Fiscal Year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Bill and the Fiscal Year 2027 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Bill
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsMichael Simpson
For the states, that's the payment in lieu of taxes program, which provides payments to nearly every state, I think 49 of the 50 states receive some payment in lieu of taxes in this country for tax-exempt federal lands. All of these must-pays came in a much come at a much higher cost for the 27 compared to the 27 26 enacted bills. The bill also prioritizes funding for domestic energy production by providing the requested increase to oil and gas within the Bureau of Land Management and energy resources within the US Geological Survey and by increasing funding for offshore oil and gas development. This funding supports the president's strategy of unleashing America's vast energy resources and reduce energy costs for American families. The bill also includes a common-sense measure to protect taxpayer dollars and provide parity across all all offshore energy producers.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is required by law to conduct safety inspections for all offshore energy facilities. Right now, the oil and gas industry is required to pay fees for these safety inspections on their rigs. BSEE, as it is known, is also required to inspect the offshore wind facilities, but they are currently conducting these but they are currently conducting these inspections for free. This bill includes new language, right below the oil and gas fees, to also charge fees for wind inspections. These fees were proposed in the budget request based on estimates of the equipment needed to conduct the inspections.
With this provision, no energy source is getting a free ride. This bill also supports streamlining firefighting activities. While the bill does not move wildfire fighting activities and funding from the Forest Service, the bill does support the unification of fire throughout the Department of Interior, implementing the administration's proposal to establish a a US Wildland Fire Service. So we unify all of those fire agencies that are currently within the Department of Interior, that being the BLM, the BIA, Parks and the National Parks and Fish and Wildlife Service. We unify them and they are currently within the Department of Interior, but we do not transfer the wildfire fighting from the Forest Service over to the Department of Interior.
The bill continue support for federal wildland firefighters and provides additional funding for firefighter pay, helping to improve recruitment and retention and giving financial certainty to men and women protecting our communities from catastrophic wildfires. Giving these priorities, the bill makes fiscally responsible reductions to most other appropriations. The EPA is cut by nearly $1.8 billion or 20% below the enacted level, even after the enacted level reduced EPA funding by more than $300 million.
As you know, the community project funding in this bill is within EPA. The bill provides funding for almost 1,200 clean and drinking water infrastructure projects for 316 members, an increase of almost 300 projects compared to the FY 26 House bill. While requests greatly exceeded the funding available for projects, we did our best to provide some funding for all eligible projects given the impact these dollars will have in communities across the country. Even with funding for CPFs, the bill also continues to protect and provide funding for grants that go directly to states and tribes for water infrastructure projects and to help fulfill their delegated authority under federal law like the Clean Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. This bill provides more funding to states through the SRFs than our FY 26 bill did last year.
As I mentioned, in order to uphold our commitments to the tribes, to support our federal wildland firefighters, and to promote domestic energy production, cuts had to be made. Although agencies in Title III saw cuts, the bill supports the President's request for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the Holocaust Memorial Museum. While cuts were made to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, the bill protects them from elimination and directs funding to the state partnerships that support programs in every congressional district. While some tough decisions had to be made, this bill effectively balances competing priorities while focusing spending where it is needed most. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Pingree and the other members to move the interior bill toward enactment, and I'd like to extend my thanks to the members and staff on both sides of the committee, which this bill would not get done without their hard work.
And to all of you for the contributions you've made to this bill and the recommendations you've made, not just the committee staff, but all of the offices in our conference and in Congress. Lastly, I want to take a moment to thank two guys that aren't here: Representative Congressman Amodei and Congressman Zinke. This is their last interior markup for both of these great subcommittee members. Apparently, it was, they've got something else going on, I don't know. They have both been leaders on many important issues and assets to the subcommittee.
We will truly miss Mr. Amodei and Mr. Zinke, and we wish them the best of luck in the next chapter of their lives. And I yield back.
Speaker 3
I thank the gentleman. Maybe they just knew you were speaking, I don't know. I'd now like to recognize my good friend, the ranking member Pingree, for remarks on the bill.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for yielding. First, I want to thank Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro, and I want to give a big shout-out to the staff on both sides of the aisle who do an incredible job and are wonderful to work with, and in particular those that we worked with on the Democratic side: Rita Culp, Tyler Coe, and the woman who retired from our committee this year, Jocelyn Hunn. Chairman Simpson, I really appreciate our working relationship and that we were able to find common ground last year to enact a bipartisan full-year funding bill. Let's hope after today's bipartisan lunch we can do the same. Unfortunately, the bill before us reverts back to the same partisan playbook we started with last year, with grossly inefficient funding and a surplus of poison pill riders.
The bill cuts the EPA by 20%. This agency has already lost one-fifth of its workforce since President Trump took office. The cuts in this bill would completely cripple EPA's ability to fight climate change, to respond to environmental disasters, and to hold polluters accountable.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to roll back regulations that protect public health and the environment, including a recent announcement that will increase exposure to forever chemicals in drinking water. I am so disappointed that the bill further cuts funding to states for water infrastructure. This is the first year that the states won't have the additional funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and I believe that it is critical that we don't lose the momentum we built with those investments. I'm also very concerned by the cuts to the National Park Service facilities operation and maintenance. This is the funding the Park Service uses to maintain and repair its infrastructure.
The bill cuts the funding by $163 million, or 17%. Meanwhile, in the Commerce, Justice, Science funding bill, the Republicans have provided up to $152 million to renovate Alcatraz into a functioning prison. I find this completely outrageous. I won't get into the many reasons why I think trying to open, reopen Alcatraz is a farce and a waste of money, but I have to say when I look at that funding and then I look at the bill before us, it's painfully obvious that the majority is prioritizing resurrecting a 19th-century prison over today's underfunded and understaffed national parks. At the same time, the president is diverting significant resources towards pet projects that most Americans oppose.
His ridiculous $1 billion gilded ballroom, from which he took the toxic demolition debris and dumped it on a National Park-owned golf course. And he's been approving no-bid contracts to resurface the reflecting pool and forging ahead on his so-called Garden of Heroes. The Garden of Heroes, all of which he literally handpicked, and his 20-story tall triumphal arch that the veterans groups have literally sued to block. The list goes on and on. How is the president paying for all of these vanity projects?
While he might claim that it's all private fundraising, the real answer has seemed to be raiding the national park entrance fees that typically go towards maintenance and stealing funding from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. And speaking of vanity projects, I would be remiss not to mention the absolute mess that the president has made of the Kennedy Center over the past 18 months. I'm very pleased with the court's confirmation last Friday that it is plainly illegal for him to rename the center after himself and remake it in his own image. But we need real and committed oversight from this committee to protect this critical institution and the artists, workers, and audience that make it so special. So, the president and this administration have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to dictate exactly what it deems artistically and culturally worthy, and at the same time, it's trying to rob our communities of funding for our own local museums, historical societies, and arts education programs by cutting the NEA and NEH.
I am vehemently opposed to this bill slashing each endowment by 35%, or $72 million. The bill also cuts funding for cultural institutions, such as the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution. Last year we came to an agreement and beat back these cuts and we must do so again this year. While the administration is focused on building a gilded ballroom and a triumphal arch to appease the president's ego, Americans are facing soaring gas and energy prices, yet this bill does nothing to rein in the administration's assault on energy projects that states like mine have been counting on. As the administration spends nearly 2 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay off companies for abandoning offshore wind projects, this bill piles on, adding additional fees for offshore wind companies and drastically cutting funding for renewable energy projects.
Finally, I have to express my opposition to the dozens of poison pill riders included in the bill. These riders aim to cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, and override the Endangered Species Act. As written, I cannot support the bill before us today. I oppose the bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. I now recognize myself for remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and thank you to Ranking Member Pingree, Ranking Member DeLauro, again, always a pleasure to work with you and to all the members here. Today we continue our fiscal year 2027 appropriations work with consideration of the Interior and Environment bill. This measure funds a wide range of agencies and programs, including the Department of the Interior, the US Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet the significance of this measure extends far beyond the departments and programs named within it. At its core, this bill is about stewardship, one where we effectively balance conservation, responsible resource development, and the long-term management of our public lands. From the recreation opportunities and strengthening wildfire response to supporting domestic energy and mineral production, we are investing in priorities that impact communities in every corner of the country. Chairman Simpson ensured that each provision and investment reinforces America's natural, cultural, and environmental resources. Importantly, this bill also reflects our commitment to upholding our sacred trust and treaty oaths to protect Native American communities.
This is a national imperative, but also one of personal importance to me. I'm proud of the that this legislation continues to make meaningful investments in Indian Country, building on prior efforts. We continue to strengthen support for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, and the Indian Health Service. These resources help ensure tribes have the tools and services needed to thrive for generations to come. Because delivering better outcomes for tribal communities strengthens our nation and supports long-term stability.
Stewardship also means investing in the basic infrastructure that supports public health and the quality of life. Through district-focused investments, this bill helps communities modernize aging water systems, improve access to clean and safe drinking water, and address critical local needs. At its best, stewardship is about preparing for the future while meeting the challenges of today. That's why this legislation takes a long, takes a common-sense approach to managing our nation's resources by protecting what should be preserved, improving what must be strengthened, and responsibly developing the resources that power our economy. The bill reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens, promotes domestic production, and supports the mapping, exploration, and development needed to bolster American competitiveness and strengthen our national security.
And throughout it all, the measure ensures that Americans continue to have responsible access to the lands, waters, and natural resources that support communities, recreation, jobs, and opportunity across the country. Chairman Simpson has crafted a thoughtful and balanced bill. I thank him, Ranking Member Pingree, and the majority and minority staff for their hard work and collaboration, and I look forward to advancing this bill out out of the full committee. With that, I yield back. I now recognize my good friend, the Ranking Member DeLauro, for opening remarks on the bill.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to you and to Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree. I want to say a thank you to you and to the committee staff, Rita Culp and Tyler Coe, and the minority, Maggie Earl, Sarah Perry, Andrea Sparksy-Bonga, and Lucy Alfred of the majority. Many, many thanks for all the hard work that goes into these bills.
I oppose the bill we are considering today. It is a gift to corporate polluters who would poison our communities in pursuit of even greater profits. It saddles cities, towns, and working families with higher utility bills, and it allows President Trump to continue raiding public funds to pay for his own vanity projects. This bill cuts the EPA's budget by $1.8 billion, or 20%. Keep that 1.8 billion in mind.
That was the size of the slush fund that was being proposed so that the President could get money out to whomever. This is a 20% cut to the EPA's budget. It cuts the EPA's enforcement budget nearly in half. This will substantially erode the agency's ability to enforce the laws that help protect the air that we breathe, the water we drink, and the ground that grows our food. Last month, the Trump administration announced they were rolling back restrictions on "forever chemicals" in our drinking water, harmful contaminants that we know can weaken our immune system, lead to cancer, kidney disease, liver disease, birth defects.
But the Trump administration has decided that the commercial interest in continued pollution is more important than the public interest in clean drinking water. Administrator Zeldin has abandoned much of the EPA's responsibility, in my view. He has weakened restrictions on dangerous chemicals in our drinking water, on poisonous pesticides in our farming soil, on particulate matter in the very air that we breathe. The cuts proposed in this bill would make this dereliction of duty permanent, so that when a new administrator steps in who may believe the job of the Environmental Protection Agency is to actually protect the environment, they will be unable to do so. There are also a number of policy riders in this bill which are designed to further chip away at the EPA's ability to enforce regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other laws governing hazardous waste.
A safe and clean environment is something that we should all expect in the United States. It should not be a privilege that depends on your zip code. At a time when more and more families are struggling with rising utility costs, this bill slashes funding for water infrastructure by $576 million, including an $86 million cut to states for projects that support clean drinking water and sanitary wastewater systems. Eliminating this support will saddle our communities with additional costs. This bill also continues the President's bizarre war on wind power by opposing additional fees on offshore wind projects, disincentivizing the production of new energy sources.
Generating more energy is key to bringing down costs, and investing in clean energy is how we prepare for the future. This administration is instead punishing clean energy companies that innovate while rewarding fossil fuel companies that pollute. The bill slashes funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $72 million each, a 35% cut. It has been said that robust investment in the arts is a mark of an advanced society. The use of public funds for private ends, however, is a mark of a civilization in decline.
In its current form, this bill allows the Trump administration to continue raiding public funds intended to support the arts and humanities to pay for a 250-foot arch dedicated to himself. This funding is supposed to be for libraries and museums and historical sites to educate the public and enrich our culture. But President Trump wants to use it for a vanity project twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial.
Last year, the Trump administration took $15 million from the National Endowment for the Humanities and earmarked it for the arch. If my Republican colleagues objected to the use of the funds, this bill was their chance to stop it. They chose not to, and that choice speaks volumes. At a time when the American people are struggling to make ends meet, this bill makes the problem worse. It does nothing to bring down costs while allowing billionaires and big corporations who have profited by polluting our communities to get even richer.
Meanwhile, again, the air we breathe and the water we drink gets less and less safe. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill. We are all on this planet together, and we ought to take better care of it. I encourage my friends across the aisle to work with Democrats to craft a bipartisan bill that, in fact, protects the environment, keeps our communities safe and healthy, and helps bring down costs for working families. Thank you, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Harold Rogers
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say thank you to Chairman Cole and Simpson and Ranking Member DeLauro and Ranking Member Pingree, all of your hard work on putting this bill together. Chairman Simpson, I know that this was a difficult bill to write, but I must compliment you on protecting vital programs which many of our constituents rely on. I want to personally say thank you to all of you, especially Chairman Simpson, for continued support of the Abandoned Mine Lands Economic Revitalization program to support that program at the Department of the Interior. The provisions in this bill will continue to support the purpose of the program, helping communities reeling from the decline of coal by putting former mine lands back into productive use. Those of us who represent coal country have long been searching for ways to help hardworking people in these communities who are looking for new opportunities.
This program, started in 2016, helps achieve that goal, and thanks to your leadership, this committee has continued to make strong these reclaimed lands and drive long-term economic growth. The AMLER program has bipartisan support in the Congress and remains a strong example of a federal investment that makes a real difference in communities, especially those in my district in East Kentucky. I also want to thank the chairman for maintaining full funding of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, so-called PILT program. Many counties in my district rely on this program to recover lost tax revenue from large amounts of federal lands. This funding helps ensure that they can continue supporting their schools, emergency services, and many other crucial public services.
This bill makes responsible cuts while continuing to further the missions of the departments and agencies under its jurisdiction. I urge support, and I yield back.
Speaker 8
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Marcy Kaptur
Good morning, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member Simpson, Ranking Member DeLauro and Pingree. I rise to highlight two key issues of importance to those I represent and to my own long-standing work in Congress. First, honoring our greatest generation, whom I believe to be the most unselfish generation, and then to protect our Great Lakes, the largest body of freshwater on our continent and on Earth. First, the positives. Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree, thank you for your steadfast leadership on this important bill.
I appreciate that this bill funds the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative administered by the Environmental Protection Agency at no less than the current FY 2026 level of $369 million. And while this falls short of the modest increase requested by the Great Lakes delegation and short of what is needed to meet real on-the-ground and in-the-water project demands, it remains a necessary commitment to safeguard the world's largest body of freshwater and its ecosystem. Literally, the Great Lakes sustain life for tens of millions of people on this continent and are home to more than 3,500 native plant species and animal species, including humans, and hold 20% of the world's freshwater. 20%. Continued investments through the Department of Interior and EPA aim to control harmful algal blooms and destructive invasive species, particularly zebra and quagga mussels.
And these species disrupt Lake Erie, Ontario, Huron, just look around, the food web and deplete native populations. Invasives also create billions of dollars of damage to freshwater infrastructure in cities and towns, and they threaten the livelihoods of our fishing, boating, and shoreline communities. They're ugly little creatures, actually. They damage craft and all kinds of shoreline facilities. That is why these bipartisan investments make both environmental and economic sense.
Intelligent management of our natural resources protects our economy, our communities, and our future. Another essential part of this annual bill is stewardship of America's national heritage, so poignant this year especially, preserving and interpreting the cultural and historic resources that tell America's history. Nowhere is that mission more visible than at the World War II Memorial on our National Mall. I introduced the original legislation to authorize and construct that memorial at the suggestion of my late constituent, Army tank commander Roger Durbin. On behalf of him and all his fellow American veterans, which numbered 16,400,000 Americans, and they were all heroes.
They achieved the 20th century's greatest gift to us: the preservation of liberty over tyranny. Liberty over tyranny. A challenge we still face today in many ways, globally. This past weekend marked 22 years since the memorial's dedication in 2004. Four presidents and six presidential terms later, the memorial is showing its age.
Over 100 million visitors have traveled to it to gain closure and also pay their respects to their families and friends along our Mall of Democracy. It's sited between the Washington Monument, which obviously honors our founding, and the Lincoln Memorial, as both the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries present our national story. The National Park Service and Friends of the World War II Memorial face real challenges maintaining the memorial, especially its fountains, given the Park Service's limited resources and a growing maintenance backlog. That is why the president's recent comments drawing attention to the World War II Memorial are actually welcome, but ideally support for the Park Service should come through the regular budget and appropriations process. Only painting the bottom of the fountain blue fails to address the real subterranean plumbing and estimated several millions of dollars in repairs needed for the fountains, pools, and required vault underneath due to the memorial's location, like the Lincoln Memorial also, their location in a flood plain near the Potomac River.
It's a complicated repair job. We know that. I look forward to working with this or any president and any member of this committee to ensure that memorial's repairs to honor the profound achievement in the 20th century of liberty over tyranny of our greatest generation. With America's 250th anniversary approaching, we have a timely opportunity to refurbish one of the three most visited sites in the entire National Park Service. For that reason, I'm encouraged and grateful that Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree included report language this year directing appropriate attention to the major maintenance needs of the World War II Memorial and its adjoining sites.
They're interconnected. And while I remain concerned that this bill underfunds the broader National Park Service maintenance backlog, this language is a step in the right direction. I just also wanted to say one feature we never got in the original memorial because it was disallowed and it had to go through all kinds of clearances. We were hoping that there would be a light that would extend from the World War II Memorial at a certain time of day when the image of the Washington Monument falls on the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, and we wanted some type of light feature to connect all three. And it was denied, the one they had selected in those days, that it might interrupt airplane flight.
So I just wanted to put that on the table here, maybe new invention will make something possible. So we must work harder as I close to strike the right balance between environmental protection and economic growth. We've led the world in doing both and we cannot allow that leadership to wane. Finally, in closing, until this bill level funds on the EPA and key interior agencies, including Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the US Geological Survey, I cannot support at this juncture this bill, but I'll be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same in hopes that we can improve it as it moves forward. Thank you, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady. Don't make me choose between Bonnie Watson Coleman and you, 'cause you're gonna lose.
I'm more afraid of her than any of the rest of you. With that, the chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, for remarks on the bill.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member Pingree for all of your work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I respectful and regretfully oppose this bill as written because it cuts vital investments that will take resources away from rural economies and harm our ability to tell the full story of our nation's history. When I was first elected to this august body, the largest economies in my home state were textiles and tobacco. Today, they are transportation and tourism, heritage tourism in particular.
Heritage tourism is an economic engine that lifts up rural communities, attracts investment, and helps people connect through learning authentic stories of our rich history and how we fit in the already great nation. When I came to Congress, South Carolina had no national parks. Today, we have three: the Congaree National Park, the Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park, the Reconstruction Era National Historical Park. In 2024, visitor spending in communities near national parks resulted in a $55.6 billion benefit to the nation's economy and supported over 400,000 jobs. That is according to the National Park Service.
Last year, the big ugly bill cut more than $267 million from the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management that Congress previously approved. Amid the Trump administration's reckless staffing cuts, around 90 units within the National Park reported operational issues, including canceled programming, shortened hours, and unkept restrooms. I believe we can do better to maintain appropriate staffing levels for our parks, and we should ensure the necessary funding is available for them to do so. This is not to mention the National Park Service's estimated deferred maintenance backlog of nearly $24 billion, which includes park units in need of repair that are critical to their ability to remain accessible and enjoyable. This administration has spent more than $67 million in fees paid by park visitors for unauthorized and unwarranted vanity projects.
As we approach the commemoration of our nation's 250th birthday, I hope that all of our national parks can fully showcase the natural beauty of our country. This begins with ensuring that the National Park Service is both fully funded and staffed. As a former high school history teacher, it is equally important to me that our monuments, sites, and parks accurately reflect the full story of our nation's history.
I frequently quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that the greatness of America is not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults. With this, the nearly $17 million difference between funds enacted in FY 2026 and this year's request for the Historic Preservation Fund is of concern to me. The Gullah Geechee National Heritage Corridor in particular, which runs from Wilmington, North Carolina down to St. Augustine, Florida. The point of preserving history is to learn from it so we don't have to repeat it. Our historic monuments, sites, and parks are America's classrooms and are economic drivers in rural communities and our responsibility for their stewardship extends beyond this anniversary.
I love history and all of us should respect it. We should study it, learn from it, and conduct ourselves accordingly. I know we can do better than this and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the current iteration of this bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
I thank Bonnie Watson Coleman, will respect me. And thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Sanford Bishop
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cole, I want to thank also Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Ranking Member Pingree, and the staffs for the extraordinarily hard work that's been put into the Fiscal Year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Regretfully, however, I will have to oppose this bill. While I'm grateful that it reverses many of the draconian cuts that President Trump had originally proposed in his FY 2027 budget, it nonetheless shortchanges many important initiatives that would help to reduce energy costs, preserve the environment, protect clean air and water, and boast America's involvement with the arts. By restricting renewable energy development, cutting climate programs, and imposing a fee on offshore wind projects, many Americans who can least afford it will face higher energy bills.
At the same time, these policies weaken our nation's position in the global marketplace for innovative energy technologies. I'm especially troubled by the $713 million or 16% cut in the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which help states, localities, and tribal governments to pay for their environmental agencies and projects. As noted earlier, this is the first year that states will not have additional funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Thankfully, the House bill rejected President Trump's plan to nearly eliminate the program. I may not be the biggest fan of everything that EPA does, but I don't see how slashing funds specifically target underserved, small, and disadvantaged communities to build safe drinking water and waste disposal systems will benefit anyone.
I think everyone here understands that when you keep pushing back infrastructure repairs, the damage gets worse and a simple fix turns into an expensive headache. It's incredibly short-sighted to do this. I'm also disappointed that the bill makes little investment in the National Park Service's budget. Since 2025, our parks have been burdened by staff cuts, hiring barriers, reduced hours at visitor centers, and even attacks on how history and science is interpreted. National parks are the lifeblood of many of our rural communities.
They showcase some of the most beautiful terrain in our country. If we want to encourage our children to get outside more and to cherish our heritage, we need to do better than funding levels that are provided in this legislation. The bill also cuts funding for the Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey. These agencies are tasked with stewarding our national resources for future generations and the benefit of our country. Finally, the bill makes significant cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, both of which play a positive role in creating jobs and supporting cultural institutions nationwide.
These funds don't just go to New York City or Washington DC or Chicago or San Francisco. The places that will be hit hardest by these cuts are the small cities and rural towns that depend on the NEA and the NEH funding to bring people together to tell our stories. I'd rather see funds be directed to cultural initiatives in our congressional districts than vanity projects like the Arc de Triomphe planned for the nation's capital. Again, we can do better. We can do better than the funding levels and the many poison pill riders that are enshrined in this bill.
I oppose the measure and I again urge my Republican colleagues to engage in dialogue and return to legislating in a bipartisan way so that we together can craft a bill that is worthy of the American people. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 12
I thank the gentleman for having time to yield back. The gentlelady from Utah, Ms. Maloy, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Celeste Maloy
Mr. Chair, I will do my best to have time to yield back as well. I rise in support of the FY 27 Interior Environment bill for a lot of reasons. I thank the chairman and the staff for their hard work. There are a lot of things in this bill that are good for Utah. The Great Salt Lake is an integral part of our hydrology in Utah and also our identity.
And the president expressed interest in helping us deal with declining water levels in the Great Salt Lake, and I appreciate that this bill supports those goals. It creates a position at the Department of Interior to oversee this work and make sure that we are working towards that goal of making the Great Salt Lake great again. Abandoned mine remediation. We passed the Good Samaritan Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act last year. This bill provides the resources to be able to stand that up.
We have abandoned mines all over this country. Some of them are damaging drinking water like in my colleague's district in West Virginia, and I appreciate the committee making sure that we're prioritizing the ability of third parties to come in and reclaim those mines without taking on the liability that they shouldn't be responsible for. The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. This supports our goal of making sure that traditional uses continue and local voices are respected and heard on in the management of the monument. Wild horses and burros.
Utah currently has about three times as many wild horses and burros as it can sustain.
I appreciate the committee continuing to prioritize that and giving us the tools to manage that. Vacant grazing allotments: this bill prioritizes with Interior and the Forest Service reopening vacant grazing allotments and making those AUMs available. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon are really important to Utah as well, and this makes sure that local voices are heard in the management of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Lake Powell, and that the people who are recreating on our reservoir there are part of the process in how it's managed. That's really essential to the economy in my district. It fully funds PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, for areas that have a burden of high amounts of federal land that's not taxable.
It prioritizes geothermal permitting, which is important to the West. Wildfire mitigation and prevention. Grazing: it provides funding to clear the NEPA backlog on grazing permit allotments. That's really important in the West. And it also prioritizes law enforcement and working with local law enforcement to make sure that our federal lands are managed in a way that's friendly to locals.
