Investing in A New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, today we are here to talk about improving America's infrastructure, something that we all agree needs to be done. If we were serious about doing that, we would be taking up a bipartisan bill to fix our highways, our bridges, and our transit systems.
Let me remind everyone that 3 months from now highway and transit programs are going to shut down if we do not act. Every Democrat and every Republican participating today knows that a bipartisan agreement is the only way that we are going to get this done. That is why H.R. 2, which is nothing more than an enormous partisan wish list, is going nowhere. If this were a serious effort, then we wouldn't be talking about passing a $1.5 trillion debt to future generations. We would be talking about real proposals to fix the finances of the highway trust fund.
Instead, the majority is pointing fingers at the President and Republicans despite the fact that they wrote the entire partisan proposal in the Speaker's Office. But they want the American people to believe that it is Republicans' fault that they couldn't figure out to how to pay for their bill.
If this were a serious effort, we wouldn't be talking about tacking on a multitude of unreasonable Green New Deal mandates onto our transportation programs. We would be talking about bipartisan climate solutions that address resiliency and actual, identifiable, and serious solutions like those contained in the Republican alternative bill, H.R. 7248.
If this were a serious proposal, we wouldn't be talking about creating more uncertainty and instability for States, transportation businesses, workers, and our economy when everyone is crying out for certainty and relief right now.
But that is exactly what we are considering today in H.R. 2. This is a bill that was formed by the Speaker's partisan agenda from the beginning and continued to balloon from there. Just over a week ago the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the majority's $500 billion my-way-or-the-highway bill along party lines. Afterwards the Speaker airdropped in enough new and unvetted proposals and provisions to triple the size of the bill before rushing it to the floor.
I am going to highlight just a few of the concerns with this bill.
First, 2 out of every 5 surface transportation dollars--that is $200 billion--is spent on heavy-handed Green New Deal requirements. This bill widens the gulf between rural and urban infrastructure by putting programs and policies that benefit urban areas ahead of rural communities. If you follow the money in the bill, this is made very clear. H.R. 2 directs the largest funding percentage increases to those programs. This bill also puts restrictions on building new roads, which further hamstrings small communities that are looking to grow.
How can a bill that prevents States from building the roads that they need be called an infrastructure bill?
These are just some of the ways this bill limits State and local flexibility to make decisions that best fit their own priorities. This bill fails to provide commonsense streamlining reforms widely supported by transportation businesses and workers, including reforms that were unanimously approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Projects that take years and even decades to get approved cost more the longer they are delayed, so that means reducing delays has the same impact as additional funding. But this bill does nothing to make reviews more efficient.
Finally, this bill relies on yet another general fund bailout, and with the irresponsible spending proposal that is in this bill, the trust fund bailout would cost more than every extension and bill combined since 2008, and it doesn't even attempt to fix the solvency issues with the highway trust fund. This is completely irresponsible. If this messaging bill passes the House, that is as far as it is going to go. It won't do a single thing to improve America's infrastructure.
There has been so much uncertainty and unpredictability created by the COVID-19 pandemic across our Nation. What transportation businesses and workers need right now is stability. But this partisan process and seismic upheaval of our Federal transportation programs robs them of that.
This bill does nothing to move us forward, and it is truly a shame. It really is. I will go on more later, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. The mace indicates we are in session. Are we in session or in the Committee of the Whole?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that, yes, there are discretionary grants in here for electrical vehicles. What is interesting is electric vehicles don't pay for the use of that road either, because the highway trust fund still has yet to be addressed, has yet to be determined how we are even going to move forward, which is a huge frustration in this bill. There are absolutely no pay-fors.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
Mr. Speaker, before we consider amendments to add to this already massive partisan wish list, I want remind members how we got here.
Just over a week ago we marked up the majority's $500 billion my-way- or-the-highway bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That was a partisan bill from the beginning, and aside from maybe a few Republican amendments, it remained a partisan bill, and absolutely partisan bill, coming out of markup.
After our markup, the Speaker added in provisions under our committee's jurisdiction, some of which completely upended previous bipartisan legislation to fit their partisan agenda. Others are issues that we could have found bipartisan agreement on if the majority had even tried to work with us.
And now we are about to consider yet another broad swath of provisions in a partisan amendment process that is cut short because the majority doesn't believe Members should be here when they conduct the American peoples' business.
The majority believes it is acceptable to put together a massive bill that is going to turn our transportation system upside down, add $1.5 trillion in debt, add more items to it with an absurd partisan amendment process, and pass it all by proxy.
All for an infrastructure bill that is not really an infrastructure bill at all, it is a climate bill that doesn't even attempt to include consensus solutions to these issues, but instead, bludgeons our transportation system, industries, and workers into submission.
Republicans have been ready and willing partners throughout this process, but it takes willingness on both sides of the aisle to work toward that mutual goal. This bill doesn't offer any solutions, only more delays, more costs, and more partisanship that really doesn't help any of our communities or our economy.
Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, this is the first surface transportation bill, although this bill barely resembles one, but this is the first transportation bill in all my years of Congress that I am going to oppose, and I urge my colleagues and fellow Members to join me in rejecting this partisan messaging bill.
Mr. Speaker, the surface transportation law expires in just a few months, and States and workers in transportation businesses are already facing some uncertainly over the next two construction seasons due to COVID-19. This bill is going to lead to greater uncertainty by proposing a seismic shift to our transportation programs by moving us farther away from a long-term bill.
