to any change in pilot medical conditions or heart health due to having received the COVID vaccine. That has been a claim in less scientific circles. This decision was made based on science, using the experts, using science, and using data.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting Chair. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct the FAA Administrator to require air carriers, airlines and others, to reinstate pilots that may have lost their jobs because of noncompliance with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The FAA cannot direct air carriers on hiring decisions like this. It cannot require air carriers to hire specific individuals. This amendment simply is not implementable.

Is that where we are going with this bill, to let the FAA make hiring and firing decisions for these private aviation companies?

Furthermore, this amendment revives an unnecessary debate on COVID-19 vaccine mandates, one that we had 3 years ago. This is an unwelcome distraction from this very substantive reauthorization discussion on this bill that will enhance safety and the aviation workforce.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the FAA does not really have a role to play in telling air carriers to hire the folks back. It is not an amendment that is implementable. I am a little flummoxed by it myself. However, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am happy this amendment is coming up because I hope the gentleman from Michigan will vote against a further amendment that may come up later tonight that will get rid of this program altogether, this vertiport infrastructure grant program.

Mr. Chair, I am glad he likes it enough to add to it, and I hope others feel that way, too, so we can protect the basis of this program. I know all about it because I wrote the bill to actually create this program in the first place. It was done with a very specific purpose in mind, and the gentleman noted the criteria involved--to help State, local, and Tribal governments be part of the advanced air mobility future. We were very clear about that.

Another thing we were very clear about when we wrote that bill and got it into law was to ensure that it was as neutral as possible when it came to any number of the advanced air mobility companies that were seeking to develop and get certified by the FAA and operate within the United States.

Prioritizing the grants awarded under the AAM infrastructure program to entities that collaborate with the Department of Defense or the National Guard would actually put a thumb on the scale for the three companies that are actually involved with this effort with the DOD.

There are many other AAM companies that are not involved with the DOD, and this would put these companies sort of at a head start over these others.

Since its inception in 2019, as a for instance, the U.S. Air Force's Agility Prime program has focused on the potential defense applications of eVTOL aircraft, or electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, and what we call on the commercial side of things, AAM.

Through Agility Prime, the DOD partners with these industry leaders and key stakeholders to examine the airworthiness and military uses for AAM aircraft and necessary infrastructure to support strategic cargo and personnel transport. In fact, that program within the DOD has awarded over 20 contracts, totaling more than $100 million, to very innovative aviation companies to further develop their advanced aircraft as they work toward civil certifications and commercial operations, but doing that with the help of the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chair, I support fostering this U.S. innovation, but this amendment would prioritize the funding through the AAM Infrastructure Pilot program, which funds State and local government planning efforts for future civil AAM infrastructure and operations, to efforts that are being addressed under Agility Prime.

There is a place to do this. It is called DOD's military construction budget. We just passed an authorization of nearly $886 billion last week out of the House of Representatives. Surely, there are a few dollars in that budget for the DOD to use to improve the taxiways and the aprons at these joint sites that the National Guard and the Air Force use with civilian airports rather than go after the really fairly small amounts that are available in these transportation planning grants that we were able to get through the AAM infrastructure planning grant.

I would just tell folks there is a place for these companies to go. It should not be these planning grants. It should be the DOD construction budget.

Besides, if we do that, it will give these particular companies a head start over many other companies, and, frankly, in fact, the cities and counties [that are trying to access these grants already.

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

Mr. Chairman, is it my time or his time he is going to use?

Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close on this argument, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, to close, I assure the gentleman that, first, I am 100 percent sure that his amendment will dilute the original grant program. I am 100 percent sure there are other ways to finance this, especially through a very large MilCon budget that passed as part of the defense bill. And I am 100 percent sure that I am correct in opposing this amendment having been the author of the original bill to establish the AAM Infrastructure Act.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, on the committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we like to pride ourselves on being boring. We like to let folks know if they want excitement in Congress, there are other committees to attend or go to. The T&I Committee is not one of those. We like to think that we are focused on the transportation and infrastructure of the United States and on the things that we need to do to ensure its safety and building it out.