And for all of those reasons, I support the bill and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlelady from Florida is not here right now, so we'll come back to her. The other gentlelady from Florida, though, is here, so Ms. Frankel's recognized for remarks on the bill.
Lois Frankel
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this Interior budget bill because it misses the mark on some of our most important priorities, and I want to focus on one today, and that is our investment in arts and humanities. This bill cuts funding from the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities by more than 35%. And this is not just cutting a line in the budget. It's cutting support for the institutions and the programs that preserve our history, inspire creativity, bring joy to our lives, and connect us as Americans, and also strengthen our economy: things like museums, theater, art, education.
And a budget is a statement of our values, and a budget that takes an axe to the arts gets those values wrong. Because the arts are not a luxury. They are a part of who we are. They tell our stories, they capture our history, they challenge us, inspire us, and spark our imagination. And for our children, the arts do something even more powerful.
They spark creativity, they build confidence, and help students develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skills they need to succeed in school and beyond. And whether it's through music or theater or dancing or painting, the arts help young people discover who they are and imagine new possibilities. And art is also a way to teach history. A painting can tell the story of a moment in time, from Washington crossing the Delaware to Picasso's Guernica showing the horrors of war, to Norman Rockwell's capturing the courage of a little girl named Ruby Bridges walking into school. Art helps all of us understand where we have been and imagine where we can go.
And great artists and thinkers have always understood the power of arts. President Kennedy said, arts are not a distraction from the life of nation, they are very close to the center of a nation's purpose. The great writer Toni Morrison reminds us that in difficult times, artists must go to work. And Pablo Picasso said, art washes from the soul the dust of everyday life. These words remind us that arts are not extras to how we tell stories, understand each other, find joy, connect with each other.
And at a time when there is so much noise and chaos and division, we should be supporting things that bring us together, not tearing us apart because arts have the unique power to connect us. Sitting side by side at a concert, laughing together in a theater, or walking through a museum, we may come from different backgrounds and hold different views, but in those moments, we share a common experience and a common humanity. And let's be clear, arts are not only good for the soul, they're good for the economy. In my home county, the arts and culture generate more than 355 million dollars in economic activity every year, bringing so many jobs. And let me just conclude by saying this.
When we invest in the arts, we're investing in our children, in our jobs, in our tourism, our creativity, and the vibrant communities where people want to live and work. And cutting these programs don't make us stronger, it makes us less inspired, less connected, and less enriched. Let's support these things that bring some joy, bring put money in our pocket, and really going to help build great young people. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dan Newhouse
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate the recognition. Also want to thank Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Simpson, as well as Ranking Member Pingree and the whole committee staff for their hard work on this interior markup bill. I, in my humble opinion, this is a great bill. It responsibly spends taxpayer dollars while conserving public lands and our natural resources, key responsibilities that we have. We increase funding for wildfire response and mitigation programs ahead of what I am sure will be a very bad fire season.
The bill also addresses long-standing issues within my district, such as the gray wolf listing with the ESA, which is an apex predator that has long since recovered and is decimating our livestock industry. It also prohibits the introduction of another apex predator, the grizzly bear, back into the North Cascades, something that my constituents have made clear to me that they do not want to see happen. I'm also happy to see several important projects to include improving clean drinking water resources for some of the rural communities that I represent. But one thing I wanted to highlight, if I could, Mr. Chairman, is something that's included in the report language of today's bill. It says, and if I could quote it, it is apparent that many activist groups are using the federal court system to stop any activities that they do not support.
It is not only apparent, it is obvious, Mr. Chairman, and it's very concerning. In my district, two large dairies in the Yakima Valley had to liquidate their herds, close their doors, because they could not afford the litigation fees resulting from a lawsuit brought on by the previous administration at the behest of these environmental organizations.
I want to say that these animal anti-farmer activists want to put an end to animal agriculture, not just in Central Washington, but across the United States. Last summer, I had the pleasure of showing Chairman G.T. Thompson of the Agriculture Committee one of the dairies in my district, DeRuyter Dairy. He raved about their operation, which I think is a model for the rest of the country, one of the best-run dairies in the country. And that comes from not only me, but Mr. Thompson, who should know something about dairies as being the chair of the Ag Committee. And let me just say, once these dairies close, they don't come back.
These are the source of many good-paying jobs. They have a huge impact on local communities. A lot of farmers produce hay and grains for these dairies. Higher dairy prices result from the closing of these things. These are generational family farms that once they shut their doors, they're gone for good.
So I just want to draw the committee's attention to that language and thank the chairman for including that in there. And just to summarize, we have a very good bill before us that reduces spending, ensures taxpayer dollars are utilized in a responsible and effective manner. And I appreciate that, and I just want to thank you and thank the committee, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. He'll be delighted to know Chairman Simpson leaned over and said there's nothing humble about his opinion. He's got it exactly right. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Henry Cuellar
Chairman Cole, thank you so much, and Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you again. And to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Simpson, thank you so much, and Ranking Member Pingree, and to all the staff, thank you. Look, we know this bill is getting there. We still need a little bit more work. We know the drill here, but I do want to thank all of y'all for putting a lot of good provisions in.
And I want to talk about two provisions that are important to my area. The first one has to do with El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail. This is one that the committee, the subcommittee, recognizes how important it is. If you look at this history, this El Camino Real de los Tejas is one of America's most historically significant trails, starting off from Mexico City all the way through my district, all the way to East Texas, the missions. So think about centuries ago when the Spanish conquistadores and the Spanish were here and they were there in Mexico and of course in the United States.
And this, this particular trail is one of those that connects communities, preserves centuries of culture and colonial history, and supports the heritage tourism that's very important to the South Texas, the East Texas economy. This language encourages the National Park to include sufficient resources for future budget requests to ensure that a continued positive visitor experience is included, and certainly I look forward to working with the committee on this. The other one has to do with the Rio Grande. As you know, the Rio Grande is a source of water for agriculture, municipal needs. You have Carrizo cane, which we've been trying to address on the Homeland Security, the Ag, also USDA.
And now we're asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expedite efforts to eradicate the invasive species, not only the Carrizo, but what's in the river, because that has an impact not only on the quality of water that we have, it's a serious threat, but also to the ecosystem in general, to the water flow, to the water quality, to communities and agricultural operations that depend on the Rio Grande.
So, especially the Carrizo cane, it's important because every day it sucks in millions of water, gallons of water, just through this Carrizo cane. This Carrizo cane is an invasive species, but it's also for border security because you can have the folks that try to evade and come into the United States hide there. And this is why we're looking at not only Homeland, not only USDA, but now the US Fish and Water Services also to look at that because it does choke riverbanks, it provides cover as I mentioned for illegal activities and strains the local water resources because every day it just sucks up millions of gallons of water for this. So it's important to the agricultural area and certainly for the use of municipal areas. So those two provisions are important.
I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Mr. Simpson, thank you, and the ranking member, Ms. Pingree, especially the staff have put in long hours to put this work together. So thank you. With that, I yield back a minute and a half of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman for yielding back time. Are there others wishing to make remarks on the bill? Gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
Marie Perez
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sincerely thank you to the subcommittee ranking for their support and we'll speak more on this later. Thank you to ranking member Pingree and ranking member DeLauro. One thing that I'd like to draw attention to, there's a lot of great work we can do in the interior bill, one of which is supporting our law enforcement. Our law enforcement put their lives on the line every day and I've made it a priority during my time in Congress to meet with law enforcement across South Washington. One of the things that we hear all the time are the horrifying suicide rates of law enforcement.
They're approximately 54% more likely to commit suicide than the general population and those numbers are almost certainly below statistical reality. The numbers are horrifying in retirement. And it's an unacceptable reality in this country. Across the nation, government and LEO organizations and individuals are stepping up to address this crisis. Despite the progress we are making, the resources available are not meeting the moment or the needs of our law enforcement.
Our LEOs do not need a chatbot for therapy. They need community and support. Beyond that, when offered resources, I've heard that officers are scared to be stigmatized or to have their badges taken away for being honest about the mental health challenges they're facing. And solving this is going to require nimble solutions. Last year, Congress, thank God, here in this body, we affirmed that chaplains can access federal funding for law enforcement mental health as appropriate by law.
Back home, my chaplains have played a pivotal role in providing some of the worst news that families hear in their lives and also counseling. So I'm glad that we were able to help do that. But this year, I'd like to see us continue building on that work by, and I appreciate the inclusion of a provision related to community camp-style recreation for law enforcement on federal lands. Research shows that people who are more connected with nature are happier in their life, they're more likely to report feeling their lives are worthwhile. And our forest system land is meant to be accessible.
Congress has already authorized special use authorizations for special groups or purposes like nonprofits such as the Boy Scouts. We know that this does not have to be burdensome or expensive to ensure law enforcement has community-style camping opportunities on federal land.
I will say candidly, there is no better therapy than drinking a beer by the river with your friends and your family and that's something that we can do in this amendment as we continue to work on this legislation. So thank you.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Espaillat, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Adriano Espaillat
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this fiscal year 2027 funding bill as it favors polluters and large corporations over everyday constituents. At a time when Americans experience a surge in environmental disasters and a growing affordability crisis, this bill raises the cost of everyday households and cuts resources to ensure communities stay safe. Most notably, the bill cuts EPA funding by 20%, limiting its ability to continue critical environmental protection and reversing years of renewable energy development. By shifting costs onto state and local governments and making electricity more expensive through funding cuts, this bill raises utility bills and extorts money from working-class communities.
This bill also adversely affects EPA community grants that promote local workforce development and remedy environmental injustices, including access to clean air and clean water and healthy living conditions. These funding reductions undermine not only economic drivers and job creators across the country, but also energy affordability and the country's ability to compete in clean energy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. It does all of that and more, and I yield back.
Speaker 18
Are there other members wishing to comment on the bill? Seeing no other members wishing to make opening remarks, I'd like to recognize Chairman Simpson to offer a manager's amendment. Excuse me, I thank the gentleman.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask the clerk to dispense with the reading.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This manager's amendment makes several non-controversial changes to the report that are of interest to many members of this committee. I appreciate the collaboration working with Ranking Member Pingree and her staff in putting this amendment together. I don't think there's any controversy in this amendment and I would urge its adoption and I yield back.
Michael Simpson
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate the chair working collaboratively with myself and members of the subcommittee to make technical corrections and adjustments where appropriate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 19
Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager's amendment? Gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
Marie Perez
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong support of this manager's amendment and profound gratitude for the work that was done in this. Last week in my district, a chemical tank failure at the DuPont Dynaway packing plant in Longview, Washington, took the lives of 11 men who will never come back home to their families and eight more are fighting for their lives in hospital now. This is a close-knit community. This is a profound loss of life and it's going to have an impact on workers and families and first responders across Southwest Washington for generations to come.
This is a profound loss of life, and it's going to have an impact on workers and families and first responders across Southwest Washington for generations to come. A team from the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board arrived on site the next day. The CSB is an independent watchdog tasked with investigating disasters just like this one and ensuring that similar families don't get that horrifying text, that families aren't left with texts waiting to find out what happened to their loved ones. The people of Longview deserve answers, and across the country, working people need to know that we are making sure they have safe jobs where they come home every day. The CSB plays a critical role in delivering these answers.
If we want to be a country that makes things, things that are worth having, we need to support the people making them. If we lose cardboard and paper in this country, friends, the replacement is plastics. It is plastics from Saudi Arabia. It is microplastics ending up in our fish and in our bodies. And we need to ensure that the CSB, that the people who are working in these mills are part of the investigation.
The people whose lives are at risk every day have the greatest incentive to inform a process where it's not just lab conditions that are being discussed, but the complex interaction between plant infrastructure and those very chemicals. The trades need to have their perspectives heard throughout the investigation and recommendation process. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposed eliminating funding for this independent watchdog agency completely. If this were to happen, the CSB would be unable to conduct the impartial and thorough investigation necessary to provide answers and peace of mind to the people of Longview and the victims of chemical disasters across the country. We have an aging infrastructure.
We are going to continue to see crises like that. We just had a crisis in California. We just had an explosion at a mill in North Carolina. We will see this across the country, and we have to invest in this infrastructure or we risk even more environmental catastrophe and loss of life. I am profoundly thankful that my provision to add over five million to the appropriation for CSB was included in this amendment, restoring their funding to the enacted FY 2026 level.
I want to express my deep gratitude to my colleagues who reached out, not just people with mills in their districts, but so many people in this community. I'm so grateful for your support in this. The chairman and the ranking member of both the subcommittee and the full committee, and Rita and Maggie for helping deliver this assurance to my community and communities who are affected by similar tragedies all too often across this country. And with that, I'll yield back. Sincerely, thank you.
Henry Cuellar
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman and ranking member, thank you again for including my outcome-based program review language that directs the outcome-based program and operational reviews across agencies that are funded by this bill, consistent with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act that this Congress passed. It calls for the review of existing regulations, internal policies, administrative requirements to identify what is outdated, what's duplicative, and unnecessarily burdensome so we can find real opportunities for cost savings and better program delivery. Basically, we spend a dollar, we want to know what the bang for the dollar is. And with that, I want to say thank you, and I yield the balance of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the manager's amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized for one minute to close.
Yield back.
Tom Cole
Eloquent and to the point. Question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Tom Cole
All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, the ranking member of the subcommittee, is recognized for an amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask it's Pingree number one. I ask to dispense with the reading.
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
The president is trying to build a monument to himself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment is simple. The American people don't support it. It just says no triumphal arch.
Polling found that 52% of Americans do not support the project. And veterans groups oppose it. Veterans groups oppose this for its impact on National Arlington National Cemetery. And a lawsuit to stop the arch has been filed on the veterans' behalf. I think we have some veterans in the audience with us today, and I thank you for being here, and I thank you for your service to our country.
One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, a Vietnam veteran and former diplomat named John Gunderson, warned that the historic view from Arlington National Cemetery should not be desecrated by this arch. This is sacred, hallowed ground. It should not be overshadowed by a monument to one man's ego. Republicans rejected when we had this amendment in MilCon VA, saying it was in the wrong bill. Okay, fine.
This is the interior bill, which funds the National Park Service and covers the public lands and resources the administration is trying to use for this. So what will be the excuse today? President Trump claimed the arch would be privately funded, but he then diverted $15 million from the National Endowment for the Humanities for this arch. That is money that should support history and culture and education, museums, and humanities programs across the country in our home districts. National Park Service resources are also being used, and the administration is reportedly planning to bypass public bidding process and use an existing National Park Service contract to start the engineering work.
That contract is for a completely different site at the White House complex. A Justice Department filing revealed that Trump has no intention of getting congressional approval. The filing stated, and I quote, Congress authorized the arch project when it approved the design set out in the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission's report. It is the height of absurdity to use a report from 1924 as justification. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank gentlelady for remarks. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition of this amendment, mainly because this is an appropriation bill. We fund things. We generally don't say what we're not funding because we're not funding it. There's no money in this bill for the arch.
No money in this bill for the arch. So we're saying don't build an arch in a bill that funds things. I don't understand this. But I know people want to talk about the arch, so I will just yield back my time and let you guys rant on about the arch, and we'll see where this amendment goes. I'm opposed to it.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank gentleman. Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized to address the amendment.
Well, it's a little flip to dismiss this amendment. It really is. I mean, maybe that's the way it's regarded. But let's put what this the President of the United States has thrown on the table.
You know, he throws everything at the wall hoping something sticks. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to agree that all of this should stick. I rise in support of this amendment. It would prevent funds because they're coming back for funds. It was like the private donations for the ballroom.
And now it's a billion dollars for taxpayers that they are looking for. It was the same with the wall. It is over and over again, you know insanity. What's the description of insanity? You know, you do the same thing over and over again with the same conclusion.
Okay. The so-called triumphal arch is not being built for the American people. A reporter asked the President who the structure was intended for. And he answered, for once honestly, and he said, quote, "Me." Okay.
The new plan, me, okay, the new plan calls for a 250-foot structure, over twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial, reportedly will reach a total height of 279 feet. It also exceeds, by the way, the 200-foot height limit established by the National Airspace System. So tall, in fact, even though the Commission on Fine Arts rubber-stamped the proposal, there are reports that FAA is now belatedly evaluating the risk to flight paths in the capital region, including from Washington National Airport just two miles away. The airspace here, as we know, is extremely crowded, with over 900 flights every day. Pilots must already navigate various hazards as they descend or ascend through the north approach, that flight path that requires them to swing to avoid close encounters with the Pentagon, the Washington Monument, and other DC landmarks.
The addition of an arch will further complicate flying through this corridor. You know, we all recall last year's tragic collision between an American Airlines plane and a military helicopter. This is not a negligible risk. I wonder, did anyone in the administration consider this risk? Or did they simply jump to do the President's bidding?
There is an ongoing lawsuit, as has been mentioned, by Vietnam War veterans who are furious that this arch would block the iconic sightline of the symbolic connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. And finally, it is outrageous to even think about spending taxpayer dollars to build the President, any President of the United States, an arch. And with this President, it's an arch and it's a ballroom while the American people are struggling every single day with the cost of living. While the President pursues vanity projects, big polluters are lining their pockets and profiting off rising prices. Meanwhile, working families, middle-class families, rural, vulnerable families are left to struggle on their own.
You know, it's clear from this arch and from this administration's actions whose side they are on, and it is not on the side of American families. This arch would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, a risk to air travel, and a colossal eyesore. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. They will be coming back for the funds. Let's preempt it, my friends.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, is recognized for comments on the amendment.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my dear friend Ms. Pingree, the ranking member. In December 2025, after a year of turmoil and changes by presidential mandate at the Kennedy Center, the current president forced a handpicked board of his own appointees to approve a name change to add his own name to this memorial to a fallen president, the only one in US history, by the way, with a Purple Heart. What was known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as it was written into law to honor the life and legacy of a great... Oh, I'm so sorry. I withdraw my time, I'm sorry.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. Gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for marks on the amendment.
Mike Levin
Chairman, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate this discussion. I rise in support of the amendment and I want to speak directly for a minute to my friends across the aisle. You've heard what this arch is and where it would go, and I want to reinforce the fact CBS reported Ed O'Keefe asked the president who the arch is for and the president pointed at himself and said me. He didn't point to our vets, he didn't point to the fallen.
So set aside taste, set aside design, set aside politics entirely. There's one question in front of this committee that should unite every member of it, which is who decides. The Park Service manages this land. The Commission of Fine Arts advises on design. The National Capital Planning Commission reviews construction.
But not one of those bodies is Congress, which is required by law to have a say in new memorials. And not any of those other bodies holds the power of the purse. The administration's own position, as you've heard, is that it doesn't need us at all. It intends to reach back to a century-old authorization written for a different structure to go around this chamber entirely. My colleagues on this committee have long said the power of the purse is Congress's to guard.
Mr. Chairman, I still see Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 standing there. And this is where that gets tested. A permanent monument on hallowed ground paid for partially with taxpayer money going up without a single vote in this room. Once this is built without a vote, that's the precedent. And precedents do not retire when administrations do.
But don't take the constitutional argument from me, take the word of the people who earn the right to speak for it. If you're a veteran here today in support of this amendment, please stand. Gary Langston is an army veteran whose parents are interred at Arlington. Thank you, colleagues, I want to share their words with you. And I hope you listen to their words.
He says and I quote, I'm a veteran and a resident of Washington DC. My parents interred in Section 66 were a Vietnam veteran and his army wife. I served for 29 years in US Army and my wife is a veteran of the Persian Gulf War. We also have several ancestors who served in the US Armed Forces dating back as far as the War of 1812. Any memorial at Memorial Circle must respect those interred there, their descendants, current and future generations, and remain consistent with the solemn symbolism provided by the linkage of the Lincoln Memorial, Memorial Bridge, the drive, the hemicycle, and the Women's Military Museum within it, the eternal flame and the Kennedy gravesite and the former Arlington House.
A solemn memorial rather than a monument, a memorial rather than a monument, is called for here in order to promote a further unification of our country and respect these very hallowed grounds.
End quote. Jimmy Shaughnessy is a Marine Corps combat veteran and the veterans program manager at the National Parks Conservation Association. Jimmy would like to share the following words. Quote, buried in section 60 is my great-grandfather and my great-grandmother. He's a combat veteran leading the charge on horseback to bring down Pancho Villa, she a combat nurse tending the young men during World War II.
They didn't question why they should serve, they questioned how long they would be allowed to serve. As a young Marine, I was impressed with their commitment to service and country, values I carried through my enlistment and combat tour. I would lose friends before I could learn their full name. For what died the sons and daughters of America? Was it fame?
Will your children line up to be fodder for the vain? A 250-foot triumphal arch topped with golden statues and an observation deck is an inappropriate disruption at the gates of hallowed ground. The transitory space between service and burial exists at the gates of Arlington to preserve its integrity, the space must remain as is, unobstructed. End quote. That ground was chosen with purpose, my friends.
The Memorial Bridge was built to join North and South after the Civil War, to link Lincoln to the Arlington House on a single line of sight so a divided nation could see itself made whole. A 250-foot arch would break that view irreparably and would be built without this chamber ever casting a vote. As for the argument that Congress is not appropriating funds for the arch, that's exactly the point, my friends. The administration has no business at all spending $15 million on this without this body involved. If you believe there shouldn't be appropriated funds or other taxpayer funds used for this vanity project, now might be your one time, your one time to speak out and to say so.
These two vets ask us to follow the law and to leave that ground unobstructed. They earned the right to ask, the only question is whether we have the will to answer. Thank you and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Steny Hoyer
First of all, I adopt the comments that Mr. Levin just made. Obviously, as usual, thoughtful, well-researched, and I think impactful. But I want to respond to my very dear friend, and he and I have been good friends for a very long time. He's the former speaker of the Idaho House and I'm the former president of the Maryland Senate many, many, many years ago for both of us. What concerns me is your not joining the rant to which you referred.
I've used the phrase and I'll repeat it again, we are the authors of our own impotence. The concept that this project would be pursued without congressional authorization, without the voice of the people, without the voice of the people being heard, and we are the voice of the people. That's why the founders said we had to go back to the people every 24 months and have our contracts renewed because the founders wanted to have our voices, their voices, the voices of the people heard on a regular basis and we would be held accountable on a regular basis. This president treats Washington, DC as if it were Mar-a-Lago North. He treated the White House that way and without so much as a by-your-leave tore down a significant portion of the White House.
I tell my friend, I would hope you would join our rant, if that's what it is. But I believe the rant to which you refer is trying to ring the bell that Article One still exists and that Article One needs to be respected, not just by us, but by the President of the United States, and particularly Russell Vought, who believes that Article One is a suggestion as to what the executive department ought to do. Not a mandate, not a law, not a directive, but simply a suggestion. I've said this before, but this is another specific example of our being asleep at the switch and just shrugging our shoulders and say, what can we do? After all, Trump has said he's going to do it.
And as the gentleman from California says, even if he does it with private sector money and says the taxpayers aren't paying for it, that is irrelevant. He has not the power to make that decision on his own. And what he has done is fired people who have some oversight over it and replaced it with people who say, yes sir. And I use the salute advisedly. Ladies and gentlemen of this Appropriations Committee, if you fail to exercise your authority, you will lose it.
And we are fast having our authority become a thing of the past. That's what this amendment says. The gentleman shakes his head, and I understand why he's saying there's no money in here. A good point. Why is there no language in this bill to say, Mr. President, you need to come here?
Because we have ignored the issue. And there is not the outrage that should be manifested by all of us, Republicans and Democrats, not about our partisan politics, but about our commitment to this committee and the people's voice being heard on a decision of this magnitude that has, as the two gentlemen who stood, such a negative impact on the respect that we have for them, for those who we lost. We just celebrated Memorial Day. Many of those people who lost their lives may be in Normandy, not here. But it is our responsibility, not any president, Democrat or Republican, to simply say, I'm going to build a very major structure in the capital of the United States without so much as a by-your-leave from the Congress.
Support this amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
I rise in strong support of my colleague Ranking Member Pingree's amendment. As the ranking member of the Military Construction Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, which has oversight over Arlington National Cemetery, I have received quite a bit, a lot of outreach on this proposed arch. And none of it is good. Putting aside the fact that we're in the middle of a war in the Middle East, a still ongoing war in Ukraine, and during a cost of living crisis, this president wants the American people to pay for a new arch as his latest vanity project. And this location is so deeply offensive to the history and tradition of Arlington National Cemetery.
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized to address the amendment.
Sorry, can we move these bags, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As it's been discussed in this committee and by veterans groups across America, the location of this proposed arch would destroy a century-old sightline between Arlington and the Lincoln Memorial. This vantage point was purposely designed to symbolize reconciliation and unity following the Civil War. If the president is interested in projects that are more respectful to our veterans, those buried at Arlington and the families and guests of Arlington National Cemetery, there are plenty of things that need to be done. For starters, we could expand, protect, and support the operations at Arlington in our bill, in the MilCon-VA bill, with the money and resources that we would dump building the arch to Trump. And if the cost, waste of resources, and disrespect to our veterans and our history are not enough to convince my colleagues to vote no, I would also highlight what many people outside of Congress have pointed out: this oversized arch would be smack in the middle of the flight path for planes landing at DCA from the western approach path.
This project is an unfunded, unauthorized, oversized, disrespectful waste of tax dollars. America's 250th birthday should be celebrated, but it should not be commemorated by creating divisions. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
Thanks, the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the... The gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. The gentlelady is... oh, I'm sorry, I missed my friend from New York.