You know, I fought for a seat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee because of its track record of working across the aisle to legislate and get things done. But what we are doing today is not legislating. We held a partisan markup in which 112 Republican amendments were rejected, and afterwards, the Speaker essentially amended it again outside of regular order, by airdropping another $1 trillion of new provisions in the middle of the night, in addition to the provisions that never went through any committee process.
Several of the added provisions upended previous bipartisan agreements. So here we are now considering another set of 45 amendments en bloc, and the majority isn't even giving enough time to allow 1 minute of debate for each amendment. This isn't a serious deliberative legislative attempt, which is sad considering just how serious and important it is that we address our Nation's infrastructure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the rural aspects of this bill.
Although it claims to help rural infrastructure, if we just follow the money, all we have to do is follow the money, we can clearly see that this bill is going to leave rural America further behind.
The largest percentage increases by far go to transit and rail, programs that tend to benefit the urban areas much more than rural communities.
Transit receives a 72 percent increase in funding and Amtrak an incredible 450 percent increase, yet 71 percent of public road land miles are in rural America. Crashes and fatalities on rural non- interstate roads occur more than double the rate of all other roads.
But between policies and programs that favor urban areas and weave in the Green New Deal mandates and other requirements throughout all the Federal transportation programs, critical resources that could be used to go directly to fixing and building roads and bridges, pouring concrete, and laying asphalt in rural America, those are going to be diverted.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that we just heard about the rhetoric and the confusion over how this bill is bipartisan. And if you look at the first three en bloc amendments, they have 107 Democrat amendments in there and not a single Republican amendment, so where is the bipartisanship in that?
I also find it interesting, too, and the last speaker just added, that they were adding $150 billion to the Rebuild Rural America bill, which supposedly, according to her, already takes care of rural America. So why do we have to add more money to it?
So there is a lot of confusion and a lot of misrepresentation on the other side, particularly when it comes to the rural areas. People can claim all they want that this takes care of the rural areas when, in fact, it doesn't. It absolutely doesn't.
The bottom line is this shifts a large percentage of dollars into those transit programs that help the urban areas, not the rural areas, and a vote for this is going to be a vote for just that: against rural America. That is what will come out later.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to rise in opposition to this amendment. Just as H.R. 2 weaves climate policy throughout the bill, climate provisions are woven throughout this en bloc amendment as well.
These amendments make local pollution reduction a goal for the National Highway Freight Network, expand eligibilities for the new Gridlock Reduction grant program--a program that only benefits the 10 largest cities in the country--and it requires us to figure out whether autonomous vehicles impact air quality, climate, and energy consumption.
And still, the bill has no way to pay for these items and just adds to our debt.
The underlying bill promotes policies that favor urban areas over rural infrastructure, which leaves our smaller communities farther and farther behind.
Some members of the majority clearly agree since an amendment included here felt the need to find more money for the bill's Rebuild Rural grant program, the lone new program meant to pay lip service to rural America.
The underlying bill also doesn't provide meaningful streamlining of the project review process--we talked about this before--even though there are commonsense bipartisan reforms in the bipartisan Senate bill that were offered by Republican Members on the committee in markup.
One very narrow amendment in this package acknowledges some need for relief from burdensome project reviews. Unfortunately, this represents the only attempt to streamline the review process in the entire bill, despite near-universal calls for reform.
We could have come together and written an infrastructure bill that would easily clear this Chamber with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I am disappointed that Republicans' word to work across the aisle on an infrastructure bill wasn't taken in good faith by the majority.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
This package contains 34 amendments. As has been the case throughout this unprecedented process, not a single one of these amendments has come from Republicans.
I find it interesting. I keep hearing time and time again from the other side about how bipartisan this bill is. But yet here we are again with 34 amendments and not a single Republican amendment. Many of the provisions were stuck in this giant, expensive bill after markup and without any opportunity for the committee to review and consider them.
The en bloc amendment includes expensive and burdensome new mandates on the railroad and airline industries even as they strive to keep our economy moving and workers employed in the middle of the current health pandemic.
I would like to note that when Republican Members offered aviation amendments during markup, the majority refused to consider them.
Do you know why?
Because at least at that time they said the bill didn't include any aviation provisions. Yet this en bloc also contains amendments that authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending for broad and vague programs without any plan on how to pay for them. It also contains more costly Green New Deal mandates that offer no relevant or beneficial gains to our Nation's infrastructure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again to express my disappointment at the partisan nature of the amendments in this package. For example, it includes an airdropped rail amendment that imposes unreasonable mandates on freight rail carrying waste by attempting to force an impractical, one-size- fits-all solution that would create more problems than it attempts to solve.
It includes a significant change in the Economic Development Agency's revolving loan program and new requirements on public buildings that the committee never had a chance to consider under regular order.
It also includes an amendment that requires the Department of Transportation to share protected security and business information on pipeline incidents with State and local governments, creating unintended safety and security risks.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is full of partisan amendments meant to fulfill the Speaker's messaging agenda of unchecked spending and unserious, one-sided Green New Deal excesses. These provisions are going to create difficult, impractical, and unreasonable mandates on the rail and aviation industries at a time when we should be doing what we can to help them just survive.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to very much oppose this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source