I am confused by this amendment, that it exists at all, because what the amendment is doing is taking out a word, ``social,'' that the proponent is defining as something that is not in any way defined by the committee in the way he is defining it.

Think about what we are talking about when we talk about the BEYOND program and what we would like to do beyond just looking at economic factors of drones. We want to look at how medical supplies can be delivered to rural areas. That is not an economic factor to look at. That is a social factor to look at, the ability to get healthcare to rural areas. The ability to assist law enforcement with things like search and rescue, that is not an economic factor. It is a social factor to ensure safer communities.

Assisting wildfire responders as they fight wildfires, that is not an economic factor. That is a social issue to protect wildfire responders as well as the communities that are impacted by wildfires.

I am just really confused. If this amendment had been in our committee and had been discussed, we would have never brought this up because it just doesn't live between our ears on the committee--this debate about the problem that people have with social factors. We would have realized these social factors are really about the things that I am talking about here, like how do we use the BEYOND program to ensure that we can use drones or uncrewed aerial systems, unmanned aerial systems, in order to provide factors that are beyond just the economic factors, how do they help the economy grow? They have uses beyond just helping the economy grow. The BEYOND program should be used to help us look at those issues.

I would just ask folks to please let us do a bill that is actually trying to move aviation forward instead of bogging us down in some of these debates that frankly are better left, perhaps, in other committees but not in the T&I Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, this is not only an issue that evokes passion among Members, it is also very bipartisan. It is going to be bipartisan in opposition and bipartisan in support.

We expected that on the committee, which is why we had asked for the Rules Committee to put something in order on the floor so we could have this debate and let the will of the House take its course.

I would just note, though, in my informal survey of Members on my side of the aisle, the seven slot pairs have been committed only 36 times already.

The point is: There is a lot of overpromising taking place about which cities are going to be served by this deal.

The problem with that is that one is too many and 100 is not enough, but the supply of runway at DCA is so small that it can't handle what it is taking now much less what increased demand will bring to it.

Mr. Chair, it is a difficult issue. Members are going to be voting for and against on both sides, and I look forward to that vote.

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 to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike the requirement that the FAA administrator consider expanding the CLEEN Program, which stands for continuous lower energy, emission, and noise program, to new entrants.

Now, I want to be clear. It doesn't necessarily mean new technologies or different kinds of technologies as much as it can also mean new companies that are looking to do the same thing but do it better. To ensure that the FAA administrator is not continually approving grants to existing companies that are already in the program who may not be succeeding, we want to be sure the FAA administrator is looking beyond the current slate of companies that are applying.

In addition to that, of course, there are new entrants in the airspace. There is more projected use of even electronic aircraft. In the future, hydrogen is being looked at as a fuel for aviation--not tomorrow and maybe not in 5 years, but certainly within the next 10 to 15 years.

Doing some of the early work in this field is very important, so the FAA administrator needs the authority and the freedom to do just that.

This amendment is pulling back on some of the innovation that we, frankly, can only look to the government to do, so that it builds a foundation for the private sector to build upon and sometimes in this industry to take off as well.

Mr. Chair, so I would ask Members to oppose this amendment. Let the administrator continue to administer the CLEEN Program but send a clear message that they need to be looking beyond the regular sort of entrants that they are getting into this program and look to the future of aviation when they look at the CLEEN Program.

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

Mr. Chair, there is a race on. There is a race on aviation, a race to implement and use new fuels that are more efficient and that are also cleaner. There is a race on, and other countries and regions of the world are investing in that race, putting their companies at a competitive advantage over the U.S.-based companies. The CLEEN Program is one of our tools to participate in that race.

The CLEEN Program also helps us invest in fuel efficiency. The fuel efficiency of aviation has helped reduce aviation fuel burn in this country.

There is a direct relationship between the goodness of the taxpayer investment in the CLEEN Program to the new fuel-efficient airplanes that we see being used today and the fuel-efficient engines that we see being used today.