Gentleman from New York's recognized to address the amendment.
Steny Hoyer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield some time to my distinguished friend from Maryland.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened to my dear friend. I listened to my dear friend, and he said there's no money in this bill, so this is irrelevant. The reading of the amendment was dispensed with. Let me read it for the members.
No monumental arch, triumphal or otherwise, may be constructed within Memorial Circle on the George Washington Memorial Parkway or anywhere else within Lady Bird Johnson Park. Period. Says nothing about no other funds shall be spent. Doesn't reference any funds in this bill. It says you cannot build this.
Heaven forbid that we would have, as the Appropriations Committee of the United States of America House of Representatives, the temerity to say that this can't be built. So whatever, however he pays for it, it can't be done with this amendment. So I tell my chairman, this is exactly what we ought to be doing. Exactly what we ought to be doing. Telling this president, who treats us as if we were an afterthought in the Constitution of the United States, who treats us as if by your leave, and then who defeats a lot of you in your own party because he doesn't like the fact that you said, "Oh, well, maybe I don't agree."
Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, if you want this committee to be respected, not only by a president of the United States, but by the people of the United States, we need to stand up and say we are the policymakers. The Constitution says that. We believe it. And whether you like it or not, we're going to act as if we are the Article 1 branch of government. This amendment says you can't do.
And that is fully within our authority and power and we ought to exercise it, and we ought to exercise it, not with temerity, but with full-throated rants. Thank you.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized to address the amendment.
I yield to Chairman Simpson.
Michael Simpson
Thank you for yielding. You just got me started. Wait. Because I thought this would be a rant and it is a rant. You guys want to talk about it, that's okay, talk about it.
This is an appropriation bill. We fund things. There is no money in this bill for an arch. Why don't we also say in there you can't put a man on the moon, or you can't put a man on Mars, or you can't put a space station or a sea station at the bottom of the ocean? Why don't we just say that?
There's nothing in here to do that. There's nothing in here to fund an arch. Nothing in this bill. Now you haven't asked me what I think about the arch. I don't particularly like it.
But you know what? That's not in this bill. That's all I'm saying. And I would have a little more sympathetic and a little more sympathy to your cause if you were just a little more consistent. I remember during a previous administration where we appropriated money to build a wall.
Democrats took control. Guess what? That disappeared. That was appropriated by Congress. Or maybe when the previous administration had said, "We're going to pay off student loans," and the Supreme Court said, "No, you can't do that without Congress."
And they said, "Let's find a way around Congress to do it," and started doing it that way. Did I hear a word out of any of you? No, not a single word. So maybe if you were consistent, I'd be a little more consistent. So that's just a bunch of nonsense.
Will the gentleman yield?
No, I haven't.
Michael Simpson
Yeah, that's what I figured. Well, I'm done talking. All I'm saying is this is an appropriation bill. Let's appropriate money for the Department of Interior and related agencies and let's not get into all this ancillary stuff that's going on. It is just a period to rant and there are several amendments in here which are just periods to rant.
I expected it. So anyway, I yield back the balance of my time, I think the gentleman from yielding. So I understand. That's fine. Go ahead, do all that you want to.
Speaker 29
The gentleman from Kentucky yields back his time. Yield back. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And I do rise in support of this amendment, even as I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. I wish I could hear more from you, Mr. Chairman, about your opinion about the triumphal arch that the President has put forward. It is appropriate for us, as appropriators, to have an opinion on it.
It's appropriate for us as legislators, as the co-equal branch, to have an opinion on it. And I wish that opinion would be voiced. I wish more would say what you said, and I wish you would say more about that. You said you don't particularly care for it. I don't care for it at all.
And the very sad and beautiful arguments that Mr. Levin and others have put forward are so salient. We're just coming from Memorial Day. I can't understand why more people, Republicans and Democrats, are not saying, "Mr. President, no."
Madeleine Dean
I don't care for it at all. And the very sad and beautiful arguments that Mr. Levin and others have put forward are so salient. We're just coming from Memorial Day. I can't understand why more people Republicans and Democrats aren't saying Mr. President no. This is too much.
It is too much about yourself and not at all about our veterans and our military dead. So I oppose the arch also. And I think it's completely appropriate that we talk about it here. This is not about ranting. This is about doing our job and holding this man to account.
Holding him in some check as he amputated the East Wing of the White House as he's putting up a fight. I would like to now yield to the ranking member of the full committee.
Rosa DeLauro
I thank the gentlelady and let me just say President Trump claimed the arch would be privately funded and then through OMB through OMB and this was in 2026 they diverted 15 million dollars from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Does this bill cover the National Endowment for the Humanities? You bet it does. Do you think that they're not going to do that again? Well if you do think that then I got a bridge I will sell you.
They continue to do this over and over and over again. 15 million dollars for what? For the arch. We don't make it up. Let's deal with the facts of the matter here.
And then the Justice Department a filing from the Justice Department revealed that Trump has no intention of getting congressional approval and the filing stated and I quote Congress authorized the arch project when it approved the design set out in Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission's report. Absurd. A 1924 report as justification. I want to just say thank you to the veterans who stood up here for their service for their family's service. Let us listen to what the people of this nation want and not what a megalomaniac would like to do when he says who does this honor it honors me.
My God if we can't say no to that who are we? And why do we sit here in this body? Yes this is appropriations. They diverted 15 million dollars of appropriations money for this colossal madness. And we don't want to take it up and say no you can't do it?
My God. I yield back and I thank the gentlelady.
Madeleine Dean
Mr. Chairman again I I thank you for your visiting on us your opinion as to the arch. I wish you would ask each of your members what he and she thinks of it because I think your voices are so important and could be so powerful to turn this president away from this very vain idea. I yield back.
Speaker 32
Thanks the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and thank you so much for my colleagues for making the point.
Thank you to the veterans who have come to spend time with us today, and thank you for your service to the country and for this important conversation that we're having about the true role of appropriations in this moment in time, taking back our power, asking our Republican colleagues to stand up as appropriators and say the important things. And if we think the president isn't just going to go ahead, as Rosa said, we got a bridge that we can sell you today. He's already moving ahead to tear down the East Wing of the White House, to change the color of the reflecting pool. We can list one project after another he has gone ahead and moved forward on. And this president's obsession with building this monument to himself is very unpopular with the American people, and they expect us to shepherd the proper use of their taxpayer dollars.
At a time when Americans are struggling to afford the basic necessities like groceries and gas and healthcare, this is what our president is focused on, and we're not going to stop him today. It screams, "Let them eat cake." And I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this that simply says, "No, you cannot build an arch, and you cannot build one that just glorifies yourself." And I urge my colleagues to vote for this, and I yield back my time.
Thanks, gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine. All those in favor say, "Aye."
All those opposed say, "No."
Tom Cole
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote's been requested. Please raise hands. A sufficient number of hands have been raised in support. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Negative.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Garcia, no.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive.
Mark Pocan
Mr. Amodei, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez, aye.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mark Pocan
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye.
Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, no.
Tom Cole
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Moore, no.
Mr. Joyce, no.
Gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Alford, no.
Gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Edwards, no.
Mr. Cloud, no.
Mr. Fleischmann, no.
Gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Ivey, aye.
Gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Clyburn, aye.
Gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Amodei, no.
Speaker 56
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 24, the noes are 32, the amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde is recognized for an amendment.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my amendment to reduce the EPA's categorical grant programs budget by just over a billion dollars, consistent with President Trump's fiscal year 2027 President's budget request, and to bring the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act to slightly below fiscal year 2026 enacted levels. Mr. Chairman, as our national debt approaches 40 trillion dollars, Washington's addiction to spending is no longer merely irresponsible, it is a threat to our national security and our future generations. So this spending addiction must end. Consider where we stand.
The federal government exceeds, excuse me, expects 5.6 trillion in revenue this year but plans to spend 7.4 trillion. That is a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit. More than 1 trillion dollars will go solely to interest payments.
That's interest payments, a trillion dollars, funding no program, building no road, defending no soldier. No household, no business, no institution, and no government could survive this kind of math indefinitely. And yet the bill, and yet the spending level in the bill before us today would spend more, spending above fiscal year 2026 enacted levels. President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget charts a very different course, eliminating duplicative programs, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, and refocusing federal dollars on what actually serves American taxpayers, protects our national security, and keeps American businesses competitive. The president proposed an approximately 91% reduction in the EPA's categorical grant programs, from over 1.1 billion to just over 100 million dollars.
The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other major environmental statutes that these grants support have been on the books for multiple decades, and many states have enacted their own laws to do these exact same things. States and local governments are more than capable of funding their own programs in compliance with these laws that they passed. So, these grants have become a crutch for states at the expense of American taxpayers, many of whom receive no benefit from them whatsoever. The president's budget eliminates the bloated, federally subsidized bureaucracy that states should have long since stood up on their own. For example, the budget also zeroes out funding for race-based so-called environmental justice teams doing product certifications in Nevada, a 580,000 dollar expenditure in taxpayer money that had no business going to politically motivated grant programs in the first place.
Merit and environmental results should drive federal funding decisions, not political agendas. My amendment would bring the EPA's categorical grant funding in line with the president's budget request, returning it to a level that maintains essential support for key programs while ending the federal handouts to the states that have had decades to replace it with their own resources. The federal government, as the federal government barrels toward a 40 trillion dollar debt, our committee needs to be leading the way with fiscal restraint. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 30
A minute and 42 seconds. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
This amendment would cut funding that goes directly to the states and tribes by 90%. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to show my bipartisanship, I rise in opposition to this bill, to this amendment. This funding known as categorical grants is distributed to states to carry out their delegated authorities under various federal environmental laws, not state environmental laws, federal environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act. This cooperative federalism approach empowers states to issue permits and make decisions that are best for them. State permitting is critical for economic growth as these permits are necessary for new development, industry, and manufacturing.
Similar to the House Interior bills over the last several years, the FY 27 House bill again maintains funding for these categorical grant programs. I oppose this amendment. I agree with what the gentleman was stating about our debt and the problem it's created. Problem is, it's not because of discretionary spending. It's because of entitlement spending.
And until this Congress has the nerve to take on entitlement spending, we will never get it under control. You could eliminate, I'm talking eliminate discretionary spending, and you'd still have a budget deficit. That's how bad the entitlement programs have gotten, and we have to address that issue.
We're not going to do it by saving a little bit here and a little bit there, although that's part of the overall problem. But the reality is this is an important part. We have cut the EPA by 20% in this bill, 23% last year. That's a 43% reduction in two years, which is a pretty good reduction in the EPA. And so I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back.
Chellie Pingree
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the subcommittee chair for opposing this in the spirit of bipartisanship. And I too rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill already includes devastating cuts to the EPA that I do not support. Cutting another billion dollars is literally absurd. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this and I yield back.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and it comes as no surprise to me that the chair of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee along with Ms. Pingree oppose this. I'm just going to give two quick examples because Mr. Clyde gave some examples. One was we had a chrome plater in my congressional district and when they abandoned the building, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency went out, the St. Paul Fire Department went out. Many of you who served on the subcommittee will remember this. And we were not up for the task because these things don't happen very often.
And we were so thrilled, the residents who lived right by, about the quick response from the EPA to come in and help the state out. Probably saved a near disaster from happening. It was only one rainstorm away where this water was going to come through the roof and mix with all these chemicals. The other example I'm going to give because tribal governments are cut in this amendment is many of us on both sides of the aisle go out and visit tribal reservations and they have been shortchanged on EPA grant funding, whether it is cleaning up uranium, whether it is clean water, whether it is sewage. And they have been underfunded for decades.
So to cut this would be cutting our tribal treaty rights and responsibilities. So I stand with my chairman and my ranking member in strongly opposing this amendment. And I yield back with over three minutes.
Speaker 60
I love this virtuous competition. Keep it up. I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a very strong conservative, a fiscal conservative who sees that yes, this is a small amount of money compared to the amount of our actual national debt, which is $40 trillion, but every little bit helps. And so I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to strike this money from the budget of the EPA. And I yield back the 40 seconds.
Tom Cole
As a percentage, even better. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
And roll call has been requested. Okay. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, Pingree number two, and I move we dispense with the reading.
Speaker 59
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the Kennedy Center is in a very precarious position right now.
President Trump took it over. He tried to remake it in his own image. He was correctly slapped down by the courts and is now apparently planning to wipe his hands of the whole place despite chairing the board and stuffing it with dozens of his friends and donors. He posted on Friday that he's, quote, "transferring it back to Congress," unquote. Nobody anywhere seems to know what that means or what his next steps are.
But we do have and we always have had a real oversight responsibility in this subcommittee. This bill supports the capital and facilities side of the center on an annual basis. And last year the majority included 250 million in the reconciliation bill for the Kennedy Center, presumably for renovations, but with almost no direction or guardrails. We have a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately here, and there are so many outstanding questions for the administration. What is the status of the funding that's already been appropriated?
How do court orders impact the construction? If the Kennedy Center is required to stay open, especially if renovation is ongoing, what does that mean for the people who work there, the programming, the artists, the audiences? And if we're going to successfully negotiate an FY27 bill, we need real answers. And we're going to have to determine what the Kennedy Center needs and what needs to change for the Kennedy Center to exist now and into the future. One hallmark of Grenell's disaster tenure was a shocking lack of transparency.
I think we're just at the tip of the iceberg in finding out exactly what kind of disaster he and his cronies left behind. I appreciate that the chair has already included language requiring a quarterly update in briefings for this committee, but the list of known has grown, the list of unknowns has grown exponentially longer in just the past few days. So I'm asking if the chair will commit to oversight hearings in the coming months and working with me in a bipartisan way to get the information that we need to be effective in FY27 and beyond, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for amendment, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson's recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
I thank the chairman. Obviously, I'm more than willing to work with you and having a hearing on this. I expect that we're going to have some hearings in September, whether it's with the Smithsonian, with the Kennedy Center, with others that we didn't have time to get to previously. But I agree with you that there needs to be oversight. Your bill essentially says we want monthly reports, or your amendment says we want monthly reports.
Our language says that the committee or quarterly reports, the committee directs the center to provide quarterly reports and updates. I don't know if we have monthly reports, maybe we can hire another person just to do the reports. But I agree that we need to have oversight on this and what they're doing. I know that the staff and I believe you have gone down personally and seen the renovations that or what needs to be done. I think everybody agrees that the Kennedy Center needs some renovation because it is in bad shape in a lot of a lot of areas.
The court case, it's currently before the courts. One of the things that, I mean, one of the things that the court said that they had they couldn't close it down to do the reconstruction. I can tell you, you're not going to be able to do the reconstruction without closing it down for a period of time. That's just going to be necessary.
You've got to do the HVAC system, you've got to do the water systems, you've got to do all of that stuff and renovate it. The simplest way to do it, I mean, even if you're re- even if you're redoing your house, my wife did some renovation in my house. After it was done, I said, "The next time that happens, I want to know what they're going to do, how long it's going to take, and I'm going to move for the six months or a year that it takes for them to do it," because it would have been much simpler. It's the same way here. I know that creates challenges.
We want to be updated. We will have a hearing on the Kennedy Center and what's going on this fall. But I think the language in our bill is sufficient for a quarterly report rather than a monthly report. So I'd oppose this amendment and, but I look forward to working with the ranking member on it. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chellie Pingree
I thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Well, I thank the chair for speaking about the importance of doing our due diligence and oversight here. And I brought this up truly because so much has changed in such a short period of time. And I just want to emphasize our important role in the oversight here and in making sure that this treasured institution lasts long into the future. And I'm just going to use my closing time to read from the Trump Truth Social post from Friday, May 29th, to explain what a confusing situation this is. Here's what he said.
"I cannot be involved in a situation where danger to the public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight, unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else: bring this institution back physically, financially, and artistically. I have no interest in continuing what could be a hopeless journey into Never-Never Land. There has never been a president of the United States who has been treated so unfairly by the courts as I. That's okay. I will continue to do what is considered to be a great job for the wonderful people of our country.
I have instructed the Department of Commerce to make all the necessary arrangements with Congress to allow a full and complete transfer of this institution, giving them responsibility for its operation, maintenance, and management." Thank you for your attention to this matter. So we need to pay attention to this matter. And I yield back and I encourage a yes.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not adopted.
The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Moore, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Alex Mooney
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to begin- The gentleman like the amendment- Yes, I'd ask unanimous consent to have the reading of the amendment dispensed with.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Alex Mooney
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start with this. This right here, this jar, this is water that comes out of a faucet in West Virginia, southern West Virginia to be exact. A woman named Tildy gave us this jar of water.
My staff was down there in McDowell County. I know Mr. Rogers is familiar with that county, borders his. And Tildy is from McDowell and she goes- the way she gets water is she takes a mule and goes down to a natural spring and fills up jugs of water and then packs that mule and has to bring it back up the mountain because she can't drink the water that she gets out of her own faucet.
Now, unfortunately, this is not a one-off. So that's the water that she's expected to bathe with and cook and clean her clothes and everything else. So in the end, Mr. Chairman, this is people living with a pack mule to get water in the 21st century in the United States of America is a tragedy. It's an unmitigated tragedy. And this poor woman actually was using this water and got sores and chemical burns from using it.
There's another woman in the town of Jaeger in West Virginia, and you'll see my staff's dropping off some of these water samples from around the district. And she keeps an 1,800-gallon drums outside of her home to catch rainwater. And her family depends on other members to haul the water from a spring because she's too old and she can't carry it herself now. There's also a man in Bradshaw who opened a coffee shop here recently and the filtration system was supposed to be rated at six months, that's how long it would take to change the filter, and it only lasted eight days before the water destroyed it. Now, while I've been speaking here, hopefully my staff has distributed those jars of water.
I'd like you all to take a look at that and the one that is empty is the one that we'd ask them to fill up and there was no water coming out of it at all. And so this isn't one community, by the way, this isn't one county, this is a region of West Virginia in the United States. So my team collected these bottles just last week. Each comes from a real home in McDowell County. On the outside, many of them actually wanted to write their names and addresses and phone numbers so you all could see them if you ever wanted to reach out to them to let you know that they are real people that are actually suffering in our country that don't have access to water at all.
And unfortunately, they're still living like that. So some bottles look more clear. If you would like, you could take the cap off of it and smell it. Don't drink it unless you're voting no, then you could drink it. But Mr. Chairman, the people of Southern West Virginia, these are the folks that went underground, that mined the coal, that forged the steel, that built the ships, that built the tanks, that built the planes, that won the wars, that built the buildings, that built this country, and all they're asking for at this point is clean water.
That's what they want. And I think as the Appropriations Committee, I think in this bill we're apt to do that. They're simply asking that we see them as fellow citizens. Fellow Americans who deserve to be able to pour a clean glass of water for their children and for their grandchildren. Now we're not going to solve all the drinking water problems in one appropriations bill, certainly that needs to great, but this is a great place to start.
And my amendment would do $50 million to address the drinking water and water wastewater needs in the community that needs it most. It requires that at least 50% of the funding go to those nine southern counties and the state has to do a 25% match to get the money. Now, it's, I know it's hard to fathom that your fellow Americans live like this, but they do.
And the families' names who are on those bottles are real people who are actually only living a few hundred miles from here. It's only 300 miles away. This is like Hunger Games. It's hard to believe that this is the way that they're having to live. And look, one of the most terrible words in the English language that we have to live with sometimes in our human existence is abandonment.
And that's what I'm trying to prevent here is the abandonment of these communities and these people who have not been there for 10 years, 20 years, they have been there for six, seven generations. And I know my time has about to come to an end, so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. To be clear, I'm not disputing West Virginia's water infrastructure needs. We understand that. In fact, we could go across the country and there are there are needs, water infrastructure needs all around this country.
You could go to various areas in various states, but these are some of the worst, I fully admit that. But a proposal like this needs to be properly vetted with the consensus support from the relevant authorizing committees, and we just don't have that on this proposal right now. I recognize that we do provide dedicated STAG funding to the state of Alaska for water infrastructure needs. However, that funding originated as a law passed by Congress in 1995 and we have continued to provide funding for that program. Outside of a dedicated authorizing bill, the state of West Virginia, like just like any other state, still has access to multiple sources of water infrastructure funding throughout the EPA's state and tribal assistance grants, whether it's the state revolving funds, various competitive grants for water infrastructure or community funding projects.
I look forward to continuing work with my colleague on this, but I'm also concerned about where you take the money from, the $50 million from agencies that are already substantially reduced in this bill because we had to meet the other obligations that we have in the bill. So I understand where the gentleman's coming from. I look forward to working with him as we move forward on this bill. If we can do something in the as we move forward, we certainly will. But I have to oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chellie Pingree
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Maine is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too rise in opposition to this amendment that would earmark $50 million for the state of West Virginia for drinking water and wastewater needs. While such an earmark is not appropriate, I do appreciate the gentleman's testimony and his compelling argument about how important it is for his state to have this funding and to have reasonable drinking water for their communities. He is bringing this to our attention about how critical this funding is and how important it is to fund the state revolving funds for water infrastructure in all of our states. My colleague from New Jersey will be offering an amendment to increase the overall levels of state revolving funds benefiting all of our states, and I encourage the gentleman from West Virginia and everyone here to support that amendment.
But I oppose this amendment and I yield back.
Alex Mooney
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if that revolving fund ever came to West Virginia, I'd certainly support it, but it doesn't, ever. And that's that's the reason why I have this amendment. Look, these folks are suffering down there. I think this is the appropriate bill.
I really appreciate the chairman and his remarks on this, and he's put together a great bill.
But let's not abandon these folks. Let's not forget about them. I mean, these are American citizens that literally do not have water, as I pointed out to you. There's a woman who's 57 years old who's got to hike down a mountain with a mule to get water. I mean, it's really a tragedy.
It is really a tragedy. And yes, in last year's bill, we did this for Alaska. Alaska got roughly 50 million dollars, give or take, to be able to deal with their water needs. The three worst counties in America as it relates to water quality and water violations, all three of them are in West Virginia. And they're all three the three counties that I'm talking about in Southern West Virginia.
So I'd really appreciate your support on this amendment. And Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield back.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia. All those in favor say aye. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted. All those opposed say no.
As all of you can see, we're starting to vote, but I think we have enough time to move on to another amendment, if that's agreeable to my friend. Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed.
Speaker 63
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
I rise to offer this amendment to prohibit to prohibit I'm sorry, to prohibit the closure of two US Forest facilities, Forest Service facilities that are doing critical forest research, including anti-invasive species work in my district, and to highlight the lack of transparency from this administration regarding the Forest Service. In Hamden, Connecticut, the Forest Service research and development lab has been at the forefront of fighting invasive insects and diseases that threaten forests in the Northeast. Researchers there have helped combat the spread of species like the spongy moth, the Asian longhorned beetle, and the spotted lanternflies. Invasive species like these are a major threat to New England, with one recent study finding that invasive insects are now responsible for nearly a quarter of tree deaths across the Northeast. At a time when invasive species are spreading, and an Agriculture Secretary memo from last December specifically lists, quote, protecting the integrity of American agriculture from invasive species, end quote, as a research and development priority, I am baffled by the USDA's attempt to close these facilities without an adequate explanation or a thoughtful plan for how to preserve the research conducted there.
And the Hamden lab is not alone. The USDA's broader restructuring plan aims to close at least 57 research facilities across the country, consolidating them into a handful of research facilities or co-locate them with other facilities, as in Alabama and Alaska, in Huntsville, Alabama, Anchorage, Alaska, Monticello, Arkansas, Connecticut, I mentioned, Tallahassee in Florida, Lexington, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pineville and Tioga, Utah, Cedar City, Logan, and Ogden, Texas, Nacogdoches, I think I got that right after a while, Oregon, Portland, Ohio, McArthur, long list, 57 of them are at risk and they are on a cutting board here.
So, I believe if the USDA believes a consolidation of Forest Service facilities is necessary, then we ought to get as the Congress a complete plan for how the USDA will ensure the continuity of programs at those facilities. We also need to see a full plan for how consolidating facilities would impact the staff who cannot work from different facilities than they currently do. Despite the USDA's insistence that this reorganization will not affect research projects, is not intended to force out researchers, I offer the amendment to protect all of these facilities, which are an example of how consolidating research could have direct effects on existing research projects. Invasive species research is not something that can be done from afar. It's time and labor intensive.
It's highly localized, requiring frequent trips into the fields and woods where these species live. Shifting employees and facilities far away adds additional costs and delays time-sensitive research. Furthermore, the agency's insistence that this is not a final decision have left employees and their families in limbo for months, wondering if they will have to uproot their lives. USDA makes it clear on their website that the list of facilities subject to closure could still grow. I have concern that the administration is handling the reorganization.
Many of you may also be concerned about the impacts on your districts. Eager to work with my colleagues to understand how the Forest Service facility closures would affect your districts as well. I will work to hold USDA accountable for the full reorganization plans for the Forest Service moving forward. And I offer the amendment to address the specific impact we already know this reorganization would have on my home state. Stopping invasive species should be a bipartisan priority.
My facilities and others like it should not be shuttered out. Proud to put forward the amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back.
Speaker 64
Thanks, gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thanks, Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The administration is currently undergoing a large reorganization with Forest Service, including moving the headquarters to Salt Lake City. One of those novel concepts that maybe the employees ought to be closer to the lands that they actually manage and stuff. One of the main goals is to transition to a more state-based structure, shifting authority closer to the field by organizing leadership around state-level accountability and creating efficiencies throughout the agency by making fiscally responsible decisions.
One of those efficiencies includes assessing the need for facilities, not only the significant costs associated with leases, but the three billion dollars in deferred maintenance. Several of those facilities don't even have Forest Service staff included in them. I understand the lady's concern. I think during a reorganization everyone is concerned about how things are moving and what their... My job is to make sure that the Forest Service is doing their job, that they're doing what we want them to be able to do.
I don't really care how they're organized so much as long as they do the job. I want them to do it in the cheapest way possible, the most efficient way possible, but do the job that we expect them to do. So if this reorganization helps them to streamline their operations and be more effective, then I'm supportive of what they're doing. But I will tell you, when we get through with this appropriation bill, when we get to September, I plan on having the chief come over. I've talked to him personally on the phone about the reorganization and stuff, but I'd like him to come over for a hearing and explain the efficiencies that they plan on creating with this reorganization and how it is supposed to work better and so forth.
So I don't have any problem with that, but I would oppose this amendment at this time because I don't want to tell them how to organize. I just want to tell them the job I want done. So we will have them come back over and talk to us and sit down with the chief and have a hearing on that. So I currently rise in opposition to this amendment and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Chellie Pingree
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the lady, gentlelady from Connecticut for offering this amendment and urge support. Up to this point, the USDA has provided insufficient information to the committee on its proposed reorganization. I asked the chief of the Forest Service about this reorganization during the subcommittee's Forest Service budget hearing, and it is clear to me that the USDA does not have a fully developed plan for this reorganization and how to minimize the impacts that are critical to Forest Service work and staff. However, as far as I can tell, it seems like the USDA is moving forward full steam ahead anyway.
I am concerned about the potential impacts to Forest Service staff, as we have seen in other similar reorganizations and agency headquarter moves, staffing often suffers greatly. I'm also concerned that the USDA is not properly taking into account feedback from the staff, the tribes, states, Congress, and other stakeholders in its development of this reorganization. So I fully support this amendment, which highlights some of the pitfalls of this reorganization. And I am concerned about the pitfalls and the concerns and the potential impact on my home state of Maine. Maine, as I often tell you, is the most forested state in the nation, and it benefits greatly from the services of the Forest Service, such as forest research, which will be impacted by this reorganization.
Maine is home to the Penobscot, the Massabesic, the Howland experimental forests, and the research done in these forests has shaped landscapes and sustainable forestry in the Northeast for decades. Other Northeast states like New Hampshire and Vermont also have research stations at risk of closing. This type of long-term research cannot be reconstructed. It makes us more vulnerable to forest health threats that put our timber supply and our forest productivity at risk. The list of potential facility closures is still under development, according to the Forest Service, so even more of our facilities in all of your districts may be impacted moving forward.
So I fully support this amendment. I look forward to continuing the oversight of this reorganization plan with my colleagues on the subcommittee. And I yield back.
Rosa DeLauro
I thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take the chair at his word. I too, if something isn't working or some of these places are not doing their job or they don't have staff or they... but we have not had any opportunity to review any plan. And maybe we should say please don't shut these facilities down until we have an opportunity to review the program and the plan. And what are the reasons why they're being shut down?
Have they not worked? We have no idea. We're just being the recipient of a potential list of closures. And as the ranking member mentioned, the list is under development. So there are 57 now, and it goes through so many of the districts of the people who are sitting in this room.
And they are valuable resources.
They should not be shuttered without any kind of a clear and compelling evidence that the new model can achieve similar success. I would think we would want to know that before they start to shut places down. Countering the rise of invasive species across this country should be a bipartisan priority. This amendment really affirms that. I would hope I could have your support on this amendment, or, and I would just say to the chair, are you willing to talk to the Forest Service and say we're not going to shut these places down until there is a review of your proposal and your organizational plan, because we need to have input into it?
Chairman, would you be willing to do that?
Are you asking me?
I'm asking you. And to say let's hold, let's not shut these...
Speaker 67
I would be more than happy to call the chief and have a conversation with him along those lines.
Rosa DeLauro
Okay, if that's the case, and then I take you at your word. I trust your, you know, if we can have this hearing you're talking about and make our case of why, or have them make their case about why we should do that, then I would, you know, say let's do that. Nothing gets shut down until we have that opportunity. Good enough. And in which case, I then would withdraw the amendment.
Okay.
Tom Cole
Is that the first live negotiation on television? Get it while you can, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm delighted to see this cooperative exchange. Is the gentlelady withdrawing her amendment?
Tom Cole
Okay. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, before you leave, actually next up was Ms. Wasserman Schultz, but she's not here. I'm looking, trying to balance the time out. I don't know how long your amendment would take.
It's going to be one minute.
Tom Cole
Then why don't we allow you to offer your amendment? After that, we'll go ahead and recess and go down and vote. And I will recommend to all of you, if you haven't had the blueberry pie, you really should. It's really good. So, gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Henry Cuellar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that we dispense with the reading.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Henry Cuellar
Mr. Chairman, there is a program that provides funding for border communities, just like our friend from West Virginia just said a few minutes ago. People don't have water, don't have sewage, sometimes don't even have electricity, third-world conditions. This is a program that works with the NADBank that was set up during NAFTA program, so it provides funding. And it got reduced by $10 million. Asking that the money be put back again.
I'm going to offer and withdraw this amendment, and hopefully I can work with the chairman and the ranking member so we can try to add that $10 million back to these third-world conditions that we have along the US border.
Henry Cuellar
Yes, and I'll be happy to work with both the chairman and the ranking member on that. With that, I offer, and let's go vote.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. Votes have been called. The committee now is in recess, and please return promptly at the conclusion of the last vote series so we can continue consideration of the bill.
Committee will reconvene. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying that I understand that this is not an ideal situation, not for the Miccosukee Tribe or for the state of Florida or for the committee. The House has already done its job, but unfortunately, that was not enough to resolve this pressing issue for the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. This is a common sense amendment that would attach provisions that have already passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee and passed off the House floor unanimously. Everyone in this room has supported these provisions at least once and some of you twice.
I've spoken to a number of you about this issue in recent months and I came to the interior member day and raised it directly to the chairman and ranking member. Adopting this amendment would allow the Osceola Camp to be added to the Miccosukee Reservation and would direct the tribe and Interior Department to jointly protect the camp from flooding during the ongoing Everglades restoration projects. And I want to make a couple of things clear right from the start. This would not appropriate or authorize new spending outside of the work we have already approved. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that.
This is not a change that affords the tribe any special treatment or fast passes from a legitimate process or review. The reality is the tribe came to the Everglades after being driven from their homes in the early 1800s. As the Miccosukees moved to what is now Everglades National Park, they formed temporary camps on tree islands. The water that flows through our river of grass was a source of food, water, and a means of transit. Depot Tiger settled on a tree island at the turn of the 20th century.
None of these facts are in dispute. What is happening now is we are again changing the direction of the waterway. Waterflow is being restored as we lift the road that split the camp and work to unwind the damage down to the local environment. But when that water returns, it will put the camp in jeopardy. That is why we give the Department of the Interior the mandate to work with the tribe to protect the camp, and why we should also fix our mistake of the past and recognize this camp as a part of the Miccosukee reservation.
Granting this proper status would prevent Congress from having to come back again and pass another change to encompass new work or projections as work on CERP continues. Protecting this land and the Miccosukee's ability to live there must never be sacrificed to party politics. Our nation made a commitment to the Miccosukee and hundreds of other tribes to protect their lands, resources, and sovereignty. Congress must stand by that commitment, and I would like to urge you to do just that and vote yes on this amendment. But we need to make sure that we make a collective commitment, and I have been working with the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Diaz-Balart, on this issue and working to sort this all out so that this can get resolved.
If it cannot be resolved in the way that we are going to attempt to resolve it, then I will be back again to ensure that we do the right thing and ensure that the Miccosukee tribe has rights to land they've always held and that they are able to continue to live with their traditions on the land that has been sacred to them for hundreds of years. With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
Mark Pocan
Thank the gentlelady, the amendment has been withdrawn. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that it be considered read.
Speaker 70
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Mark Pocan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this is an amendment about whether or not we're going to have any funds going to what I think is officially called the White House East Wing modernization project, but known throughout our district as the President's ballroom. Now, I heard the committee chair on the arch talk about the job of this committee is not to say what we're not going to fund, it's to fund things. But this is a different situation in many ways because the President's already, without approaching Congress, torn down the East Wing of the White House. He's also got some arches and a ring ready for UFC fights.
We're just missing some cars on cinder blocks and maybe a banjo and we can get to full Idiocracy the movie. But you know, right now it looks like a tornado hit a theme park is what it's kind of looking like up at the Capitol. And before he can go ahead and fund what he wants to fund, which would be a dwarfing ballroom, 90,000 square feet ballroom, bigger than the White House itself, very likely looking like a golden goose flew in and vomited gold on it, before we do that, we should have some kind of a say about it. And we're not. That's my problem is, you know, Congress, a coequal branch of government, but in charge of the power of the purse according to Article 1 of the Constitution, is more than silent on this, we're just kind of letting it all happen.
And you know, this is something that people back home, I just did six town halls last week, one in every county, this was one of the top issues people talked about.
This was one of the top issues people talked about, the slush fund, which fortunately is gone, although I guess the president still gets future safety from IRS investigations. But this is something that as people are having a hard time paying for groceries and everyday goods because of the erratic nature of tariffs, and people are having a hard time with healthcare and utilities because of the big beautiful bill, and now they're having a hard time paying for gas because of the war in Iran, they're wondering why the president at every whim gets an arch, gets his picture on the passport or a $250 bill, which hopefully we're not going to do either. But he just keeps putting his name on things and building things. And in this case, the ballroom is something significant enough and real enough, he tore down the East Wing. This isn't a proposal.
This is a torn down East Wing that something is going to have to happen there. And Congress does have to have some sort of a say on this. And this is simply saying no funds can be used because we want to ensure Congress does have a say in this. And right now we don't. Now I know the president said this is about security and everything else.
He's going to have 85,000 people on the front lawn June 14th watching some fights. I, you know, security may not be as secure in some days as others, although I don't know if you saw, he just said he may keep that up permanently at the White House. He did say that today, he might keep the arches and the fighting ring there as a permanent fixture. Look, I don't care about having a say on that bluntly, but I do if he's going to say a ballroom that he promised would cost taxpayers nothing was going to be 200 million in donations, then it became 400 million in donations, and now he wants a billion dollars through the second reconciliation bill. That is spending something, Mr. Subcommittee Chair.
So I know the last one you said, look, it's hypothetical, we can't do it. This isn't hypothetical. The East Wing of the White House is torn down. I don't think they're going to keep it looking like a construction site slash parking lot. So something is going to happen, and this is where we should at minimum step up as a co-equal branch of government that has the power of the purse, have some say in something like this.
So that's the argument. It doesn't editorialize on it, it doesn't say anything else, it's simply saying let's make sure that no funds go to this until Congress has a say. And I hope that this at something at minimum we can do. Trust me, every town hall this came up. This is something people are talking about in your district and mine, and hopefully we can step up as Congress together and just make sure that we put back our role in how we spend money because this is going to be spending money, it looks like it could even be a billion dollars.
And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole
Thanks, gentleman for his amendment. Gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson's recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Surprisingly I'm opposed to this amendment. The FY 2027 Interior bill before us today focuses on addressing everyday issues that families across America are talking about. Maybe they're talking about the ballroom back in Wisconsin. You know what they're talking about in Idaho?
They're talking about providing additional funding to unlock land for energy development to ensure the delivery of affordable energy to power homes, businesses, and vehicles. They're talking about funding to help make our communities safer. They're talking about addressing waste, fraud, and abuse that's going on around this country. We promote job creation by removing regulatory burdens imposed by the prior administration that have hamstrung manufacturing and economic growth. That's what this bill does.
Those are the issues I hear about from my constituents. I don't know what's going on in Wisconsin, but that's what I hear in Idaho. But it seems like others are choosing to prioritize inside the Beltway projects such as the president's interest in making DC a beautiful and safe place to live. This bill does not provide, I repeat, this bill does not provide dedicated funding for the ballroom. They have mentioned a billion dollars, not for the ballroom.
They say about 200 million of it would be for the ballroom for increased security.
About 800 goes to the Secret Service for increased Secret Service. Anybody that thinks that they don't need increased Secret Service on a President that's been what, how many attempts on assassination attempts on him? So I, you know, I don't have a problem with that, but that's not in this bill. So it does provide as I said, specified dedicated funding for energy development, fighting wildfires, and upholding our trust and treaty obligations for tribal nations. I oppose this amendment and I would hope my colleagues would also.
Speaker 71
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly support Mr. Pocan's amendment, which says plainly, not one dime can be spent on Donald Trump's ballroom. This was a project that Donald Trump promised the taxpayers would not pay for. That was of course yet another broken promise from the President. Now, are Republicans going to sit back and let him stick the public with the bill?
Families in Maine and I'm sure your districts too, are worried about groceries, gas, housing, healthcare, childcare. And Donald Trump is worried about chandeliers, gold finishes, and marble floors. The White House is the people's house. He already shockingly bulldozed the East Wing practically overnight without permission or consideration. Republicans keep telling us there's not enough money for clean water or museums or climate science or public lands or basic services, just look at the cuts we are making in this bill.
But somehow there's always money for Donald Trump's pet projects. There's a choice here: Trump's ego or the public interest, Trump's vanity over the needs of working families. Now I don't want to hear about security, give me a break. If the White House needs legitimate security upgrades, the President can make that case through the normal appropriations process and Republicans should have no trouble if he presents us with that showing us the details. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 73
I thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Mark Pocan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, the East Wing is torn down. Something is going to have to go there and they're going to have to get money and permission if they follow the appropriations process to do so. So far he has proven through his unified executive theory or whatever BS that he and Russ Vought are coming up with, that they can do whatever they want, doesn't give a damn when we pass something as appropriations, they're going to either steal our funds or redirect funds. So we already are acting like a subservient branch of government, not a co-equal branch.
In this case, it is highly unpopular to take a 90,000 square foot overshadowing ballroom that's going to look like we know how it's going to look, larger than the White House and do this without any congressional authority whatsoever. So this amendment simply says we retain that authority to do our actual authority according to the Constitution and I certainly hope we would support that and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call has been requested.
Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
John Carter
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, no.
Mr. Case. Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar. Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro, aye.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Ellzey. Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, aye.
Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, aye. Mrs. Hinson. A fie on no for Dr. Harris. Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, no.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez, aye.
Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye.
Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, no.
Tom Cole
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from New York.
Mr. Edwards, no.
Gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cloud, no.
Gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Fleischmann, no.
Mr. Espaillat, aye.
Gentleman from California.
Mr. Harder, aye.
Gentleman from... did Mr. Ivey vote?
The other gentleman from California.
Mr. Levin, aye.
Yes. Mr. Amodei.
All right, gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Amodei, no.
Speaker 78
Mr. Shrive... oh, oops, I'm sorry. Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Cline, aye. Mr. Cline, no. Did Joyce vote?
Mark Pocan
Mr. Shrieve. Oh, oops, I'm sorry. Mr. Mervan, aye. Mr. Klein, aye. Okay.
Mr. Klein, no.
Yes, Mr. Joyce voted.
Speaker 81
Are there any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 31, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, is recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Lois Frankel
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Lois Frankel
Well, listen, this amendment should not be partisan because it's about something we all have, I hope we all have them, and that is our teeth. This is about our teeth. My amendment requires that the Environmental Protection Agency's new fluoride assessment be reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, one of the nation's most trusted independent scientific institutions. This assessment comes at a time when a long-standing public health practice, including community water fluoridation, are being questioned, questioned by senior officials in this administration. Well, I think you know who they are.
The EPA has the authority to review fluoride, that's not the problem. Science should always be updated as new evidence emerges. However, concerns are actually being raised by dental professionals, public health experts, not about reviewing fluoride in the water, but about making sure that the assessment is complete, objective, and based on all available evidence. And as proposed, I'm very sad to say, the current assessment ignores fluoride's decades-long record of preventing tooth decay. It fails to distinguish between the important difference between higher levels of exposure and the recommended levels used in community water systems, and it cherry-picks which research to consider.
And folks, that raises the real risk that it's going to lead to inaccurate conclusions about fluoride's effect on human health, which is happening, of course, in my home state of Florida. I hope our children grow up with teeth. I'm worried about that. But listen, this could have far-reaching effects as the assessment will be used by local and state governments to inform their policies surrounding fluoride. And listen, I'm not trying to stop EPA from doing their job, simply before decisions are made that could affect families across the country, let independent experts review the evidence and make sure the science is sound.
Because folks, if listen, you know this if you ever had a tooth pulled or a toothache, tooth decay means pain, it means infections, missed school for children, missed work for parents, and higher costs for families. And for decades, fluoride has helped prevent cavities and improved oral health, especially for children, seniors, and communities with less access to dental care.
Listen, let's get real. Real cavities hurt, dental bills hurt, and no one should end up facing a drill or a pulled tooth because politics replaced proven science. So listen, EPA's new fluoride assessment should be peer-reviewed by trusted independent scientific institution. And now the good news is this. I'm not going to ask for a vote because we have a real dentist who's in charge of this committee.
And I talked to him, I trust him that we can work together to try to go through a process we can make sure that we work with the authorizing committee and the administration to make sure that we're getting good information for our our future health. So with that, I thank you for letting me rant and rave and Mr. Simpson, I really do look forward to working with you. And I withdraw the amendment.
Tom Cole
The amendment is withdrawn. Okay, gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of this amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would restore funding for the state revolving fund, including the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds to FY 26 levels, including the supplemental funding from the IIJA in FY 26. If there is one thing that my colleagues across the aisle and I should agree on is that we are in an affordability crisis. And the state revolving funds are the main source of federal funding for people to have safe and affordable water and reliable wastewater. The latest EPA needs survey found that water and wastewater systems need more than one trillion dollars over the next two decades just to simply comply with existing federal law.
State revolving funds help lower the cost of necessary water infrastructure projects and ease the burden on households and local businesses. With the loss of federal support, utilities will have to increase bills even more to comply with federal regulations. According to the EPA, up to 20 million US households, that's one in six Americans, have unaffordable water service. According to HHS, one in five US households is in water debt, owing money to their water utility. SRF funding is necessary to help protect human and public health.
About 176 million people, more than half of the country, receive drinking water which is contaminated by PFAS chemicals and each year about 7 million people get sick from the exposure to the unsafe water.
We have the power to address this. Without accounting for the states' losses from IIJA, our progress on water infrastructure will falter. Without IIJA supplemental funding in this next year, of fiscal year, Mr. Chairman, I should share with you that your state, Oklahoma, will lose 56.3 million. Mr. Simpson, your state of Idaho, 37 million. Mr. Amodei, your state of Nevada is losing 38 million.
Mr. Reschenthaler, your state of Pennsylvania loses 180.7 million. Mr. Cloud and Mr. Ellzey, the state of Texas is losing 312.2 million. Mr. Zinke, your state of Montana is losing 37.1 million. Ms. Maloy, your state of Utah is losing 38 million. And my state, New Jersey, is losing 145.9 million.
We need to invest in our states' ability to afford water and infrastructure improvements because all of our citizens have a desire and a need and a right to have safe and affordable water to drink. In this room, in this committee, we have an opportunity to make America affordable again. And in this bill, through this amendment, we can make that water affordable and safe. I support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to do so.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks, gentlelady, for amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The primary reason I oppose this amendment is because without an offset, this amendment causes the bill to exceed our committee-approved allocation. Over the past five years, the SRFs received a surge of supplemental funding totaling $43 billion. That's 43 billion dollars outside of the discretionary appropriation process.
Over that same period, discretionary appropriations also provided 14 billion to the SRFs. This amendment would continue the same level of unprecedented spending to the SRFs, which is more than 5 billion above the FY26 enacted level. We simply have not had, we do not have that allocation. Even in a final bill, we will not have that allocation. The FY27 interior bill before us today does not cut the SRFs by the 90% reduction proposed in the budget request.
In fact, the FY27 House bill provides 17 million more in SRF money to states than our FY26 House bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a final SRF funding amount for the 2027 year, but I oppose this amendment and I yield back.
Thanks, the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for this amendment and I urge you all to support it. This bill cuts funding to the states for water infrastructure. And the reason the majority made these cuts is simple. It's because they did not give the interior bill sufficient allocation.
That allocation is a policy choice, and that is reflected in the funding cuts across this bill, including those to state revolving funds. These cuts will be felt even more acutely because this is the first year that states won't receive additional funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. These programs are so important. They help states deliver safe drinking water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater management to thousands of communities. Reduced funding to all of our states threatens the viability of water infrastructure projects, forcing the states to either delay critical upgrades or shift the cost to the ratepayers.
Reducing this SRF funding would delay critical upgrades to drinking water and wastewater systems and risk exposure to contaminants like PFAS and lead.
So these further cuts would exacerbate the delays in permitting needed for economic development. Congress encourages continues to encourage states to take on greater responsibility for federal programs. Yet funding cuts undermine the state's ability to accept or implement those programs responsibly. Responsibly. I know in coastal communities that I represent in Maine, they are facing compounded risks from climate change and aging water infrastructure.
And these SRF cuts would limit limit the state's ability to respond proactively and none of our states can handle more in their current budget. So I urge everyone to support this and I yield back.
Speaker 19
Thank gentlelady for comments. Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro is recognized to address the amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which would increase funding for the state revolving funds. The American people are demanding help with the cost of living. That is what we should be focusing on as a committee. But instead, the majority has chosen to cut the funding that literally helps our communities maintain safe, clean drinking water.
All our states rely on revolving funds to help finance water infrastructure projects, which are often time and capital a time and capital intensive. Yet the bill before us cuts this funding to the states, cutting it by $86 million or nearly 7%. This cut is compounded by the loss of infrastructure investment and the Jobs Acts, which ended last year. This reduction of federal support for water infrastructure means that local governments, already struggling for cash due to the president's illegal freezing of so many grants and loan programs, will have to bear the brunt of financing expensive water safety and treatment products projects. Clean water should be available for all Americans, and the funding provided through the interior bill for community project funding and state revolving funds helps to achieve that mission.
CPFs and state revolving funds work in concert to address water infrastructure needs. States are able to utilize the state revolving funds to address major issues facing the state, while the community project funds allow members to advocate for our constituents and ensure that funds are directed to local communities that often don't have the resources to compete at the state level. And I want to be clear about something. Funding for community project community projects does not come at the expense of the state revolving funds. They should both be funded robustly.
The majority has chosen to set an allocation for the interior bill that is insufficient. They are making a choice to cut the state revolving funds. The EPA currently estimates that our nation's drinking water and wastewater systems will face over $1.2 trillion in capital improvements and those needs over the next 20 years, just to maintain current levels of service and safety. Without federal support, the costs get passed on to the American people through utility bills, property or sales taxes, or cuts to other local government services. Americans voted to lower the cost of living, not to spike their water and tax bills.
Yet, that is exactly what the majority is forcing on our communities. This is something we should be able to agree on, all of us: water, food, shelter, our bare necessities. Every single person here knows the importance of safe drinking water, and every person here should be demanding action if something went wrong with our community's water supply. Failing septic systems, inadequate wastewater treatment are a matter of life and death. They could lead to contamination of drinking water sources with pathogens like E. coli or other microorganisms, and what Mr. Moore pointed out as causing cancer.
That is what drinking water the drinking water state revolving fund is about. It is for places like Stockton, Pennsylvania, which had the state's worst water quality until it received funding to install a new water distribution line and prevent contamination of Giardia, bacteria, and iron in its old system. It's it is for small towns like Bessemer, Michigan, with a population of roughly 1,800 people, but which was able to receive a loan for critical water main and lead service line replacement. And it is for and it is for protecting places like the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Salmon Bay, and Lake Union in Seattle, which received $165.3 million in low-interest loans to help prevent as much as 70 million gallons annually of polluted stormwater carrying toxins such as motor oil, metals, and pesticides directly into these crucial waterways. I know many of us are focused on securing funding for our districts through community projects.
I am frustrated by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has accused lawmakers of raiding state revolving loan funds and turning into grants for congressionally earmarked projects. This is simply not true. When Democrats controlled the House, we made water infrastructure funding a priority. We set an allocation for the interior bill that robustly funded the state revolving funds and provided community projects. Whether it's EPA's draconian budget request or the majority's inadequate allocation, Democrats are going to continue to fight for additional funding for state revolving funds.
The American people are expecting us to deliver both once again safe drinking water and this should not be a partisan issue. This is a bare minimum. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has said clean, safe drinking water is a top priority under the agency's "powering the great American comeback" initiative. The first pillar of that plan opens by saying, and I quote, "Every American should have access to clean air, land, and water. I will ensure the EPA is fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment."
Yet, here we are again, faced with a bill that would cut the very things this administration claims is their priority. This is a choice, just like the majority's choice to add three or a trillion dollars to the deficit to finance tax breaks for billionaires and the biggest corporations. Proud to uh to uh support this amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield back.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing oh, gentlelady from Florida is recognized. No, one. One.