The next version of that, the next step of that race is sustainable aviation fuel. It is in electric propulsion, and in the future it is hydrogen propulsion. There is quite a bit of private-sector investment going on in the use of hydrogen as a fuel to move things, including airplanes.

Now, we are not quite there yet in this country in the private sector, but no one else is either. I want to win that race, and part of winning that race is ensuring that the Federal Government is a partner in winning that race. Winning that race in aviation is ensuring that FAA has tools like CLEEN to be sure that it is a partner with airlines, with entrepreneurs, and with innovators who want us to participate in this race.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if going to the Moon in 1969 was viable at all, the private sector would have done it. It didn't. We did it. America did it, and America did it with investment.

I am not making a wild claim like going to the Moon is exactly this kind of race that we are faced with, but there is a clear role for the Federal Government to play in a partnership with innovators and entrepreneurs to ensure that the next generation of innovation and aviation happens in the United States and not elsewhere.

I ask folks to support the CLEEN program, to not limit its use, and to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor Bruce Robert Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service. Bruce passed away suddenly on Friday, March 17, at the height of a distinguished career serving Congress.

Bruce served Congress in several roles, including in the Senate Treaty Review Support Office and on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition. Beginning in 2003, he served for 20 years as an Analyst and then Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, bringing his considerable expertise in the Indo-Pacific region to bear on vital national security issues important for Congress. Bruce was a passionate and dedicated public servant who believed deeply in CRS's mission to provide Congress with authoritative, non-partisan and intelligent analysis.

Bruce brought deep historical understanding of the region. He advised Congress on the

most important issues of the day, but never stopped thinking ahead. From early in his career, Bruce anticipated the importance of the Indian Ocean region and Oceania to U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific. Given the importance of the region to my constituents, Bruce was a valuable resource to me and my legislative staff in preparing for official travel, welcoming high-level delegations from the region and organizing briefings. Even after Bruce's passing, staff and Members will continue to rely on his written analysis and expertise.

I offer my sincere condolences to Bruce's family, friends and colleagues at the Congressional Research Service, and hope they may take comfort in the knowledge of his indelible and ongoing contribution to the work of Congress. Congress has lost a distinguished public servant. I thank Bruce and honor his life and his work.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic and ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

The Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic helps the United States and its NATO allies counter Russia and China through the accelerated development of innovative technologies to defend the U.S. and our NATO allies.

These innovative technologies include artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and hypersonic missiles and defense, all valuable tools to give the U.S. and its NATO allies leverage over Russia and China.

Continued U.S. leadership and collaboration with NATO allies on emerging technologies will lead to greater innovation and ensure the U.S. will have a direct influence on the modernization of the NATO alliance.

Earlier this year, an American was elected chair of the board of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic, and two Americans currently serve on the board. The U.S. will lead this new, necessary NATO national security effort, and Americans will continue to work alongside its allies to build a stronger alliance and a safer world.

In addition, the language that is in the underlying bill is actually the language to authorize the U.S. to begin funding its part. That is why the U.S. doesn't currently fund its part. We had to write legislation to get the U.S., the DOD, to get its authorization to fund its part in DIANA.

In addition to that, in the next 5 years, the U.S. commitment is about $47 million, while NATO allies will contribute about $1.1 billion, so I would say we are going to get our money's worth, Mr. Chair.

The U.S. must continue to support the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, support U.S. participation in NATO, and to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn H.R. 2811, the GOP's Default on America Act, which puts politics over people by making deep cuts that kill jobs, harm the economy and immediately impact families, seniors and small businesses in Northwest Washington. According to House Budget Committee and White House estimates, in my home state of Washington, the Default on America Act would:

Put 371,000 people at risk of losing Medicaid coverage;

Cut approximately $67 million in Title I funding for schools serving low-income children, impacting an estimated 420,000 students and reducing program funding to its lowest level in almost a decade;

Make college more expensive for at least 308,000 students who receive Pell Grants;

Threaten access to food assistance for 19,000 people;

Eliminate preschool and child care for at least 4,800 children;

Increase housing costs for at least 17,400 people;

Eliminate at least 6 air traffic control towers;

Cut at least 240 rail safety inspection days;

Repeal investments in cleaner, cheaper energy--threatening at least 800 clean energy and manufacturing jobs announced in Washington since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Default on America Act would also undermine transportation safety, harm the environment and prevent communities from investing in critical infrastructure projects for the next decade.