Seeing no other members wishing to address, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to stand with my colleague from West Virginia and offer this amendment in the gap for West Virginia and all the other states where we have access need to and challenges to safe, drinkable, and affordable water. And in that in that vein, I offered this amendment and I recognize that how we spend our money is a reflection of our values. I hope that our my colleagues see that this is a value to all of our children and generations to come. I yield back, thank you.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New Jersey. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted. No, that's fine. Whatever. The gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of it.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank you, sir. My amendment would restore funding for environmental justice initiatives under the EPA, which the bill we are considering today completely eliminates. The decision to wipe out this funding is the legislative equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. I said that last year. Here we are again, and again, I find myself wondering how these funding cuts make life better for American people.
We're watching the Trump administration spend money on vanity projects that everyday Americans did not ask for. We are months into a costly war that Trump started that has no end in sight and no one has asked for. Now our constituents have to worry about more pollution and the illnesses that come with it because we are divesting from critical research and infrastructure improvements. Instead of standing up to Trump's spending habits, my colleagues on the other side want to offset them by cutting protections that would improve life for people who are just living in a less privileged condition than we are. Due to the common practice of building pollution-generating infrastructure near low-income and minority neighborhoods, there are racial disparities in air pollution and water quality that lead to disproportionate rates of pollution-linked illnesses, such as asthma, which is recognized 7.5 times higher than in our white communities in our minority communities.
A study from Harvard found that communities with larger Black and Hispanic populations are much more likely to have toxic forever chemicals in the water that they're drinking. Funding environmental justice initiatives ensures that these disparities are accounted for as the EPA seeks to make the environment safer for everyone. And the funding was allocated in response to a real problem. Exactly two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, you were standing right exactly where you are now, and you said in response to my colleague Mr. Espaillat that it would be a really good matter for our authorizing bill to study the impacts of data centers. I happen to have a bill to do just that.
And that research would be greatly helped by the reauthorization of funds for environmental justice research grants. Ignoring those disparities will not make them go away. Pretending that racial inequality does not exist in pollution rates will not stop it. Our children will continue to get sicker at higher rates. I won't make our drinking water, it won't make our drinking water cleaner, and it won't make our air quality better.
With my amendment, one zip code would not determine whether or not one has access to clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe. Everyone has a right to live a healthy life, and the EPA, well, it has a responsibility to protect the environment so that this can become a reality both now and for the future inheritors of this planet. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition of this amendment. First, this amendment does not have an offset and would exceed our allocation. When you offer these amendments, you need to have the way to pay for them somewhere in them. Second, I think we can all agree that everyone deserves access to clean air and clean water.
The bill before us today provides funding for programs that benefit the health and safety of all individuals across the country. From the EPA's geographic programs to water and wastewater infrastructure programs to funding directly to states to implement environmental laws, this bill is intended to provide funding to any area that has an environmental issue and needs additional resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to identify responsible uses of taxpayer dollars in order to conserve our natural resources and protect our environment for all Americans, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment.
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank the gentlelady from New Jersey for her amendment and I urge everyone to support it. This bill in its current form provides no funding for the environmental justice programs at the EPA. Last year the EPA shuttered the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and put all the employees on administrative leave, most of whom have been or will eventually be fired. At the same time this administration has arbitrarily stopped working on environmental issues with tribes, low-income, and rural populations, communities that have disproportionately been impacted by air and water pollution. President Trump has signed proclamations claiming to exempt some of the largest industrial polluters in the United States from protective health and environmental standards.
These polluters are in places such as Louisiana's Cancer Alley and in other historically disadvantaged communities that will continue to suffer harm because this administration thinks environmental justice is a bad word. In the FY 26 conference, we defeated House Republican efforts to eliminate this program and included 30 million to continue environmental justice grants. Now the EPA administrator tells us that he wants clean air, water, and land for all of America's communities, but if you are a marginalized community, you will continue to be marginalized. I urge support for this and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank gentlelady for comments, are there others wishing to address the amendment. Gentlelady from Ohio.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady our dear colleague Ms. Waters Watson Coleman from New Jersey. Let me state that I represent industrial and agricultural production, production America. That means heavy rail, heavy metals, heavy trucking, triple tractors, exhaust, smoke, gases, toxic effluent, and legacy waste, that is, believe me, toxic. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice was founded in 1992 under a Republican president, President George H.W. Bush. And since then the office has been operated under both Democratic and Republican leadership.
Yet last year after more than 30 years of good work, the current administration decided to terminate this program, leaving people in communities to fend for themselves in very negatively impacted and polluted places. Pollution does not recognize politics or political boundaries. Too many of us have toxic environmental damage and containment facilities that are not the best in our districts. Take my district. It sits along the southern shore of freshwater Lake Erie.
We have to deal with not just harmful algal blooms, but train derailments with toxic spills, agricultural runoff, strategic metal waste that's been buried for years, polluted wells, you name it we got it all. The long-term consequences, especially with materials like spent beryllium or aluminum or lead and so many other pollutants that are equated with industrial America before it got smarter, we still have to clean up from the last century. We have engaged citizens from the Junction Coalition, the Lake Erie Waterkeepers and so many other groups on community-based research to devise solutions to local, state, and federal agencies and institutions of higher learning frankly that got a whole lot to learn about our part of America.
These intergovernmental partnerships and local collaborations will be stalled without adoption of this amendment. And that will mean more cancer, more kidney and liver diseases, more blood and lung diseases. We know these well. Just go to the workman's comp office in any state capital and find out the people that have died from breathing and living near this stuff or drinking water that's polluted. So our doctors, engineers, toxicologists, scientists work to understand the potential long-term impact of these waste dumps and legacy toxic sites, trying to prove why these people are dying.
We must ensure the communities most affected have access to federal programs to clean them up. Maybe we need more women in Congress, maybe we're used to cleaning more things up, I don't know. But we have to have more consciousness of what is going on in our communities. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice has helped advance environmental policy, enforce civil rights laws, deliver grants and provide technical assistance to communities most impacted by environmental contamination. We must ensure the continuation of this office and its grant programs so that federal resources can reach and protect all impacted communities and the people that live in them.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is recognized for comments on the amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Watson Coleman's amendment to restore funding for environmental justice efforts at the EPA. Environmental justice is not just some abstract concept. It is not "the Green New Deal", it's not socialism or the latest far-right bogeyman. It is a simple question of whether everyone, not just the wealthy, are truly entitled to clean air and clean water, no matter where they live or how much they earn.
Whether a neighborhood threatened by industrial pollution or toxic exposure receives the protection and resources it deserves. It should surprise no one that the burdens of pollution tend to fall more harshly on low-income and historically marginalized populations. Cancer clusters, asthma, breathing problems, and a myriad of other health problems are common in communities that have unjust environmental impacts because they are next to data centers or electric utility monitors and so many other large-scale industrial impacts. For too long and even now, Black, Hispanic and tribal communities, rural areas and low-income neighborhoods of every race feel the brunt of that pollution burden. And it's a weight that only deepens all the existing health and economic disparities.
But the Republican bill before us eliminates environmental justice funding entirely. And that is an unconscionable act in any year. But it's especially dangerous when President Trump's EPA systematically dismantles protections against toxic pollution. Trump declared an emergency on the first day of his administration to functionally discard the Clean Water Act. His EPA repealed restrictions on mercury and other extremely dangerous pollutants that give Americans brain damage and cancer when exposed.
They've proposed repealing safeguards against ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing chemical that threatens communities living near commercial sterilization facilities. And it's moving to roll back drinking water standards for PFAS forever chemicals, which are linked to cancer and neurological disorders. Yet where is the GOP outrage? While President Trump's EPA shreds restrictions on carcinogens, forever chemicals, mercury and other toxic pollution, this bill adds insult to injury by eliminating the last line of defense for the people most exposed to those dangers.
These impacts hit especially hard in places like South Florida, where every day we feel the impacts of ignoring the effects of human behavior on our ecosystem. This amendment restores funding to carry out that work. It says we do not have to choose between clean air and clean water, between public health and economic security, or between one vulnerable community and another. Republicans characterize this funding as irresponsible spending. But nothing could be further from the truth.
When we fail to confront the harsher impacts that pollution has on Black, Hispanic, tribal, and rural communities, their families will continue to unfairly suffer, resulting in sickness and death. And that is not hyperbole. But we all pay orders of magnitude more down the road to make up for the devastating damage that we do to our larger environment. I urge support of the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment that I'm offering speaks volumes about who we are. We already know, the whole world knows that Donald Trump doesn't care about people of color and doesn't care about people who are not very wealthy. There are questions about whether or not all the members of Congress believe that also. But to not vote for this amendment, to agree that you eliminate all effort to establish equality in environmental protection speaks volumes as to who you are and what you stand for. And I, um, I hope that you stand up here and support this amendment because it's for your community and my community and every community across this country.
I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New Jersey. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Tom Cole
Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat, aye. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey.
Ms. Kaptur, aye.
Mark Pocan
Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan, aye.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye.
Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no.
Mr. Shrieve. Mr. Shrieve, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye.
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Cline, no.
Gentleman from Missouri.
Speaker 56
Are there others wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and the noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted. My understanding there's still discussion going on in the Republican en bloc, so we're going to move to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Espaillat, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Adriano Espaillat
Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent to dispense the reading of such.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Adriano Espaillat
Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply concerned about the cuts to environmental justice programs and how these cuts continue to exacerbate health outcomes in disadvantaged communities. My amendment urges the EPA to report on the projected public health consequences of any reduction in environmental justice related programs and staffing. For far too long, Mr. Chairman, low-income communities and communities of color have disproportionately borne the burden of pollution, toxic waste, and environmental hazards. These communities in my district, Mr. Chairman, take public transportation. They contribute far less to pollution and yet they're hurt far more.
They're often the same communities that already face high rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other chronic conditions. Children and seniors are specifically and especially vulnerable to poor air quality and environmental contaminants. Environmental justice programs help identify these disparities and direct resources towards addressing them. They're critical to the health of a young boy or girl suffering from asthma. The asthma pumps are not blue.
They're not red. They are in blue states and red states. And we must give them to all children. When we cut these programs, we are not only reducing a line item in the budget, we are reducing our ability to prevent illness before it actually occurs. More exposure to pollution means more asthma attacks.
We have asthma alleys in many poor neighborhoods where children miss school, where children and seniors also miss appointments, even with their doctors, because they cannot make it when they have a serious respiratory attack. This means higher healthcare costs, missed days of school and work, and increased strain on the local healthcare system. Environmental justice is not just, as I said before, for blue states, it is often very pronounced in red states. Investing in these programs protects everybody in our country. This must be a bipartisan issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe that we have an obligation to protect our most vulnerable citizens. This includes investing in better healthcare and better health outcomes. If we take away funding, we should understand the consequences of these actions. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the support of this important amendment and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment, similar to the amendment we just discussed. I again reiterate that this bill provides funding for health and safety for all individuals across the country. In some instances, the funding is distributed to states first and the states determine how best to fund their own needs and priorities. In other instances, funding is provided as competitive grants.
These mechanisms are intended to direct funding where it's needed most and to ultimately improve our land, air, and water for everyone. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back.
Chellie Pingree
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentleman from New York for submitting this amendment. We had an extensive discussion of environmental justice in the last amendment and it is so clear that environmental justice funding is critical to protecting marginalized communities that suffer disproportionate impacts of environmental pollution. If the majority was unwilling to provide funding for the program, I hope they will be willing to allow a report that measures the impact of its elimination. I support this amendment and I yield back.
Thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment and I thank the good gentleman from New York for offering it. The amendment would require that EPA prepare a report on public health impacts of significant cuts to environmental justice programs.
It's a report. Don't we want to know what works and what doesn't work? Don't we want to know when we fund something if it worked and when we cut those funds, what impact that has? It's only a report. As my colleagues have discussed, this bill yet again imposes massive cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, 20%.
Within those cuts, environmental justice programs are hit especially hard. These are programs that help address the reality that communities of color, poor communities, continue to face higher levels of environmental pollution and the resulting health impacts, such as higher rates of respiratory illness, heart disease, and other chronic preventable conditions. If you've heard me speak before, you probably have heard me talk about Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. It is a beauty. I wish we had such an amendment here at the federal level.
It says that the people of Pennsylvania have the right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of our environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations to come. As trustees of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people. The constitutional amendment, Pennsylvanians, and the obligations it articulates guide my work here in Congress. A budget is a moral document, and I know that these cuts to environmental justice programs are not meeting that moral urgency.
At the very least, we deserve to know how the cuts are harming the health of our communities. So I thank the good gentleman Espaillat from New York for his amendment and I urge all to support it for our children and for our grandchildren. Thank you, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. Gentleman from New York is recognized.
Adriano Espaillat
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is an important amendment. These programs, these programs that come out of environmental justice funding are very often, Mr. Chairman, local. Very often they clean up an area that's producing an environmental condition that's adverse to children's health and seniors' health. The funding has been cut and the communities are left empty-handed to address environmental justice issues at the local level, at the local level.
This is not a Superfund type of effort to clean up toxic sites, although that must happen as well. This reaches down to local communities like Harlem in my district and East Harlem in my district, where you have an asthma alley impacting children on a daily basis. And you can see the drop in attendance in the schools. Children often have to miss school for weeks as they get a prolonged asthma attack. So I urge all my colleagues to consider the health of our seniors, our children, and vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentleman. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call is requested, sufficient support has been demonstrated, the clerk will call the roll.
John Carter
Mr. Aderholt. No. Mr. Aderholt, no, Mr. Aguilar. Aye. Mr. Aguilar, aye, Mr. Alford.
Mr. Amodei. No. Mr. Amodei, no, Mrs. Bice. No. Mrs. Bice, no, Mr. Bishop.
Yes. Mr. Bishop, aye, Mr. Calvert. No. Mr. Calvert, no, Mr. Carter. No.
Mr. Carter, no, Mr. Case. Aye. Mr. Case, aye, Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Cline. No.
Mr. Cline, no, Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Cloud, no, Mr. Clyburn. Aye. Mr. Clyburn, aye, Mr. Clyde.
Nay. Mr. Clyde, no, Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole, no, Mr. Cuellar. Aye.
Mr. Cuellar, aye, Ms. Dean. Aye. Ms. Dean, aye, Ms. DeLauro. Aye. Ms. DeLauro, aye, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
No. Mr. Diaz-Balart, no, Mr. Edwards. No. Mr. Edwards, no, Mr. Ellzey. No.
Mr. Ellzey, no, Ms. Escobar. Aye. Ms. Escobar, aye, Mr. Espaillat. Aye. Mr. Espaillat, aye, Mr. Fleischmann.
No. Mr. Fleischmann, no, Ms. Frankel. Aye. Ms. Frankel, aye, Mr. Franklin. No.
Mr. Ivey, aye, Mr. Joyce. No. Mr. Joyce, no, Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Hoyer, aye, Mr. Ivey. Aye.
Mr. Franklin, no, Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Guest, no, Mr. Harder. Aye. Mr. Harder, aye, Dr. Harris.
Aye. Ms. Kaptur, aye, Mr. LaLota. No. Mr. LaLota, no, Ms. Lee. Aye.
No. Dr. Harris, no, Mrs. Hinson. No. Mrs. Hinson, no, Mr. Hoyer. Aye.
Ms. Lee, aye, Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Aye. Mr. Levin, aye, Ms. Malloy. No.
Ms. Malloy, no, Ms. McCollum. Aye. Ms. McCollum, aye, Ms. Meng. Aye. Ms. Meng, aye, Mr. Moolenaar.
No. Mr. Moolenaar, no, Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Moore, no, Mr. Morelle. Aye.
Mr. Morelle, aye, Mr. Mrvan. Aye. Mr. Mrvan, aye, Mr. Newhouse. No. Mr. Newhouse, no, Ms. Perez.
Ms. Pingree. Aye. Ms. Pingree, aye, Mr. Pocan. Aye. Mr. Pocan, aye, Mr. Quigley.
Aye. Mr. Quigley, aye, Mr. Reschenthaler. No. Mr. Reschenthaler, no, Mr. Rogers. No.
Mr. Rogers, no, Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Rutherford, no, Mr. Shrive. No. Mr. Shrive, no, Mr. Simpson.
No. Mr. Simpson, no, Mr. Strong. No. Mr. Strong, no, Mrs. Torres. Aye.
Mrs. Torres, aye, Ms. Underwood. Aye. Ms. Underwood, aye, Mr. Valadao. No. Mr. Valadao, no, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye, Mrs. Watson Coleman. Aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye, Mr. Womack. No.
Mr. Womack, no, Mr. Zinke. No. Mr. Zinke, no.
Mark Pocan
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Alford, no.
Speaker 99
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted.
Tom Cole
The gentleman from, or gentlelady, excuse me, from Nevada, Ms. Lee, is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Susie Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 101
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Susie Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, this amendment's pretty simple. For decades, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that we need to take an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to our nation's energy demands. And in fact, nearly 20 years ago, the former Speaker of the House John Boehner said, there's no question that we're ever going to begin to seriously move towards energy independence, which is good for our national security and frankly, very good for our economy, that we have to do all of the above. And I agree.
And that's what this amendment does. It ensures equal treatment of all forms of energy as part of the permitting process at the Department of Interior. It does not give any special treatment to solar or to wind or anything else. It simply ends the political gamesmanship that is raising costs for all of our constituents. Families across the country are seeing their electricity bills increase by an average of 13%.
And listen, rising energy costs impact all of our districts, whether they're Democrat or Republican. And it doesn't have to be this way. We can come together as appropriators and provide real permitting certainty and real permitting fairness and let investors, not Washington, pick the winners or losers. In my home state of Nevada, the sun shines for more than 300 days a year. Solar is the cheapest and most abundant and most accessible source of energy in my state and among those in our country.
And Democrats and Republicans alike, including the Energy Secretary Chris Wright, agree that solar is part of our energy future. But last July, the Interior Department actively chose to wrap the biggest piece of red tape around its energy permitting process that we've ever seen, publishing a memo that now requires the Secretary or his personal office to sign off on every permit related to solar and wind energy. In my home state, our Republican Governor Joe Lombardo joined me in sounding the alarm, telling the Secretary in a letter shortly after this memo was implemented, quote-unquote, that it not only stopped solar development on federal lands in Nevada, but also on private lands where federal approvals are required. More broadly, permitting weaponization and politically driven attacks on America's solar and storage industry alone continue to threaten over 450 projects that could be powering 16 million homes. Together these projects represent more than a third of all new planned power capacity in the US through the year 2030.
So let's put a stop to the tit-for-tat for good. While my amendment would help solar and wind today, I'd emphasize to my Republican colleagues that when I say this amendment is all-of-the-above, that's exactly what I mean. By voting to ensure a level playing field for all forms of energy, you have the chance to prevent oil and gas and conventional forms of energy from running into the same type of permitting weaponization and political games should control of Washington change. And we can simply let the markets decide.
I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and lowering energy costs for our constituents. Thank you.
Michael Simpson
Thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment for the second year this bill supports the president's strategic strategy, strategery to unleash American energy, create jobs and enhance our national security. We support the administration's requested increase to the Bureau of Land Management oil, gas, and coal development activities. For many years, the fossil fuel industry has suffered under the burdensome regulations and de facto bans that prevent those abundant and valuable resources from being harnessed in service of the American prosperity and and security. Under the current administration, we finally have forward progress in rebalancing our energy sector and catching up from years of neglect. The administration has a process for reviewing projects, I am not inclined to tell the department what I what it can and cannot consider when it reviews projects.
And some aspects of this process are being reviewed by the courts. I'm inclined to let the courts let that process play out for those reasons I oppose this amendment and I yield back, I would encourage my members to oppose that amendment, oppose this amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you to the gentlelady from Nevada for submitting this very good amendment. Despite what some people might claim, it is clear this administration is not promoting an all-of-the-above energy approach. Instead this administration is repeatedly taking actions to stack the deck against clean energy and protecting large fossil fuel companies. This house bill before us today allows the administration's request to institute new fees on offshore wind companies, even while the Department of Interior fails to issue new leases and has paid companies nearly two billion dollars to abandon their current leases. Onshore renewable energy clearly has much of the same story with roadblocks for renewable energy while protecting fossil fuel companies.
I support this report language because it addresses those issues and furthers committee oversight of energy development by mandating additional reporting on the funding this committee provides and the status of permit processing. How are states and utilities supposed to plan for the future if the Department of Interior unevenly carries out permitting actions for renewable energy projects for which this committee provides the funding. Americans are facing rising gas and utility bills, if we are serious about addressing those issues, we should not allow political objections to clean energy to stand in the way of increased energy production. I urge support for this and I yield back.
Mike Levin
Thank the gentlelady, gentleman from California, Mr. Levin is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend Representative Lee's amendment that ensures that when we say America is an all-of-the-above country, that we actually mean it. Mr. Chairman, the strategy that this administration is employing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We've seen for the past year and a half the administration do literally everything in its power to stifle clean energy, the fastest growing and most affordable source of electricity. We've heard a lot about an energy emergency and skyrocketing energy prices, yet the administration is blocking the best sources of energy that can be built fast and can meet growing demand and can be built cheaply to keep our constituents' energy bills in check. I'm disappointed that this bill in many ways just fans the flames by imposing hefty inspection fees on offshore wind projects that are leagues higher than the inspection fees for offshore oil and gas projects.
At the Interior Department, we've seen an all-out assault against wind and solar, despite the fact that these energy sources are vital to blunting the rising electricity costs across the country. Secretary Burgum has issued order after order stacking the cards of bureaucracy against clean, affordable energy. Most egregiously, it's included an order to require virtually every single activity related to permitting wind and solar energy facilities to receive his personal sign-off as the Secretary of Interior. It's impeded projects on both public and private lands in red states and blue states alike. Secretary Burgum has also issued an order directing DOI to consider the "capacity density" of an energy project as part of the permitting decisions.
But what that does in practice is systematically disadvantage clean, affordable energy. Then the department began to issue stop-work orders for offshore wind projects all across the country. That hurt economic growth and jobs in red states and blue states alike. But here's the thing that's important. Whether you agree with that strategy or not, I would offer to you that they're doing all of this in clear violation of the law.
The courts have blocked the administration from enforcing DOI's actions that have effectively stalled federal permitting for wind and solar projects nationwide because these actions were likely unlawful and the plaintiffs faced irreparable economic harm from continued enforcement. The courts struck down the administration's attempts to suspend work on offshore wind projects multiple times, finding that DOI's order was arbitrary and capricious. But this administration doesn't really want to listen to the courts. When this came up at congressional hearings in both the House and the Senate, Secretary Burgum ignored the court order to resume permitting of wind and solar projects. And when the administration couldn't just issue the stop-work orders to stop the projects, they started to pay companies billions of taxpayer dollars to walk away from their offshore wind projects that would have delivered clean, affordable, and reliable power to homes across the country.
You know, for years we've had good bipartisan conversations here in Congress about reforming our permitting laws, and we must continue those conversations. There are many who believe that now is the time to get a permitting reform deal done. But right now, I can tell my friends that the most significant obstacle to permitting reform is the Department of Interior's obstruction of clean energy. Before we have any hope of reaching a consensus around permitting reform, we've got to know that there's not a thumb on the scale of the permitting system. My friend Representative Lee's amendment would help us get on the right track to regaining the confidence that our government will permit energy projects in a fair and timely manner.
And for everybody in this room who has ever professed to support all-of-the-above energy, and I think most of you, if not all of you have, I hope you can join us in passing this amendment because that's exactly what it would do. So I thank my friend Representative Lee for her partnership on this, and Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Speaker 103
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
Ryan Zinke
You know, as I sit here listening to reliable, affordable, clean energy, and I listen to the levelized cost of energy, well, let me remind you what affordable, reliable energy looks like. It's called baseload. All right. So when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine at night, how are you going to make up the baseload? Well, you've got a few, you've got a few options.
You can store it. Of course, that adds cost. Then the supply chain, oh, made in China, that's a, that's a problem. But affordability is about reliability and the baseload in energy. And so, yeah, I agree with all-of-the-above, and every energy source has its place.
But you can't undo baseload and say we're going to make it up with sustainable, unless you're going to do hydro and we're tearing down dams.
So when you want to talk about affordable energy, yeah, wind is the most affordable in a given situation if you knock out depreciation, you knock out the assets and you go, we're going to make this, but as long as the wind blows, it makes sense. But again, when the wind doesn't blow, when the sun's not shining, you got to make that energy up. And right now, the most affordable energy that's reliable, consistent is fossil fuel. And until we move forward on nuclear, mini nuke and other options, the rest of it is just simple fantasy. And with that, I yield.
Speaker 103
Thank the gentleman. Are there any others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Oh, I'm sorry. Gentleman from Georgia, Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Mike Levin
I rise in support of the amendment and I'd like to yield my time to Mr. Levin.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank my friend from Montana as well. Frankly, I wish you were still in the job because we'd have a good and reasonable discussion and I don't think you would have done a lot of the things that are being done right now. So my personal belief is that, you know, you hear a lot that renewables only look cheap because you hide all the costs of connecting them to the grid. But the market already prices a lot of that into their decision making. And renewables still win.
So the utilities, the grid operators, the people that I talk to, they're not ideological about this. They're business people and they buy the cheapest reliable power they can. And in recent years, they keep choosing wind and solar and batteries because even after adding the storage and transmission costs, the delivered cost beats new gas today. Gas also has its own hidden cost that you don't hear about, which is fuel price volatility. When gas spikes, ratepayers eat it.
The sun and the wind don't sell a fuel bill or send a fuel bill. They don't get more expensive when there's a war in Iran or there's a constraint on a pipeline. And a grid heavy on renewables is a hedge against exactly the price shocks that we are seeing now that fossil-dependent systems continue to provide. I would also say base load has become a concept that is relied on by opponents of wind and solar, but the reality is the grid no longer needs every plant running flat out around the clock. It needs the supply to match the demand minute by minute and a flexible portfolio does that better than a pure base load portfolio.
Sometimes big thermal plants fail as well and sometimes they drop with no warning. So distributed renewables, they, when they fail, they fail very predictably and very gracefully. We know when the sun sets. And if you take a look at the geopolitical argument is the other one that I hear sometimes. So the fuel that you have to keep buying, you have to keep transporting, it's a permanent dependency on bad geopolitics.
Sunlight and wind, they're domestic, they're free, they can't be embargoed. Yes, we have to onshore battery and panel production. We were trying to do that in the last administration. That's an industrial policy problem that we're trying to solve, but it's not a reason to lock in decades of fuel purchases. Once you build a wind farm, the fuel is weatherproof, it's price-proof.
As far as land use, I heard that, and wind coexists today with farming and ranching.
I hear from farmers all the time that they appreciate having the renewable portfolio as part of their overall revenue. Rooftop and brownfield solar uses land that's already developed. So, look, I don't want to continue here, but what I will tell you in the year 2026, not having wind and solar as a fundamental part of an energy strategy in this country just makes no sense whatsoever. And I appreciate my colleague's words and I'll turn it back over. I have nothing else to say about this.
I think it's a straightforward amendment. I yield back my time.
Marcy Kaptur
Thanks, gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have to stand up and say that I believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy. And without it, we don't have real competition, either regionally or nationally. So I'm not against the gentleman's remarks on the other side of the aisle regarding fossil fuels. However, I represent the most important domestic solar manufacturer in the United States of America.
I had the privilege of meeting the scientist inventor who created it, and I believe that he will be the Thomas Alva Edison of the 21st century. Be aware that our grid is old. All over the country it sags, we've had brownouts, all these things are happening. The great thing about solar is you can do it behind the grid. We're about to dedicate in Toledo, Ohio, another small field.
It's all been agreed to by everybody. And it will probably save the local food bank $40,000 to $50,000 a year. Solar development is moving forward at such a fast pace, and if we don't do it, believe me, the Chinese will and are. And we can't be in that kind of world. We've got to compete on all fronts, on all keys on the energy piano.
We are growing as a country, and we have to be able to provide competitive power to our people. Our energy bills, if it hadn't been for some of the installations we've got locally, I mean, they've been doubling and tripling with these AI centers. And frankly, if it were up to me, I'd make sure that every one of these developers would bring in the power pack with them because our energy bills are going up for people who aren't going to directly use the AI immediately. So there are energy challenges around our country. There's also thermal recovery.
I won't get into all of that, but again, you can do it behind the grid. And you can save a lot of money for your companies when you have huge industries, automotive manufacturing, steel manufacturing, beryllium, titanium, things that we do in our area. We need power and we need it regularly at affordable prices. If it's properly sited, and you have to go through that locally, you can do so much for your community. And I've just watched solar develop from a platform about this big until now four massive corporations employing thousands of people with domestic solar.
So to me, you know, I don't come from the richest community in America, but it might be one of the smartest because we don't depend on, excuse me, a lot of government money. We try to make it in the market, both in industry and agriculture. And the fact that this is rising out of the glass city of Toledo, Ohio, I'm just so proud of it. And I'm so proud of everybody that works so hard to compete in a very unlevel playing field globally.
Alex Mooney
170 gigawatts of coal-fired power we took off the grid. That's why we have energy scarcity problems right now in the United States. Any idea? That's enough to power 150 million homes in this country. That's why we're having energy scarcity issues.
And through really perverse investment incentives, specifically in ESG, that coerce dollars towards political ideas instead of returns for companies, is how we got all this money pushed towards this green energy nonsense. Now, me personally, all the above, I'm for all the below, the ground. That's my energy policy. Coal, gas, oil, uranium. That's what I'm about because that is baseload energy.
And part of the problem you have with wind and solar is in peak hours, you cannot ramp it up. You cannot increase the amount of wind that's blowing or the amount of sun that is shining. This is why coal and gas are so critical when you have peak hours and requirements when it's really hot or it's really cold. That's why we're having brownouts, though, is because Democrat policies took 170 gigawatts of coal-fired power off the grid. And now we got all these AI data centers eating up a smaller portion of the pie without reliable energy sources that are consistent, reliable, and non-intermittent.
That's the problem on top of this. This is intermittent energy that can't meet the needs. We heard about China. China's going to put more coal-fired power on their grid than we have in this entire country in the next 20 years. They're building two new coal-fired power plants every month.
We're moving in the opposite direction. So I just, to me, this whole thing doesn't even make any sense. And Mr. Chairman, yield back. Thank you.
Mike Levin
Thanks, gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from Illinois is recognized to address the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and I would like to yield some time to my colleague from California, Mr. Levin.
Sorry, I'd love to entertain a discussion with my friend from West Virginia on this, but my understanding, forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but the dominant driver of retiring the 170 gigawatts of coal plants was mostly the cheap natural gas from the shale boom, which started around 2008, 2010. Utilities closed a lot of those plants because gas was cheaper. A lot of the coal plants were old, most built in the '70s and '80s. They faced expensive maintenance. And it happened under both Obama and under Trump.
Coal kept retiring through 2017 to 2020 during Trump, during a time when the president was then actively trying to save it. And there's strong evidence the cause was market forces, not regulation that a president could just switch off or switch on. So those retirements happened under both parties. Some of the largest annual coal retirements occurred during Republican administrations. If policy were the lever, you would expect that those retirements would track who was in the Oval Office, but they don't.
They track gas prices, they track plant age.
Gas, and yes, by wind and by solar. The grid didn't lose 160 or 170 gigawatts of supply, it swapped the fuel sources. Total US generating capacity has grown, not shrunk. So I think coal decline by roughly the amount, that is true, driven primarily by cheap gas, by aging plants, by the shale boom. Retirements continued under Republican presidents who tried to stop them.
The capacity was replaced, continues to be replaced, rather than simply lost. If I'm wrong about this, let me know. I yield back.
You're wrong.
Speaker 107
Well, I really think, I really thank my colleague Mr. Levin for those important points, and I thank my colleague from Ms. Lee for introducing this amendment that has been such a hot topic in our committee today. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 108
Thank the gentlelady and the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? A gentlelady from Iowa.
Alex Mooney
I would like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia for a few rebuttal points. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. You might remember during that same time in the Obama administration, everybody remember the Clean Power Plan rule that shut down all those coal plants? That's why they shut down, because they put standards in that were impossible for any coal plant to meet. And by, oh yeah, that's 100% true. And by the way, if coal doesn't work, why is China building it?
Why is China building so many coal-fired power plants? Can somebody explain that to me? Why would they be doing that? There's a reason they're doing that. And because it's also, it's also strategic.
You cannot export wind, you cannot export the sun, it's everywhere. You cannot ramp it up when you need to. But go back and look at the Obama rule when that Clean Power Plan rule came in and the war on coal was taking place in the Obama administration. The state of West Virginia in two years lost direct and indirect coal mining jobs, 30,000 in two years direct and indirect. So it didn't just happen.
Obviously gas became competitive, certainly became competitive, it's a competitive source. But there's a reason though the Chinese continue to build these plants because they know and for some reason we don't. So I yield back. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Alex Mooney
I thank you. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from Texas.
Speaker 110
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the amendment and I yield my time to Mr. Levin.
Mike Levin
All right. Just following the next about to my, to my friend in West Virginia, I just looked at what China built in 2025. This is newly added capacity. China built 311 gigawatts of solar, 119 gigawatts of wind, and 78 new gigawatts of coal. So they built 430 gigawatts of new wind and solar, 78 gigawatts of new coal.
They didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because it made the most economic sense. So I understand the argument if you truly want to be all the above, if you truly want to compete with China, but to, to kneecap solar and wind completely runs contrary to all our what I think are our shared objectives. One is energy security. That's, that's all China cares about.
So, you know, again, sun and wind are domestic. And I totally understand the intermittency and I think that the market factors that in and people have made their decisions. These utility folks are smart people. Every gigawatt of renewables that we invest in is a gigawatt that can't be cut off by a blockade, can't be cut off by sanctions. So, you know, I think also China owns the supply chain.
They've made these really smart investments in the, in the supply chain, so it's cheap for them to do it. And they also care a great deal about having a, a export dominant clean energy supply chain just as we presumably did and should again. It shouldn't just be energy dominance if it's one type energy or another. Energy dominance ought to mean clean energy, it ought to mean every kind of energy.
I don't see why that's controversial. I'll yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 109
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to enable the debate between West Virginia and California to continue? Gentleman from Maryland's recognized.
Steny Hoyer
Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. As Mr. Levin said, it makes sense to broaden your supply from whatever source. I happen to drive a hybrid car. Sometimes it's electric, sometimes it's gas. It decides which is the good time to have each.
We ought to do the same. Now I yield my balance of my time to the gentlelady from Ohio.
Marcy Kaptur
I thank the gentleman and obviously in support of the amendment, but I did want to say I sympathize with West Virginia because that's what happened to us in Ohio, not in coal, although we had coal plants closed, but in industry in general. Steel, automotive, crash. Neither Republican nor Democratic presidents gave a damn. And we've been building back since that happened. And I wait for the president, any president, that will look at our part of the country and help us more quickly and help us with some intelligence out of that White House because we don't get government help, we build from the scratch up.
We're not a capital city, we're not a financial center, we're not a big university center, and we've had to build our way back. So I'm saying this for the people who aren't necessarily in this room but might be listening to us and thinking of running for president. We need somebody committed in that position who really cares about industrial America and doesn't make us fall to the ground. That's why our politics is so mixed up around this country because people work their hearts out and they didn't benefit financially in their home communities. And it has been a living hell and you've experienced the same thing.
So I just wanted to put that on the record, at least I've said it. Thank you, God bless you all, and I support the amendment.
Tom Cole
Are there any others wishing to address the amendment? I just issue an open invitation to my friend from West Virginia, my friend from California, some evening when you have a lot of time, come by, smoke a cigar, have a couple bourbons, and I'll be your audience and you guys can keep at it. But since there aren't, I want to recognize to close the gentlelady who started this.
Susie Lee
I didn't realize, although I have realized because we've had this conversation. Gentlelady's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've had this conversation in many committees and basically what I hear today is let's let the market decide, right? Let's be for free markets.
Well, if we're for free markets, why is our industrial policy, we're using permitting as industrial policy in this country to literally tip the scale? And I get it, oil and gas got the raw end of the stick under previous administrations. This isn't about the past, it's about the future. So let me just say this now that you brought up China. China leads global installation adding more solar capacity in a single year than the entire world combined.
The sheer volume of deployment has allowed renewables to make up the majority of China's newly added generation capacities, driving down their costs rapidly.
Solar and wind installations in China increased 7.3 times faster than they did in this country. You guys, this is literally about not tipping the scales. And I know there's a lot of bad feelings about oil and gas and coal in the past, but the bottom line is we are in a race for energy and we're in a race against China and they're kicking our ass. And with that, I'll yield back. And I hope you support it.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Nevada. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call is requested, sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
Negative.
Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, aye. Miss Dean.
Miss Dean, aye. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse.
Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 115
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from New York.
Mr. LaLota, no.
Gentlelady from Pen, excuse me, Washington.
Ms. Perez, aye.
Uh, gentleman from Texas.
Tom Cole
Gentleman from Washington. Newhouse already voted. It's very difficult with you're getting up, so wave a hand or something if you haven't voted. Gentlelady from Utah.
Tom Cole
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Obviously, at the end of this vote, we'll go in recess. Please come back as quickly as you can after the votes. With that, seeing no others wishing to record their vote, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 28, the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted.
Votes having been called, the committee now will recess. Please return promptly at the conclusion of the last vote series so we can continue to consider the legislation.
So am I.
Tom Cole
The committee is reconvened. I now recognize Chairman Simpson to offer Republican en bloc amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, this has been a while getting this together to make sure we have all the language in it that we, that we need. I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and Chairman Simpson's recognized to explain the amendment.
Michael Simpson
This en bloc amendment includes several common sense provisions that reinforce the goals and priorities of the bill and of the administration. This first provision is one that we've included in this Republican en bloc amendment in the past. It prevents the EPA from developing or issuing assessments under the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. This language is consistent with what the administration is currently doing on IRIS to ensure the program is not inappropriately used. The second provision simply reiterates and protects the rights of mining claim holders who paid their mining claim maintenance fees to the Bureau of Land Management.
The subcommittee was recently made aware of potential abuses of various processes that left valid claim holders vulnerable to theft and this provision seeks to remedy that situation fully within the scope of existing law. The third provision is report language that flags for DOI our concerns about the potential impact on communities on communities and agriculture of a potential ESA listing of species. And the fourth provision asks the agency to provide a report on new wind inspection fees that we include in the bill, which are based on agency estimates of the necessary cost to conduct these inspection, inspections. You've heard it said several times during the debate in this committee that we are somehow trying to make wind energy more expensive by imposing fees. BSEE is required to do inspection fees on oil and gas, or to do inspection, safety inspections on oil and gas platforms and so forth offshore.
They are also required to do them on offshore wind. The interesting thing is is they have to pay a fee, the oil and gas do, for the inspections, but they do it for free for wind because there's no provision for inspection fees. So this provides the fees that that are required or that will be required under this and we've based it on what the cost of doing the inspection is, the same as we did with oil and gas. The fees are a little different, not to punish one or give favor to one, it is what it costs the department, what it costs BSEE to do these inspections. So that's all we're doing is the same for wind, offshore wind, that we do for oil and gas and stuff.
That's to explain this and we want to make sure that we know how they came about the the level of fees that they do with the wind inspection, safety inspections for offshore. It's I think four provisions that
That's to explain this, and we want to make sure that we know how they came about the level of fees that they do with the wind inspection, safety inspections for offshore. It's, I think, four provisions that are pretty simple, and I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
Thanks, the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill already includes more than 50 poison pill riders, and this adds even more. In particular, it adds a provision to prohibit funds to develop, finalize, or issue assessment under the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, known as IRIS. IRIS was created in 1985 and has been used for decades to develop impartial toxicity information to set national standards and clean up hazardous sites.
Its assessments quantify the highest safe level of exposure to a chemical before it triggers health effects. It is widely respected in the scientific community, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have affirmed the use of IRIS values. Efforts to undermine the IRIS program are not new, and the chemical industry has been systematically working to destroy the program. Project 2025 advocated for ending the IRIS program, and the Trump administration has been taking steps to do just that. Just last month, a memo from the EPA Deputy Administrator stated that the EPA would be adding disclaimer language to the program's website, stating that its toxicity findings are not necessarily meant to be used in regulation.
This amendment is just one more attack to the IRIS program, and we must oppose that. Before I yield back, I want to point out that the en bloc also includes a substantial piece of authorizing language related to mining claim maintenance fees at the Bureau of Land Management. This seems to run counter to the argument we had heard during earlier debates that we should only be dealing with funding in our bill. I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back my time.
Tom Cole
Thanks, the gentlelady. Do other members wish to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. I think Mr. Ivey. Oh, I'm sorry.
Gentleman from Maryland's recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 126
Thank you. The wind inspection fees, what are those? I'm not clear on what that is.
Are you asking me?
Yes, sir.
Michael Simpson
It costs money for BSEE to go out and do the inspection, safety inspections, on both oil and gas leases and also on the wind platforms. They're required to do those. Unfortunately, they have to pay a fee for the oil and gas, and the wind is free. They do those for free. We're just trying to level it.
Glenn Ivey
Well, but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what are they actually inspecting? Because inspecting the wind, quote-unquote, I don't...
Michael Simpson
Well, you have to do, you have to do safety inspections on them. They're required to do safety inspections on them. In fact, they're harder to do on those than they are to do on oil and gas platforms.
Speaker 122
So it's on the machines or something that they're, what are they, what are they looking at?
I don't know, I'm not an inspector.
Tom Cole
Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Michael Simpson
I thank the gentleman. This is a good amendment. In fact, I disagree with the ranking member's assessment of the IRIS. We're not trying to get rid of IRIS, and in fact, I don't think the chemical companies, as she said, want to get rid of IRIS. But you don't use...
They're not supposed to use the results of the IRIS analysis for regulatory purposes. They're done to inform the science, but they're not supposed to use those for the regulatory aspect of it. So, I mean, that's the difference. And that's the concern that a lot of members have and a lot of, frankly, companies and so forth have. So, I think it's a good amendment.
I think the bill... this improves the bill, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it.
Speaker 129
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment is accepted. The gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Tom Cole
I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with.
Mike Levin
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to represent fifty miles of beautiful Southern California coastline and the vibrant coastal economy that relies on its clean and healthy ocean ecosystem. It's well known how much our coastline supports the economy, from tourism to recreation to fisheries to deepwater port commerce. But what we don't talk enough about is the fact that our coastline is also home to a broad network of military installations, testing sites, and naval training areas that are essential to our military readiness, including Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in my district. It's not just California, of course, that relies on a healthy coastline.
Every one of us from a coastal state knows just how important it is to have a clean ocean for our constituents and our military. Which is why I'm so concerned that the first proposal on the eleventh National Outer Continental Shelf program would open waters off the coast of California and in the Gulf of Florida to offshore drilling. Last year, the Interior Department proposed to expand drilling in the eastern Gulf near Florida as well as the entire California coast, where no new drilling ban has taken place in more than fifty years. The US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard all use at least one range off California or in the Gulf, and at least two dozen military bases rely on these waters in some capacity. So I rise today to offer an amendment to prohibit leasing activities for oil and gas off the coast of California and in the eastern Gulf near Florida.
And let me show you, for my first, I might ask Mr. Morelle to help me here. There we go. Can everyone see this? Maybe not at the dais, maybe I can go over here. Hopefully you can see that.
So, in California, the waters off our shore are actively used by the men and women of our armed forces to train, test, and maintain the readiness that keeps this country safe and that keeps our adversaries in check. The waters off Southern California are some of the most militarily significant in the world. This is where we project power into the Pacific.
Yet, as you can see, the proposed leasing expansion in California overlaps significantly with areas that the US military uses for training and operations. These offshore waters are where the service members rehearse the missions that matter most, where next generation systems get tested, where readiness is built so that when the moment comes, our military is prepared. That includes the amphibious assault exercises, ship-to-shore raids, small unit landings, all of which are essential to how our service men and women train and certify for deployment. And folks, these are not optional exercises, these are required before deployment. Now let us turn to Florida, Mr. Morelli.
There you go. Now we've got our friends in Florida. Everybody can see this, I hope. The same is true on the Florida coast. The proposed drilling expansion in the Eastern Gulf would mean real impacts to military readiness.
This region too acts as a critical training ground, and retired military leaders have been ringing the alarm bell about the risks that new offshore drilling would pose in the Gulf. From weapons and aircraft testing to training exercises, having access to open water in the Eastern Gulf is critical to our military operations. Yet again, as you can see, the proposed leasing expansion significantly overlaps with military training and operations off the Florida coast. So think about what that actually looks like in practice. New drilling creates new physical and logistical conflicts in some of the most sensitive testing ranges in the country.
It creates conflicts between commercial activity and military necessity that simply shouldn't exist. Permanent oil platforms cannot be moved for military exercises. There's also an environmental dimension of course to this that can't be ignored. The risk of oil spills is indeed very real and one that our Southern California community experienced all too recently, a pipeline leak just off my home county, Orange County, releasing tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the ocean, making the shoreline unsafe for fishing and tourism for months. Now ask yourself, what happens when that kind of catastrophe occurs not off a tourist beach, but in the middle of an offshore range complex or an active training corridor?
For all these reasons, new drilling off the coasts of California and Florida faces bipartisan opposition from communities and local elected officials. I hope that everyone can stand by our colleagues from California and Florida to support my amendment to prevent new drilling in these sensitive areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm kind of confused, but it's like six o'clock at night and I'm old, so that's not unusual. But I have to admit, it seemed like it was just about an hour ago that I was listening to somebody in this room talk about all of the above and we need an all of the above energy strategy and so forth, but all of a sudden we seem to have changed our mind a little bit. Let me tell you, this is a cute amendment. And the attempt is to bring Florida into California.
I find this kind of interesting because there is already a memorandum on drilling off the coast of Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico already till 2032, already exists, executive order. It's not true in California. But if there's some way we can drag Florida into this debate in California, that would help your cause. But that's not what's happening. I'll tell you what the challenge is.
If I was from Florida, I would be a little bit leery about listening to someone from a state whose energy prices are the highest in the country, the highest in the country. That's because of state policies that have done that, no other reason. There is no refining in California. They have the highest gas prices by two dollars a gallon over Florida.
Kilowatt hours, it is 30.99 cents per kilowatt hour for energy in California. You know what it is in Florida? 15.36 cents per kilowatt hour, half what it is in the state of California. So quite frankly, in fact, if you want to know the truth, Idaho has the lowest at 11.81 cents per kilowatt hour. So I would be a little bit leery about taking direction from the state of California and drag have them drag Florida into this issue when there's already a moratorium in Florida.
So I would oppose this amendment. I hope my colleagues would oppose this amendment and I hope the Floridians would see through this scam. Okay. And I'm opposed to this amendment and I hope my colleagues would vote against it.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. I just want to make it clear he's only speaking for himself when he talks about 6 o'clock and not being able to handle it. There are those of us older than you who can. So to make that point, gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree is is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
I thank my colleague from California for submitting this amendment and urge everyone to support it. The public does not support this administration's expansion of offshore drilling. And while this amendment specifies California and Florida, coming from the coast of Maine where we have debated this many times, I can guarantee you that our fishermen hate the idea of offshore oil drilling and it could wreck huge havoc to our tourism industry as well as our fishing industry if there was ever an oil spill. It is universally opposed there. Offshore drilling in all these areas is a bad idea in general.
But drilling in these waters right now is even more of a recipe for environmental catastrophe. And you ask why? I'll tell you. This administration is weakening environmental protections related to offshore drilling because of things as the such things as the well control rule. This administration is also seeking to undo another key reform instituted after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by re-merging the bureaus responsible for leasing and environmental oversight of offshore development, generally considered a very bad idea.
And at the same time, in this idea of all of the above, the states who are counting on projects for offshore wind, such as the Carolinas and New York, are facing the administration paying billions of dollars for companies to abandon those projects. This administration's energy policies are not promoting American energy independence or lower gas and utility bills. These policies are only benefiting polluters and big industries above all else. The Levin amendment would protect the environment and the wishes of the public over the desires of big oil companies and I urge everyone to support it and yield back my time.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of my colleague Mr. Levin's amendment. For decades, decades, there's been bipartisan support for an offshore drilling moratorium in the United States federal waters. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, and even Congress have all agreed at various points that drilling for oil in our coastal waters is simply not worth the risk that it poses to marine ecosystems and the livelihoods they support. It is not an overstatement to say that back home in Florida, the ocean is the lifeblood of our economy.
We employ over half a million people, the most in the nation, in our marine economy, generating $20 billion in wages for hardworking Floridians.
Mr. Chairman, all of this natural splendor is at risk with the prospect of new outer continental shelf leases in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon disaster dumped over 3 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf over 87 days, making it the worst oil spill in United States history. Up and down Florida's west coast, our beaches were awash with toxic oil, swamping wildlife habitat and polluting our ecosystems for months. But the large-scale damage of this disaster is not the only threat offshore drilling poses. Smaller leaks fly under the radar each year, and they do irreparable harm to the environment.
There is simply no need to reverse decades of consensus, consensus on the dangers of offshore drilling to squeeze more fossil fuels out of the seabed when we should be investing in our abundant clean renewable energy sources. I'm sure my friend Mr. Levin would agree that California's marine economy and wildlife are equally valuable and cannot be jeopardized because Republicans want to ensure lease sales for their oil and gas industry friends. I thank my colleague for introducing such an important amendment to protect our oceans. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Lois Frankel
Thank the gentlelady. The other gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Here we go. Let, thank you so much Mr. Levin for your amendment. I rise in strong support which protects some of our nation's most vulnerable and treasured coastal areas. California, the, you got that map up there and of course I'm going to talk about Florida. And I know you spoke about military readiness.
I'm going to talk more about the environment and I, I do want to say this with all due respect that the Trump administration is proposing opening waters off California and Florida to all oil drilling, backing off from this memorandum that we had bipartisan support for. In Florida, our coastline is not a postcard. It's the heart of our economy, our way of life, and part of who we are. Our beaches, fisheries, tourism industry, and coastal communities all depend on clean water and healthy ocean. And millions of families from across the country, around the world, join Floridians to experience what we're fortunate to call home: our beaches, our wildlife, our fishing, and natural beauty.
Our natural treasures are part of who we are. We have, and we believe strongly, we have on a bipartisan basis that we have a responsibility to protect them for future generations. And we don't have to imagine what can happen when offshore drilling goes wrong because we lived it, as my colleague Wasserman Schultz has said. In 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in Florida devastated Gulf communities and caused billions of dollars in damage to tourism, recreation, fishing, and coastal industries. Small businesses struggled, jobs were threatened, and families who depended on the water for their livelihoods, they're the ones who paid the price.