By making the U.S. default on certain debt obligations, the extreme GOP plan would also downgrade the U.S.' credit rating and international standing.

According to House Budget Committee estimates, in Washington's Second Congressional District, defaulting on the debt would:

Kill about 7,300 jobs in Northwest Washington;

Jeopardize Social Security payments for 103,000 families in my district;

Put health benefits at risk for 295,000 individuals in my district who rely on Medicare, Medicaid or Veterans Affairs health coverage;

Increase lifetime mortgage costs for the typical homeowner in Washington by approximately $81,000;

Raise the costs of a new car loan for the typical American by approximately $800;

Threaten the retirement savings of more than 102,000 people near retirement in my district, eliminating $20,000 from a typical retirement portfolio.

Congress must put people over politics by ensuring the U.S. government meets its obligations while ensuring historic investments like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act are fully implemented to create more jobs, lower costs and build cleaner, greener, safer and more accessible communities in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

I call on my House colleagues to join me in voting ``No'' on the extreme GOP Default on America Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, clean water is critical for the health and safety of our communities and our families. Our local businesses, farmers, and our economy depend on clean water for their success and their prosperity.

House Democrats have a proud and successful history of supporting clean water. House Democrats have championed investments in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure systems, ensuring that all communities can trust in the safety of the water they drink and the treatment of the wastewater they produce.

Last Congress, House Democrats provided historic, bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically for clean water, the BIL invests almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure and is creating jobs in communities across the country.

The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of American families. Today, I would put to you that we are doing the opposite and putting polluters over people with this doomed veto override attempt.

In my own State of Washington, we are defined by clean water, including the health of the iconic Puget Sound and the hundreds of crystal clear lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams that run through our State.

My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water does not stay put.

House Democrats know we can protect clean water while providing certainty to businesses, farmers, and for everyone who depends upon clean water for their lives and livelihoods.

This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on smaller streams as a source of drinking water at a time when many States continue to face historic droughts.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean water rules that are simple, clear, and easy to follow. So do we. We agree on that.

The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does just that, following the law and the science of protecting clean water while providing regulatory certainty and stability for everyone.

Unfortunately, this resolution will do the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the administration's call for vetoing H.J. Res. 27.

The argument is that they want bright lines in the regulation of clean water, yet the only proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to support is the Navigable

Waters Protection Rule of the previous administration, a proposal that removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams.

That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court, not by this administration, but by a Federal court in 2021, as fundamentally flawed and likely to cause serious environmental harm every day that it remained in effect.

Yet, despite their call for certainty, my colleagues have failed to recognize that passage of this resolution that is before us today would leave Americans without a clear definition of waters of the United States.

By taking away this clarity, this resolution brings back the very same uncertainty and ambiguity that supporters claim to be concerned about. I know they are concerned about that uncertainty.

This resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important exclusions that have been codified in this administration's rule to help water-dependent businesses and farmers understand and comply with the law.

For example, because it prohibits the EPA from issuing substantially the same rule, this resolution means the elimination of two longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior converted crop land--exclusions that have been relied upon by communities, developers, industry, and farmers for decades.

This resolution would also eliminate six new regulatory exclusions for features considered generally non-jurisdictional, including certain ditches, artificially irrigated areas, and artificial lakes or ponds.

Ironically, this resolution will result in more uncertainty and more bodies of water being regulated than under the administration's proposal. You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the Congressional Budget Office report accompanying this resolution. It is right in there.