One spill, one mistake, one disaster can change a community for generations. And that's why protecting our coasts has been a bipartisan priority in Florida. Leaders from both parties have recognized that some places are just simply too precious and too important to our economy and our environment to put at risk. So this amendment, thank you Mr. Levin again, stopping all oil drilling off of Florida's west shore is just common sense.
Listen, we can support energy future but also protect our natural resources that define our states and in the case of Florida, our economies. And I just again, thank you Representative Wasserman Schultz. I join you with saying that Florida's coasts are not worth the gamble. Our beaches, our waters, and our communities are too valuable to risk. Floridians say protect our coasts, don't drill it.
And I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle is recognized to address the amendment.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My sixth sense tells me that the distinguished gentleman from California would like to respond to the chairman's comments, so if I might, I'd like to yield him my time.
Mike Levin
I thank my good friend from New York. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for you, for your many decades of service. I think the major argument that I heard against what I had to say was that I'm a Californian. Guilty as charged, everyone. I am in fact a Californian.
I don't always agree with Sacramento on how they make policy. I'm a reasonable and pragmatic person, I'm my own person. I can tell you what my district and our constituents and coastal districts up and down our California coast, what they are saying. I can tell you what our military leadership tells me because I'm in touch with them all the time. And they're saying they don't want to see drill rigs off the California coast, full stop.
So in my district, we've got ten cities up and down the coast. Many of them are run by Republicans. We've got two counties, I've got a Republican county supervisor, I've got Democratic county supervisors. To a person, they do not want to see drill rigs off their coast. In cities that are run by Republicans, they don't want to see the drill rigs.
In cities run by Democrats, they don't want to see the drill rigs. You talk to our generals and others that run operations on Camp Pendleton or other military institutions, and I have, they don't want to see drill rigs either. I do support an all-of-the-above, but I think in this particular instance, you have to evaluate, just as you would with any of these resources, a cost-benefit assessment. What would it actually yield us if we were to open this entire land up? And we've run the numbers, don't take it from me, go and look at the government's own data on this.
Doesn't matter who's been in charge, they've run the numbers, they've reached pretty much the same conclusions, which is that if you opened all of this up, it would amount to about one-third of one day worth of what you would actually need to use in California. What would that yield in terms of an actual price reduction for the people of California? Somewhere between two and three cents a gallon. But what are the risks? Well, ask anybody who's been there, done that, and seen the spills, seen the spills in Huntington Beach make their way all the way down into the San Diego coast, seen the tarballs wash onshore.
Ask anybody from Santa Barbara who saw the spills going back into the sixties what they think of this. And again, ask the Republicans too, ask our military leaders too. You don't have to take it from me. And if you don't want to like California, that's fine, and I wouldn't expect anybody who lives in Florida want to be more like California. But maybe just this once, on this one thing, we can all agree that the costs aren't worth whatever perceived benefit there may be.
Now, if we actually wanted to reduce the price of gasoline, let's have that discussion. Last I checked, our jurisdiction is here over the federal government, at least I hope it is, and we have an 18.4 cent gas tax, and we ought to have a thoughtful and reasonable discussion about a gas tax holiday that actually doesn't eviscerate the highway trust fund.
And we ought to have that conversation, and I'd be more than open to that. I think many of us would. So let's not go down this road, jeopardize our military readiness, jeopardize training, have huge potential for environmental hazard for one-third of one days of production for two to three cents a gallon. It just isn't worth the cost. And look, all I can tell you is on this one, if it, the other thing you should know is if it were actually advantageous for this drilling to occur, it would have occurred many decades ago, and it didn't because your production just isn't there.
So what I asked all the administrators that I've worked with: will you respect California? Will you respect elected officials of both parties? Will you respect 80% plus of the voters in my district? Because we've polled 80 plus percent, including huge Republican majorities. They don't want to see this.
So that's all I'm asking is for those who are open-minded about this to recognize that we can have all the above, but in some places the costs truly do outweigh the benefits. And with that, I'll yield back to my gentleman, the good man from New York, Mr. Morelle.
Speaker 136
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment. Gentlelady is no longer requesting to do that. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Mike Levin
So the other thing obviously we need to do in order to reduce the price of gasoline is to end the war in Ukraine. Of course, we just conducted a vote on that, but I think we all know that the geopolitical factors are far greater than any drilling in any of these sensitive areas in California or Florida would address. Thank you. Ms. Frankel did an excellent job of explaining why the supposed moratorium on drilling in Florida really is not true, that that is actually very much being debated and disputed right now. And you should also know that more than 9 million acres offshore are leased currently, but oil is not being produced on those offshore areas representing 79% of all leased acres.
So the availability of waters to drill for oil is simply not a problem. So we're not seeing companies even want to drill more here. They're instead looking to other areas. And at the end of the day, I just hope we can reject new drilling in areas where it faces overwhelming bipartisan opposition from communities, from elected officials, and specifically from our military leaders. And with that, happy to yield back.
Speaker 134
Thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Tom Cole
Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call is requested. Please, more hands. Sufficient support is demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, no.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, aye.
Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no.
Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye.
Mr. Carter, no.
Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Mr. Cline. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde, no.
Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole, no.
Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean, aye.
Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro, aye.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no.
Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no.
Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar, aye.
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat, aye.
Mr. Fleischmann.
John Carter
Ms. Frankel.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Edwards. No. Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
No. Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Aye. Ms. Escobar, aye.
Mr. Espaillat. Aye. Mr. Espaillat, aye. Mr. Fleischmann. No.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel. Aye. Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Aye.
Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris. No. Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson.
No. Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer. Aye. Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Mr. Ivey. Aye. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. No.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur. Aye. Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota.
No. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Aye. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. No. Ms. Malloy, no.
Ms. McCollum. Aye. Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng. Aye.
Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar. No. Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Moore.
No. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Yes. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Mr. Mrvan. Yes. Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse. No.
Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Aye. Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree.
Aye. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Aye. Mr. Pocan, aye.
Mr. Quigley. Aye. Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. No.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. No. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
No. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. No. Mr. Shrive, no.
Mr. Simpson. No. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. No.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Aye. Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood.
Mr. Valadao. No. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
No. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. No. Mr. Zinke, no.
Tom Cole
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Cline, no.
Gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Amodei, no.
Gentleman from California.
Mr. Calvert, no.
Gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no.
Mr. Cloud, no.
Gentlelady from Oklahoma.
Mrs. Bice, no.
Gentlelady from Illinois.
Ms. Underwood, aye.
Are there... gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Lee, aye.
Speaker 81
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Madeleine Dean
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment at the desk.
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Thank you, Chairman. I rise in support of my amendment, which would strike 51 partisan policy riders from the bill. I'm disappointed to see that just like last year, the majority has included dozens of controversial policy riders. Some prevent the EPA from enforcing environmental regulations, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other regulators that keep hazardous materials from harming our communities. Other riders will eliminate protections that prevent extractive fossil fuel industries from desecrating our pristine natural environments in the Great Lakes and the Arctic and impose more barriers on clean energy development.
I'm particularly troubled by a pair of riders, section 122 and 434, protecting the use of lead ammunition and tackle on federal lands. We know that lead bullet fragments when they hit a target and these small pieces of lead can make their way through the food web, unintentionally poisoning other animals and even making their way into processed meat. The Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the harm lead ammunition has caused on ducks and banned the use of lead ammunition in waterfowl hunting in the 1990s, saving approximately 1.4 million ducks a year. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a statutory duty to protect and conserve wildlife. We know the negative impacts of lead and we must ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service can best act in the interest of the wildlife and us whom it serves.
Another rider with devastating implications for wildlife, especially in Pennsylvania, is section 124, which prohibits funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce a 2022 final rule that added the northern long-eared bat to the endangered species list. This bat plays an important role in our ecosystem and economy, helping to control our insect population and pollinate our crops. Unfortunately, over the past two decades, their population has declined by more than 90%. This measure undermines conservation efforts with devastating impacts in my home state and throughout the bat's 37-state range. We must reject section 124 and the dozens of other provisions that overrule the evidence-based implementation of the Endangered Species Act, which my colleagues will speak on shortly.
Finally, I want to talk about a rider we've seen time and time again this year, the so-called license to discriminate, which would allow federal employees and entities receiving taxpayer money to discriminate against LGBTQ people. This rider to transform religious freedom from a shield of protection into a sword of discrimination against others must be stricken. This is not what our constituents want and it is not what I came to Congress for. I encourage my colleagues to reject all 51 of these poisonous, controversial riders and Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to address the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment to eliminate these important provisions. When we do it, it's poison pill riders that we put in. When you do it, they're policy provisions that are absolutely necessary. We understand how that game's played.
These are important provisions to promote domestic energy production, expand access to critical minerals, rein in heavy-handed regulations of the EPA, limit the abuses of the Endangered Species Act, and if you want to talk about some abuses, we could have a good discussion on that, support our local firefighters and protect hunting, fishing, and recreational access. For these reasons, I urge a no vote on this amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 138
Thanks to the gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.
This bill contains more than 50 poison pill riders, and they are poison pill riders, that run the gamut from striking DEI initiatives to negatively impacting endangered species, addressing climate change, and hindering the work of the EPA. A handful of riders have nothing to do with appropriations. They just silence conversations about race, identity, and inclusion. Nearly half of the riders in this bill undermine the Endangered Species Act. This is one of the most successful environmental laws in the US history.
99% of the species listed under it have avoided extinction. These riders sabotage that success for short-term profit. The riders also prohibit enforcement of rules that protect public lands from harmful oil and gas development, undermining safeguards for sensitive species. The riders also bar enforcement of rules tied to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, hazardous waste management, and more, all of which cripple the agency's ability to protect our air, water, and land. Stripping agencies of tools to address emissions does not stop wildfires, droughts, or extreme heat, it just guarantees we'll be less prepared to deal with them.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 139
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Chair, I rise in support of this amendment which would strike, as has been pointed out, all these partisan riders, including a rider to reinstate mineral leases in the Superior National Forest. This is substituting partisan politics for science-based decision making. This rider allows for a foreign-owned mining conglomerate to pursue the interest over the demonstrated need to protect a priceless reserve of clean water. What's even worse, it takes away the ability for the courts to review the leases. The rider removes the checks and balances that are essential to the functioning of our democracy.
And I want my colleagues to think about this implication for a minute. It may benefit you this time to sweep aside statutory process and remove accountability to get the outcome you want, but is that the precedent that we really want to set here in this committee? A meeting in my office in Rayburn in 2016 with Antofagasta, which is the subcontractor's Twin Metals, um, when we were talking, they told me that they needed these leases. That they purchased these leases to be renewed in the exact same terms as the 1960s. Conversation in 2016, they want the 1960s leases.
Why? Because it made it profitable for them. These leases were granted prior to the passage of NEPA and prior to the designation of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area. Antofagasta knew full well when they purchased these leases that they were expiring. So after purchasing the leases, they began conducting a pressure campaign here in Washington to get a sweetheart deal, yes, to renew the leases with the same royalties and without any additional oversight.
That's what they told me. I heard it with my own ears. They didn't want to comply with any of the environmental laws that had been passed since then, like the 1972 Clean Water Act. They wanted an exemption from that. Antofagasta has spent at least $6 million lobbying Congress and the White House to get the deal that they want.
Now, I told them that they would still and they should go through the needed necessary oversight to review and renew these leases. And they told me, that just doesn't work for our business model. Well, my job is to get the best deal for the American public. It's not for corporations to benefit from partisan riders in this bill.
It's not in the interest of the United States of America. It's not in the interest of the tribes who have called the interconnected waterways of the Boundary Waters home for centuries. It's not in the interest of the plants and animals that habitat the area. This is an area which you've heard me say before has 20% of the freshest water in the US Forest Service. To be clear, it's not even in our domestic critical mineral supply chain that would benefit from reinstating these leases.
And why do I know this? Because Antofagasta is a Chilean mining company that owns Twin Metals. They will not keep the ore extracted from this mine here in the United States. Here's what Antofagasta does, listen closely to this copper that they extract. They send it to China.
China smelts it, sells it on the open market, or uses it to build their own defense weapons. Antofagasta has contracts with state-owned Chinese smelting companies to process their copper for free, another sweetheart deal for Antofagasta. Make no mistake, copper mined in the Boundary Waters will be exported directly to the hands of our global competitor and peer rival. Selling off our nation's resources only benefits Chilean billionaires and Chinese economy. And the American taxpayers will foot the bill for cleaning up, yes, poison, sulfide toxic mine waste left over by Antofagasta and Twin Metals and all their mines fail.
And we will be cleaning up, our taxpayers, places like the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park, and the entire Rainy River watershed. So bottom line, this is a bad deal for the American taxpayer to have the leases as in here. So I ask my colleagues to consider supporting this amendment. And I'm really going to work hard in the upcoming weeks and months to at least get this rider removed because I think after hearing me, it makes no sense to put our waters at risk for the benefit of Chilean billionaires and the peer rival we have, our economic rival, China. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 140
Thanks the gentlelady for her comment. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan is recognized to address the amendment.
Mark Pocan
But, you know, we talked about this is a bill that spends money, therefore we don't do things that don't spend money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I won't ask for consistency because I know we are Congress. This is over 50 things that don't spend money trying to take out of the bill. But there is one that I really think, you know, sometimes when we put things in, we don't look at them all that closely.
There was a bill introduced by Representative Tom Tiffany from Wisconsin to designate the Apostle Islands as a national park. And your majority decided not to put it on the floor for a vote and never pass it, probably because there's a lot of controversy around it. The local tribe, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, has come out against the bill that's in the area. The local community, Bayfield, the City Council passed a resolution in opposition to the bill. The county that it's in, Bayfield County, their executive committee passed a nearly identical resolution opposing the bill.
And there's good reason, because they've had no input whatsoever. One person in local government talked about they need a feasibility study for the proposal, of which there's been none. And they already have a problem with housing and they're almost at the point of over-tourism. And this is a beautiful area, by the way. A lot of Minnesota folks in particular vacation up that way.
And in winter, it actually, the lake freezes over and you drive across it like a bridge.
But it's a really beautiful area to kayak and hang out at and I've been up there. But you don't just designate something a national park without following any of the process. And that's kind of what you're doing. And it's a bill that's been introduced again that you all never put on the floor for a vote for good reason. But now we're throwing it into an appropriations bill.
And there are a couple landowners that'll benefit mightily from this. But the local community, the local tribe, the local county all oppose this. They've put out a lot of reasons why they at least want a minimum of a feasibility study before we'd even go forward. And this is just one of those riders that's thrown in. So I just want to mention that because, you know, Tom Tiffany has been a strong advocate for it against the local communities up there.
That's why it's been very controversial in my state. It's been controversial I think enough that your majority never put it on the floor and now we're kind of slipping it in through here. So I'm going to urge a a vote to get rid of all the riders, but I wanted to point out one that you might not have noticed otherwise. And I know some people reached out to you. But we do have concern, you know, to put this in this way as controversial as it is, it just isn't the right way to move forward.
And I just want to urge a yes vote on the removing these riders and I'll yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I rise in strong support of the Dean amendment. Our Appropriations Committee is tasked with funding federal accounts to protect the American people and support responsible stewardship of our public lands, not serve as a vehicle for harmful policy riders. And there are a lot of them in here. The bill includes 51.
And one can think about funding accounts that would help us to restore the bald eagle population. But what this bill actually does is it weakens environmental protections. It undermines the Endangered Species Act. It restricts conservation and it limits EPA's ability to protect clean air, clean water, and public health. These are not minor technical changes.
They affect public lands, endangered species, energy development, and the ability of federal agencies to enforce laws already enacted by Congress, laws already enacted. At a time when communities face pollution, extreme weather, balancing species, crippling drought, wildfire, and rising costs, Congress should not roll back basic environmental and public health protections. And communities like mine in northwestern Ohio, families depend on, depend on clean water and healthy ecosystems. They are essential, not optional. And we learned that lesson all too well when a water crisis struck our community in 2014, more than a decade ago.
It was absolutely staggering to see what happened. And we still haven't fully recovered from it. This amendment keeps this bill focused on funding appropriations accounts. Major changes to environmental law, public lands policy, civil rights protections, or EPA authority should go through the authorizing process, not be buried in this funding bill. I urge my colleagues to support the Dean amendment to strike harmful riders and return the bill to its proper purpose, responsibly funding agencies and accounts that serve the American people.
I ask for support of the Dean amendment and yield back.
Speaker 32
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Madeleine Dean
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member. I couldn't have said it much better than my colleagues just did. So I thank you very graciously for identifying all of the varied things that are going on in these 51 partisan poisonous riders. I don't like playing this game. Many of these would prevent EPA, for example, from enforcing environmental regulations that are already established.
And somebody doesn't like them, so they're going to try to do it by way of a rider, undo them by way of a rider. Others would eliminate other kinds of protections, whether it's fish and wildlife, native species, conservation efforts. And as I said, the most maybe offensive or poisonous of them all is this license to discriminate rider, which would allow federal employees and entities receiving taxpayer money to discriminate against LGBTQ people. When did we become that kind of America? It's one I reject.
And so it's another attempt to inject partisan policy riders and other kinds of discrimination into this bill. It threatens wildlife and our natural environment, to our attempts to reduce carbon emissions and transition to clean energy economy. It's harmful to Americans who want to live free from discrimination. And I ask support for my amendment. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call has been requested. A few more hands, please. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris.
Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey.
Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Mr. Molinaro. Ms. Meng, aye.
Mark Pocan
Mr. Molinaro, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Mr. Mervan. Mr. Mervan, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez.
Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrieve. Mr. Shrieve, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye.
Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no.
Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 99
Are there members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Fleischmann, no.
Mr. Joyce, no.
Gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Alford, no.
Gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cloud, no.
Gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Lee, aye.
Gentleman from California.
Mr. Levin, aye.
Gentleman from New York.
Mr. Espaillat, aye.
Gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro, aye.
Speaker 56
Are there others wishing to change or record their vote? Seeing none, clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 34, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent for the reading to be considered dispensed with.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the policy riders in this bill that undermine the Endangered Species Act and threaten the populations of the numerous endangered species. There are 15 separate provisions within this bill that prevent the US Fish and Wildlife Service from protecting endangered species. Not only that, but this bill would also prevent the federal government from implementing rules that came out of President Biden's executive order protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis, which strengthened the ecosystems that endangered species rely on. You don't have to be an animal lover like I am to understand the harm that these riders could cause.
Many endangered species are also considered to be keystone species, meaning they have an outsized role in maintaining a finely balanced ecosystem and without them, our land and soil suffer. Designating animals as endangered species and protecting those species should be left to the experts, but these provisions actively block expert scientists and biologists from making those determinations. This doesn't just, the Endangered Species Act doesn't just protect animals from extinction. It creates a balanced ecosystem, it ensures vegetation growth and diversity.
I completely understand the tension that exists between wanting to balance the values of protecting certain species and how they come up against development, property rights, and economic costs. But tearing away the protections altogether, especially in an appropriations bill, I think is not appropriate. If we want to change the process, if we want to reevaluate the science, that's one thing. And believe me, I do understand the tension that exists. But I don't think that we should take a sledgehammer to these protections.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chellie Pingree
I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to eliminate these important provisions. I'm as much as an animal lover as you are. And I support the Endangered Species Act, the intent of the Endangered Species Act as it was originally intended. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act has become more of a way of controlling land and water than it has been for saving species.
That's what's happening. I could give you example after example of how it's being abused. We even had several years ago, in fact, when I was chairman of this committee the first time, I brought down a bill, the interior bill, where I took away all listing for the endangered species, all funding for listing for the endangered species and critical habitat. We did it on purpose. The person that supported me the most was the chairman of the Resources Committee from Washington, Doc Hastings.
We knew that someone, and it would be, I can't think of his name right now, but would offer an amendment to put it back in and it would, and it would win. That's okay. We were trying to make a point. The Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized at that time for 23 years. It's now been about 32 years or so in that neighborhood where the Endangered Species Act has not been reauthorized.
We do a reauthorization so that people will look at it and say, okay, what's working, what's not working, how can we change it? We even had the Secretary, a Democrat, of Interior at that time supporting what we were doing in terms of the reauthorization. He felt we needed to do reauthorization. But I could never get the Resources Committee to do the reauthorization, and it still hasn't under Democratic or Republican control. And it is being abused.
And I could go through some examples that would, would, I could talk about wolves being reintroduced into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and the challenges that that presented. And I'm not against wolves. But the way they did it was just crazy. And what a judge ruled on. And this needs to be redone.
I will, the Endangered Species Act does. I will tell you that every one of these has been approved by the Resources Committee, all of these provisions dealing with the Endangered Species Act in this bill. We included these critical provisions to undo local economic, economy-killing abuses of the Endangered Species Act, and they do, sometimes, depends on how they're implemented. When the, when the Endangered Species Act is weaponized to prevent development and commerce like logging and natural resource development, it's our rural communities and little towns across this country that suffer. They need us to stand up for them.
Their livelihoods hang in the balance. A single heavy-handed rule developed thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C. has the power to decimate entire industries and entire communities. We've seen it happen throughout the West. So, I must urge a no vote on this.
I understand the gentlelady's concern. And to a large degree I agree with it. But this is not the way to do it by ripping these out and I wish we didn't have to put these in here, I wish we could reform the Endangered Species Act so that it made sense that it was out to preserve species instead of control land and water. But I would have to urge a no vote on this amendment.
Speaker 30
The gentleman's first remarks, gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for submitting this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. Of the more than 50 poison pill riders in this bill, nearly half undermine the Endangered Species Act. This is one of the most successful environmental laws in United States history. 99% of the species listed under it have avoided extinction.
These riders sabotage that success for short-term profit. The bill removes protections for iconic species like the gray wolf and the grizzly bear. It also targets indicator species whose presence, absence, or an abundance tells us about the health and specific conditions of an ecosystem. Allowing these species to decline will have a will have much broader conservation impacts. I support this amendment and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks, gentlelady, for remarks. Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment?
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate where the chairman is coming from and I believe very firmly that we have to do a better job of protecting not just our natural environment, but the animals that live within it. You know, we passed a farm bill recently that undermined protections for pregnant pigs. Pretty fundamental protection that a few states had. We are moving in the wrong direction in my view as a country and as a federal government when it comes to animal protections, ecological protection, wildlife protection.
And it is really important that we do everything possible to work together to ensure that we create protections that work and that are good for all communities. It is advantageous to us as a species to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks to gentlelady for remarks. The question now is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted.
Gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading be considered dispensed.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady's recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is about data centers.
And I know I have stood up and spoken about data centers before in this committee. And I I want to share with you all that in my community, the data center issue is probably the number one front and center issue. And if data centers haven't come to your community yet, they will, and hopefully we can do something to protect your community before that happens. We know that many of our residents are already dealing with skyrocketing utility bills. In my community, we are dealing with a rapidly warming environment.
In fact, El Paso is the third fastest warming community in America, behind Reno and behind Las Vegas. We are breaking records, unfortunately, we have the dubious distinction of breaking heat records in my community now. And we have three data centers going up in our region already, with another one planned on our military installation. And these data centers are using gas turbines to more than double the electrical output. They need a lot of electricity.
And in my community, we have issues with air quality. I am really concerned that we are going to reach a non-attainment level in El Paso with the proliferation of these data centers. I'm also worried about water. The drought that we have to deal with is real. And in El Paso for decades, we have regulated ourselves.
We've xeriscaped lawns, people have pulled up, you know, their water-thirsty lawns and put xeriscape. We limit our showers. We only water our outdoor plants on certain days of the week during certain hours. But yet here come data centers that are going to use hundreds of gallons per day to keep them cool. And I will tell you, it's not just my community that's concerned about the proliferation of these data centers.
A recent Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans oppose building AI data centers in their backyards. 71% of Americans. This is a bipartisan issue with bipartisan concern. The EPA's proposed rule, revision to begin actual construction in the New Source Review, or the NSR, pre-construction permitting program, changes the definition of when a facility "begins actual construction" to only require a Clean Air Act permit before constructing emitting units, not other facility components. And what this means is that a data center that relies on gas-polluting generators like those in my community, they'd be able to begin millions of dollars worth of construction without permits and, more importantly, without the public comment period that these permits require.
One of the data center companies constructing a data center in my community is Meta. And Meta made all sorts of assurances before coming into the community. And I've been trying to get them to participate in a town hall with me. And we have security at our town halls. We've never let our town halls get out of control, you know, like all of you.
We have order to our conversations in the community. But constituents have real questions, and they deserve answers. Meta has refused to engage with my community. We cannot let these big corporations have access to our natural resources without the public being involved, without there being a process. And so that is what my amendment would do, ensure that the public has the ability to have a public comment period before construction begins.
Let's give our folks a chance to ask their questions and have a say in our own communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks, gentlelady, for amendment. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Michael Simpson
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. The amendment blocks the EPA's effort to reduce red tape and improve the permitting process for construction projects. Specifically, the EPA proposed rule clarifies that certain construction activities that do not have an emissions impact are not subject to an air emissions permit. The proposed rule does not exempt projects from air permits. It clarifies when in the construction process an air permit is necessary.
It's important to provide appropriate certainty and flexibility to the permitting process while still protecting health and the environment. I believe we can have both of these. We have been on a mission, I think Congress has in general over the last several years, of trying to streamline the permitting process. This is part of it, I think. We're not trying to exempt them from a permit.
It's just when they get their permit. Can they start and they can do things that don't require an air quality permit until they get to that stage when it's necessary? And I know that's what the lady's trying to get at, that they should have to do that before they start, and I understand that. But I have to oppose this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do also.