As I mentioned previously on this floor and in another debate on this issue, the Biden proposal will not adversely impact family farmers in this country, period. Why?

Because farmers are, by statute, largely exempt from the Clean Water Act regulation where less than 1 percent of all wetlands permits relate to ag activities nationwide.

Therefore, if a farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and ranching activity, that farm is exempt from regulation, and the current proposal does not change that exemption.

In short, this resolution still makes no sense. It invalidates the Biden rule and all the clarifications and all of the exceptions for business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less clear regulatory framework.

It increases uncertainty and the likelihood of continued legal battles and gridlock; the opposite of what businesses and farmers are looking for.

Mr. Speaker, I support this administration's efforts on clean water, both through implementation of the critical bipartisan infrastructure law investments in water infrastructure and its veto of this shortsighted resolution.

This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose this resolution and work toward real predictability for businesses that need it, and clean water for communities that cannot survive without it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from 111 organizations opposed to overriding the veto of this Congressional Review Act resolution.

April 17, 2023.

Re: Vote NO on the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the

Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval

of the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United

States''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and

supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose

the attempt to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res.

27, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of

disapproval targeting the Revised Definition of the ``Waters

of the United States'' rule (Clean Water Restoration Rule).

This dangerous legislation would invalidate the Biden

administration's recently finalized regulation, which ensures

protections for many of the waters that our families and

communities value and depend on.

This Clean Water Restoration Rule ensures that critical

waters--from small streams to rivers to wetlands--are

protected from unregulated pollution and destruction when

they have important downstream effects on water quality. The

rule is a return to a familiar approach that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) have used to identify waters that

qualify as ``waters of the United States'' since President

George W. Bush's administration. It also resoundingly rejects

the Trump-era approach, which unlawfully and unscientifically

rolled back the Clean Water Act's long standing protections

and reinstates basic safeguards to ensure big polluters can

be stopped from recklessly and indiscriminately bulldozing

our wetlands and dumping waste into our streams. The Clean

Water Restoration Rule is grounded in science, which

demonstrates that the condition of waters often depends on

water bodies upstream, and those upstream waters must be

protected to safeguard the health of downstream communities

and the environment. The rule will more effectively fulfill

the purpose of the Clean Water Act: ``to restore and maintain

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation's waters.''

By using the Congressional Review Act to attack the Clean

Water Restoration Rule, H.J. Res. 27 is employing an

incredibly blunt tool in a dangerous attempt to undermine the

Clean Water Act itself. When a rule is undone using the CRA

process, future administrations are prevented from issuing

rules that are ``substantially the same,'' which could

undermine future agency action to the benefit of polluters.

Despite rhetoric that this bill is being promoted to provide

certainty for businesses and other stakeholders, it would

actually do the opposite. For instance, should H.J. Res. 27

become law, both protections and exemptions codified in the

Clean Water Restoration Rule, including ones for the

agriculture industry, could be called into question in future

efforts designed to define ``waters of the United States.''

The only stakeholders who benefit from this attack on our

clean water protections are big polluters who dump waste into

our waterways and burden our families and communities with

the health and environmental costs.

Again, we ask you to oppose the veto override of H.J. Res.

27, the CRA joint resolution disapproving of the Biden-Harris

administration's Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the

United States.'' This harmful bill is simply a polluter-

driven effort to undermine the Clean Water Act and the

critical safeguards that it provides for our waters. Congress

should be doing more, not less, to protect our waterways and

to ensure that everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or

income, has access to clean, safe water.

Sincerely,

350.org; A Community Voice; Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska

Community Action on Toxics; Alliance for the Great Lakes;

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; American

Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association;

American Rivers; American Sustainable Business

Network; Amigos Bravos; Anthropocene Alliance; Appalachian

Trail Conservancy; Asociacion de Residentes de La

Margaita, Inc; Atchafalaya Basinkeeper; Black Millennials

4 Flint; Cahaba River Society; California Environmental

Voters; Center for a Sustainable Coast; Center for

Biological Diversity.

Center for Environmental Transformation; Chesapeake Bay

Foundation; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean

Water Action; Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & Sustainable

Community, Inc.; Coalition for Wetlands and Forests;

Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River; Community In-

Power and Development Association Inc. (CIDA Inc.); Concerned

Citizens for Nuclear Safety; Concerned Citizens of Cook

County (Georgia); Conservation Alabama; Earthjustice;

Endangered Habitats League;

Environment America; Environment Maine; Environment Michigan;

Environment Minnesota; Environment Montana; Environment

Nevada.

Environment New Hampshire; Environment New York;

Environment Ohio; Environment Rhode Island; Environment

Texas; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental

Working Group; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);

Freshwater Accountability Project; Freshwater Future; Friends

of Buckingham; Friends of the Mississippi River; Gila

Resources Information Project; Greater Edwards Aquifer

Alliance; Greater Neighborhood Alliance of Jersey City, NJ;

Green Latinos; Groundswell Charleston SC; Gullah/Geechee Sea

Island Coalition; Harpeth Conservancy.

Healthy Gulf; Hispanic Federation; Idaho Rivers United;

Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; Kentucky Waterways

Alliance; Izaak Walton League of America; Lake Erie

Waterkeeper; Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance; Lawyers for Good

Government (L4GG); League of Conservation Voters; Lynn Canal

Conservation; Maine Conservation Voters; Malach Consulting;

Michigan League of Conservation Vote; Milton's Concerned

Citizens; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Mississippi River

Collaborative; Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper; Montana

Conservation Voters; MS Communities United for Prosperity

(MCUP).

National Wildlife Federation; Natural Heritage Institute;

Natural Resources Defense Council; NC Conservation Network;

NC League of Conservation Voters; New Mexico Climate Justice;

New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of

Conservation Voters; Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition;

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness; Ohio Environmental

Council; Ohio River Foundation; Our Children's Earth

Foundation; Park Watershed; Patagonia Area Resource Alliance;

PES; Rapid Creek Watershed Action; Renewal of Life Trust.

River Network; Save the Illinois River, Inc., STIR; Serene

Wildlife Sanctuary LLC; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental

Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The Clinch Coalition; The

Water Collaborative of Greater Greater New Orleans; Tookany/

Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership; Virginia League of

Conservation Voters; Washington Conservation Action;

Waterkeepers Chesapeake; Weequahic Park Association; Winyah

Rivers Alliance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I want to state, again, for the record, that the Federal courts blocked the implementation of the previous administration's navigable waters protection rule. It wasn't this administration.

In response to that, the administration developed a new rule, this particular one that we are debating today. So it needs to be said for the record that the Federal courts made a decision about the previous administration's rule, not this particular administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to clarify that if this passes and we override the veto message, the end result will be reverting to a rule that was created around 2007, 2008, not the last administration's rule but another rule that I don't think either side likes.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a long, proud, and successful history of supporting clean water. Last year, House Democrats successfully made historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs.

These clean water investments are helping everyday Americans with safe, reliable, and sustainable water and wastewater services while providing good-paying jobs that cannot be sent overseas and reinvigorating our State and local economies.

Every day, more and more Americans are realizing the public health, economic, and environmental benefits of this transformative law, benefits that will continue as additional resources are implemented across the country.

The bipartisan infrastructure law was what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is the opposite. Again, I support President Biden for his decision to veto this resolution.

My colleagues say they want certainty, and we agree, but that certainty that we support also ensures the health and safety of our environment for current and future generations. This resolution, though, provides no certainty.

I argue that it is a playbook for how to create confusion, more litigation, and continued gridlock.

This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which provide drinking water for millions of Americans.

This resolution provides no benefits for our economy. It not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the Clean Water Act, but it also blocks any provision of additional clarity for businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward.

In short, this resolution is a step backward for clean water, and it is a step backward for certainty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto by voting ``no'' and to reject this attack on our clean water future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.