Speaker 153
Thanks, gentleman. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her amendment and her eloquent description of the impact that this change would have on her community. This amendment blocks the EPA from stripping clean air permit act requirements, a move that if it's allowed to occur, as she has said, would allow data center projects to begin before residents can have meaningful impact from a public comment period. And I wholeheartedly agree that each one of our states has already had this conversation about the input on data centers, and there's a lot of concerns being raised all the time. So to limit the public's involvement in that is a very bad idea and makes this amendment critically important.
This action that the administration is taking that this amendment would block is another example of an administration putting profits of billionaires over the health of the American people. So I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
I thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Texas is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my Texas colleagues, Texas is going to be the number one state for data centers.
We have a governor that is rolling out the red carpet for them and offering massive incentives. So if you have not faced this issue yet, it's coming. Our Virginia colleagues know how this has impacted their constituents and their communities. The problem with allowing some construction to proceed before the permitting process happens and before public input can happen is that you're basically greenlighting massive investment. And at the point when a company has invested millions of dollars, do you really think there's the ability for a community to stop it, to protect their air, to protect their water, to make sure to protect their property values?
Someone needs to stand on the side of the people and not the corporations. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Gentlelady's request for a roll call, sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
John Carter
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford, no.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop, aye.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean, aye.
Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey. Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, aye.
Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, no. Ms. Frankel, aye.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Espaillat, aye. Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder, no. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, aye.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Mr. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum, aye.
Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan, aye.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye.
Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no.
Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye.
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Mark Pocan
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Aderholt, no.
Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao.
Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 155
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change a vote? Gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Aderholt, no.
Gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Cline, aye.
Gentlelady from Oklahoma.
Mrs. Bice, no.
Speaker 158
Are there other members wishing to change or record their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and the noes are 34, the amendment is not adopted. Seeing no further amendments, I now recognize Chairman Rogers for a motion.
Speaker 157
Mr. Chair, I move to favorably report to the House the fiscal year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
Tom Cole
The question is now on the motion to favorably report the fiscal year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill to the House. All those in favor say aye.
All opposed say no.
Tom Cole
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated, clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, aye. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, no. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, aye. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, aye. Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice, aye. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, no. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, no. Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani, aye. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline, aye. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Clyburn, no. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde, aye. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, no. Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean, no. Ms. DeLauro.
Mr. Edwards, aye. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, aye. Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar, no. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Guest, aye. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, no. Dr. Harris.
Mr. Espaillat, no. Mr. Fleischmann.
Dr. Harris, aye. Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Fleischmann, aye. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, no. Mr. Franklin.
Mrs. Hinson, aye. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Franklin, aye. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Hoyer, no. Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey, no. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, aye. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur, no. Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, aye. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee, no. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin, no. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, aye. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, no. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, no. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mark Pocan
Mr. Moolenaar, aye. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Ivey, no. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, aye. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur, no.
Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, aye. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, no. Mr. Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, no. Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, aye. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, no. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, no. Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, aye.
Mark Pocan
Mr. Moore, aye. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, aye. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, no. Mr. Mrvan.
Mr. Mrvan, no. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, aye. Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez, aye.
Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, no. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, no. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, no. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, aye. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, aye.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, aye. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, aye. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, aye. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, aye. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, no.
Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, no. Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, no. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, aye. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, aye.
Speaker 159
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from Florida.
Speaker 56
Are there any others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 35, the nays are 27, the motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report just approved. Three days.
Seeing no objection, so ordered. And then again, without objection, so ordered. Um, we're going to take about a 10-minute recess so that they can sort of get the papers. We're going to move immediately into the THUD bill, so, um, you know, please try to get back on time. We will start promptly.
We're going to try and get that bill done. Thank you very much and with that, committee stands in 10-minute recess.
Speaker 161
The second order of business today is consideration of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agency Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2027. I'll now recognize Chairman Womack to present the bill.
Steve Womack
Thank you and good evening. In my customary suck-up fashion, I want to thank Chairman Cole for your kind introduction and for leading this committee with such strength and integrity. Re-engineering the appropriations process and this committee is fulfilling its constitutional duty on schedule thanks to your leadership. To Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you for your steady and invaluable leadership on this committee. To my friend and Ranking Member Clyburn, thank you for your honest and thoughtful engagement in crafting this bill and most of all, I want to thank you for your friendship.
It's an honor to work alongside you. The discretionary allocation for the fiscal 27 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill is 92.2 billion dollars, 10.7 billion below the fiscal 26 level. We've also redirected 7.8 billion from low-priority programs funded through the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, IIJA, to address our nation's most pressing transportation challenges such as air traffic control modernization, highway improvements, and freight rail safety. Whether on our rail rays, roads, or in the skies, ensuring greater transportation safety is a core tenant and was a core tenant in drafting the contents of this package. To reaffirm our global leadership in aviation safety and efficiency, we are providing the FAA the funds to hire and train 2300 new air traffic controllers, building on this historic funding in FY 26 for our controller workforce.
To support the DOT's ongoing efforts to modernize our air traffic control system nationwide, we're allocating 4 billion for FAA facilities and equipment. Together, these funds will help us build a world-class national airspace system. For our nation's highways, we're providing 64 and a half billion in programmatic funding, including 200 million for tribal transportation and 200 million to increase truck parking infrastructure. And because state and local officials know their communities best, these resources will be directly allocated to state governments to collaborate on high-priority road projects.
We're also investing 523 million for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements grant program, CRISI, supporting freight rail infrastructure that plays a critical role in our supply chain and economy. Reflecting the priorities of the Trump administration, this package includes 732 million to revitalize US shipbuilding and maritime capability, including a historic investment of 165 million for the capital needs of the Merchant Marine Academy. As our country prepares to host the world for the 2028 Olympics, we've provided 875 million to ensure visitors and Americans alike can move efficiently, building on the 94 million this committee provided in FY 26. The 2028 games will put our nation on center stage for all the world to see, and this investment will ensure that we are prepared to meet the moment and showcase why the United States is the best country in the world. The housing title of this bill addresses affordability concerns and ensures a responsible safety net for our most vulnerable: the elderly, the disabled, our veterans, and the working poor.
The funds allocated support authorized rental assistance programs at a fiscally responsible level of 58 billion for the Section 8 vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and programs that serve the elderly and disabled. The package provides 4.2 billion for homeless assistance grants, including 3.8 billion for the Continuum of Care program, reaffirming this subcommittee's bipartisan agreement to ensure certainty for local providers while returning competition to the program. We also fund the Community Development Block Grant program at 3.3 billion, supporting an initiative with historic bipartisan support that has proven critical to meeting local needs. Other programs that leverage private dollars to support housing affordability like HOME, SHOP, and NeighborWorks are also funded. As a former mayor, I know firsthand how these programs can strengthen federal and local partnerships to promote economic growth and better the quality of life for our constituents.
In its entirety, the fiscal 27 THUD bill represents a responsible approach to government funding that prioritizes core infrastructure needs, maintains critical services for our citizens, and implements the fiscal discipline and regulatory relief that the American people demand. I want to thank the members of this committee for your participation in the process. This bill reflects many of your priorities and will have positive impacts on each of your districts. Again, I want to thank Chairman Cole and Ranking Member Clyburn for their leadership and partnership. And before I close, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their tireless effort throughout this process.
On the majority side, Doug Dishrow, Avery Pierson, Heather Campbell, Mary Beth Pavlik, Alexandria Mandewo, Andrew Giacini, and from the minority, Christina Monroe, Jackie Kilroy, and Nora Faye, and from my personal office, the newly married Bo Stuckey. While the Senate has yet to act on their version of this bill, I am pleased that we're doing our job in the House to move appropriation bills forward and have the best possible position at the negotiating table. One last note: you have jams and jellies at your seat. Pick from those and be sure and take some back, compliments of Team Womack. Mr. Chairman, I simply ask for support for this legislation and I yield back my time.
Tom Cole
Thank gentleman for his comments and presentation of the bill. I'd now like to recognize Ranking Member Clyburn for remarks on the bill.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Womack. Mr. Womack, thank you so much for your enlightened leadership and stewardship of this subcommittee. When I wrote my memoir 12 years ago, I entitled it "Blessed Experiences." And in the introduction to that book, I wrote that all of my experiences have not been pleasant, but I've considered all of them to be blessings. Working with you, Chairman Womack, has been pleasant and also a blessing.
And I thank you so much. I also want to thank Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, as well as the staff, Christina Monroe, Jackie Kilroy, Nora Fay, Bavedas, Bavedas Singletary of my personal staff, and Doug Disrud and his team for their hard work. Mr. Chairman, the American people are concerned about the cost of living. Whether it's rising rents, a shrinking job market, or increasing costs at the gas pump, 76% of Americans see the cost of living as their biggest economic concern. My home state of South Carolina has recorded some of the highest population growth in the nation, and housing costs have surged significantly faster than wages.
While median home prices exceed more than $700,000 in coastal areas, nearly 57,000 low-income households, seniors, people with disabilities, and working families count on HUD's rental assistance to make ends meet. By cutting housing counseling assistance in half, this bill limits opportunities for families to acquire and build wealth and achieve the dream of homeownership. As if Americans are not already struggling to access a home they can afford, the bill walks away from enforcement of long-standing civil rights laws that protect housing choice for most Americans by cutting support for local organizations at the front lines of fair housing enforcement by 64%. People with disabilities, who account for 55% of these claims, will bear the brunt of these decisions. Although this bill rejects many of the harmful policy riders that would weaken transportation safety, it does not come without tradeoffs.
For transportation, this bill would nearly eliminate public transit and bus service improvement projects. It zeroes out investments for Amtrak, takes away 7.9 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in a Robin Peter to pay Paul gimmick to make up for a woefully inadequate allocation. These transportation cuts are particularly shortsighted because they compound the housing and cost of living crisis. Access to safe, reliable, and affordable transit is essential for connecting people to jobs, schools, and healthcare, the very things that help people achieve self-sufficiency.
Now let's be honest about what's really happening here. For months, Republicans have allowed the President to wage a war that the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Budget Model estimates is costing the American people roughly $800 million to $1 billion per day. Experts at the Harvard Kennedy School project this illegal war could increase the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next decade. Let us not forget that just last year, Republicans already increased the deficit by trillions of dollars over the next decade through tax cuts for billionaires and big businesses when they passed their big ugly bill. But instead of taking serious and intentional steps to lessen burdens for American households, this bill would leave mayors and governors to foot the bill for what we know is a national cost of living crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the challenges ahead of you. Unfortunately, this bill includes unrealistic budget gimmicks that will only cost us more in the long run. My hope is that we can put politics aside and do that which is necessary to make America's greatness accessible and affordable for all. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that goal. And in closing let me thank once again the staffs on both sides and I wish to associate myself with those thank-yous of the Chairman.
It's a safe way for me not to mispronounce a bunch of names. And so I'm going to thank both staffs for their great work and Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, but I thank you and yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman for his comments. And thank you Chairman Womack, Ranking Member Clyburn, certainly my friend Ranking Member DeLauro and all our committee members. With our eighth measure now advanced out of full committee, we're keeping up the momentum with consideration of FY 27 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. The foundations of this measure are straightforward: building stronger, traveling safer, and supporting American communities. With targeted investments in surface infrastructure and new budget authorities to rebuild critical systems, we're delivering resources to build the most modern, safe, and efficient transportation system in the world.
This funding will deliver lasting benefits for the American people and strengthen the nation for generations to come. From travelers and commuters to freight haulers and businesses, improved connectivity helps keep America moving and our economy growing. The US transportation story doesn't end where the pavement does. It continues in the skies above us and across the waters below us, and so do the investments in this bill. We provide enhanced resources for FAA facilities and equipment to modernize air traffic control, hire needed controllers, and accelerate the deployment of new technologies.
And on the maritime front, we provide strong support for programs and initiatives that support our supply chain and our defense.
The benefits of a connected nation are felt most clearly in the communities that those connections serve. The bill empowers neighborhoods through local development, housing initiative, and resources to help the vulnerable, making a difference where Americans live and work. Further, districts in every corner of the country will benefit from locally driven projects that address unique needs, improve quality—the quality of life, and deliver tangible results for the people they serve. From our founding, America has always been a nation that builds. Nearly 250 years later, this legislation continues that tradition by laying the foundation for stronger communities, greater opportunity, and a more connected future.
I appreciate the dedication and focus of Chairman Womack, his work alongside Ranking Member Clyburn, and the majority and minority staff throughout this important process. I look forward to advancing this bill. Thank you again, and I yield back. I now recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening remarks on the bill.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you very much, Chairman Cole and Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Clyburn. Thank you. I think it's the hallmark of this committee that despite any kinds of differences we may have, the working relationship and partnerships, I think, are exemplary, and it's an honor for me to serve with—with all of you. To the staff, Christina Monroe, Tenora Faye, Jackie Kilroy on the minority side, Doug Dustroot, Avery Pearson, Andrew Giacini, Mary Beth Pafflick, Heather Campbell, and Alexandra Mandewo for their—for the majority, it doesn't happen without you guys, so thank you very much. I'm opposed to the measure we are considering this evening.
It fails to bring down the high costs that are confronting American families each and every day. By gutting funding for programs that help the working class, middle class, and vulnerable Americans, this bill makes the cost of living crisis even worse. Affordability is not a hoax. Affordability is not a hoax. It is a real problem that families are struggling with every day: their cost of living.
The cost of housing keeps climbing, pushing more and more people out onto the street. And yet, this bill proposes to slash critical assistance that helps families keep a roof over their heads. By slashing funding for public housing by $1.3 billion, this bill will cause cuts to rent and utility payments for some 2,700 housing agencies across the country. It will put hundreds of thousands of low-income households at risk of eviction. Eviction is something no family should ever have to endure.
It is a devastating trauma that leaves a lasting impact on anyone who experiences it. I would know. My family was evicted when I was nine years old. We returned home on a Friday evening to find all of our belongings laid out on the street. My parents worked hard to make ends meet.
They were not just dogging it. They struggled with financially all of their lives. And as hard as they worked, sometimes it just wasn't enough. I remember this experience. We went to live with my grandmother until my folks could get themselves back on their feet.
It is an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone, least of all honest, hard-working American families who are just trying to get by as costs keep rising and rising. This bill eliminates funding that addresses lead-based paint hazards in nearly 700,000 low-income housing units, which have been deemed at risk of lead exposure. While the Trump administration pays lip service to "making America healthy again," they are forcing hundreds of thousands of low-income families to continue being exposed to lead paint.
This bill cuts funding that helps people who are homeless to get the support they need to get back on their feet. It slashes homeless assistance grant funding by $256 million, rolling back aid for the more than 745,000 people experiencing homelessness and preventing tens of thousands of people from moving off the street into stable homes. That is a one-two punch in funding cuts. First, it cuts affordable housing programs, pushing more people out of their homes and onto the street. Then, it scales back assistance for the people who are without homes.
The message is clear: costs are going up and you're on your own. Meanwhile, the bill retreats from efforts to address the affordable housing crisis by gutting investment in programs like HOME that increase the supply of affordable housing. NeighborWorks, which provides the funding backbone for nearly 250 local organizations that construct and rehabilitate affordable housing in every state, is cut by over 20%. As housing costs climb, more and more people are forced to make longer commutes to and from work as the distance between a decent wage job and an affordable home gets wider and wider. But instead of investing in new transit systems that extend economic opportunity far and wide, this bill raids funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, zeroes out funding for new transit capital investment grants.
This means interrupting active projects that are designed to make it easier and more affordable for people to get around. When you account for the funds raided from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this bill slashes funding for the Federal Transit Administration by 92%. It cuts funding for the Federal Railroad Administration by $1.5 billion, 84%, including funding for Amtrak's national network and the Northeast Corridor. And it eliminates all new funding for the Federal Highway Administration. Transportation is an economic engine.
Highways, bridges, railroads, bus routes, they connect our communities, they create prosperity. As costs rise and wages are stagnant, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves by failing to invest in better transportation. Throughout our country, families are struggling, struggling to stay afloat as the cost of living keeps climbing and climbing. And instead of extending a lifeline, this bill cuts off support. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today and negotiate, negotiate on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that meets the needs of the American people.
Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 163
Thank gentlelady for her remarks. Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
John Moolenaar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill invests in America and its infrastructure, which is vital for the quality of life of our citizens and for our businesses and industry to compete around the world. I rise in support of the fiscal year 27 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. Importantly, it ensures that our rural communities have the roads, bridges, and housing opportunities necessary to thrive. Importantly, it provides robust funding to our national aviation infrastructure and includes clear direction to the FAA to make the necessary investments in facilities long deprived of adequate funding.
I want to thank Chairman Womack and the committee staff for working closely with me to ensure the Gerald R. Ford International Airport's tower replacement project was highlighted for specific consideration by the FAA. Replacing this outdated tower will unlock increased investment in Michigan and provide Michiganders with increased opportunity to connect with the world. I want to thank the chair and urge all my colleagues to support this bill. With that, I yield back.
Thank gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by thanking my friend Chairman Womack and my dear friend and mentor Ranking Member Clyburn for their work on this bill and their work in the committee. But unfortunately I rise in strong opposition to the fiscal year 2027 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. Because yet again Republicans had the chance to put their money where their mouth is, to make basic necessities like housing and transportation more affordable to the American people, and no surprise, this bill just like President Trump's budget request fails to meet that mark. At a time of astronomical gas prices and housing costs, you'd think this year's THUD appropriations bill would include investments that actually provide desperately needed relief. Instead we're left with a product that guts affordable housing programs, makes our skies, highways, and railroads less safe, and lets shady landlords off the hook for lead-filled apartments.
Let's start with the Department of Transportation. This bill slashes funding by $5.8 billion compared to current funding levels, including a $543 million cut to the Federal Aviation Administration. This legislation fails to invest in air safety infrastructure and the workforce, despite the tragic DCA crash and a number of high-profile close calls at airports around the country in the wake of Dodge's destructive staffing cuts. And that is after this Congress has failed to act to pass the fixes that NTSB has recommended to prevent another tragedy like the one we saw here in the nation's capital in January of 2025. This bill absolutely decimates the Federal Transit Administration, cutting the agency's funding by 92%.
Let that sink in. And yanking funding from all of our states' vital transportation projects. This bill will be a disaster from coast to coast for all our local public transit systems, buses, subways, and commuter rail. This is a death knell. It will shutter vital mass transit across the country, meaning more cars on the road and more traffic, pollution, and accidents.
Worse, this bill eliminates all new funding for the Federal Highway Administration, the agency responsible for constructing, maintaining, and preserving our nation's highways, bridges, and tunnels, which are in disrepair. Almost 40% of our nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, with dilapidated roads that are more than eyesores, they're dangerous. Potholes and faded lines can make the difference between a smooth ride home to your family and a fatal crash. Yet this legislation says to the American people that Congress is satisfied with 6 million annual car crashes and almost 40,000 deaths. Well I'm not, and no one in this room should be.
And in a moment when Americans struggle to pay rent, find affordable homes, and keep a roof over their heads, this bill delivers a $6 billion cut to the very programs that they depend on. It slashes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program by 60%, a cut of $750 million that forces states and cities to abandon housing projects already in the pipeline. If these cuts are enacted, 27,000 fewer affordable units will be available next year, despite the pressing housing shortage. At the same time, it guts the PRO Housing program, which helps mayors and governors cut red tape and build more housing when people need it most.
The list goes on. As a member of Congress who proudly represents South Florida, I hear every day about the rising cost of rent, homeownership, gas, airfare, and utilities, that is just to name a few. So there is simply no way I can vote to advance a bill that does nothing to make any of those issues better and will actually make things worse. This bill does not reflect our values, it does not reflect, doesn't reflect my values, doesn't respect the values that of the people that at home that I represent, or the needs of my constituents. And it certainly does not deserve support from anybody on this committee.
This bill is an affront to people who simply want to make sure that their life is more affordable. I urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Joseph Morelle
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and certainly to the staff members. Without regard to how we might feel about the specifics, I know how much work goes into this and putting this together and just want to extend my thanks to both the majority and minority members and their staff. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, friends, you know, at this moment across America, families are sitting at their kitchen tables trying to make ends meet. Rent is too high, mortgages are challenging, groceries cost more every month, and far too many people owning a home feels further and further out of reach, the American dream. When the cost of living is the number one concern for working families, Congress should be focused on lowering costs.
It ought to be mission number one, the first thing we think about. Every dollar we appropriate should answer a simple question: does it make life more affordable for the people we represent? Unfortunately, this bill fails that test. It cuts affordable housing production, reduces eviction prevention assistance, and slashes transit programs that millions of Americans rely on each day to get back and forth from work, doctor's appointments, to school, and other important events in their life. A budget reflects priorities.
This one tells families facing rising costs and a housing shortage that effectively they're on their own. Families want a safe place to live, a reliable way to get to work, and a chance to build a stable future. They deserve a Congress who while they're sitting at that kitchen table is focused on those priorities. Sadly, this bill is not, I oppose it, urge its defeat, and yield back my time.
Speaker 103
Thank the gentleman for his comments, gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized to address the bill.
Mike Levin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the hard work that went into this bill. Unfortunately, I cannot support it as written. The bill leaves communities stuck with aging infrastructure, unreliable transportation, and unaffordable housing. Our drivers, commuters, workers, and renters deserve better.
Wasn't all that long ago that we all passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That historic legislation made once-in-a-generation investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure. These smart, strategic, bold investments created safer roads for drivers. That meant faster commutes on the bus or the train, stronger supply chains, and ensuring kids taking the bus to school could breathe cleaner air. These historic investments will end later this year.
We should be working to build off this bipartisan progress and delivering a faster, safer, and stronger transportation system for our communities. Unfortunately, this bill just doesn't live up to that moment. Instead, it chooses to cut these investments, divert them to unrelated programs, or eliminate them entirely. These funding cuts will have real consequences for communities in districts like mine. I'm proud to represent a district that stretches from parts of San Diego all the way up to Orange County and includes the Los San rail corridor, that's the second busiest rail corridor anywhere in the United States behind the Northeast corridor.
It's the only viable freight route connecting San Diego to the rest of the country, and it provides essential services to the 147,000 active duty service members and the five major military installations in the San Diego area. Unfortunately, significant spans of the track are built just a few feet away from fragile seaside bluffs. The tracks have endured months-long closures in recent years because of erosion. Commuters are left stranded, freight is disrupted, and our national security is threatened. I made it a top priority to fund real solutions to these pressing challenges, which the bipartisan infrastructure law helped us to achieve.
Unfortunately, this bill cuts those solutions, going so far as to eliminate critical programs like the Federal-State Partnership, which helps repair intercity passenger rail assets. These kinds of problems aren't unique to my district. This bill's approach means more projects around the country competing for fewer dollars, and when we delay the repairs, we end up paying more in the long run. So here's the bottom line: we can't keep running a 21st-century economy on 20th-century infrastructure. This bill would also harm some of the hard work our communities are doing to combat homelessness.
It cuts funding from the Continuum of Care program, which serves over 750,000 people experiencing homelessness across the country. And I am totally committed to reaching functional zero veteran homelessness in San Diego County and in Orange County. There's no way we can reach that goal without our local Continuum of Care organizations. I was happy that we were able to come to a bipartisan consensus in the final fiscal '26 bill to fund these essential programs and to set guardrails for the administration to release funds they had been withholding from service providers across the country. I hope we can get to that bipartisan consensus again.
But unfortunately, the bill we're considering for today doesn't deliver on that promise to our local communities. For these reasons, while I appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this, I cannot support the bill as written. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and dear members and all the staff that has worked so hard for days and days and now into the evening here. I rise in strong opposition, however, to this fiscal year 2027 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It should be reinvesting in what is vital in this country, certainly building our communities forward and modernizing our transportation systems, and it severely underfunds investment in America. Every day, Congress has an opportunity to make life better for the American people, but this legislation before us tonight falls far short of the mark. It shortchanges working families, it abandons very aging infrastructure, and it tells our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, our veterans, and struggling families, that their fundamental needs for shelter and transportation are no longer a priority.
This bill cuts $5.8 billion from the Department of Transportation at a time when many congested cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, are really functioning on outdated infrastructure that needs to be upgraded and modernized.
Then talk about taking a bat to the kneecaps, it also cuts more than $540 million from the Federal Aviation Administration when airports desperately need investments in equipment, in safety upgrades, and access improvements. And to add insult to injury, after gutting funding for new-age vehicles out of spite, I dare say, the bill literally renders moot billions of dollars of investments from American automakers. The majority also slashes the Federal Railroad Administration's budget by 84%. This will deeply delay advancements in passenger and freight rail, setting the stage for the next East Palestine, which Ohio knows well, that derailment on their watch. 84%.
Our nation is heading toward 400 million people. We must have modern rail. We must have safe roads. We must have safe, modern airports. This bill also ignores the fact that the rising cost of living has become more crushing for people economically in places like Ohio and across our great nation.
Instead of investing in the American people, this bill cuts $6 billion from the HUD budget, including a 15% reduction in funding for housing for the most needy, including our senior citizens, that will leave many families in unsafe, deteriorating conditions. It slashes homeless assistance grants by $256 million as the number of homeless in America rises, taking away a critical lifeline for some of the most suffering people in our society. How does rising homelessness help any community in our country? How does it help any person? People across this country are struggling to afford a home.
Young families can't afford to buy their first house. Seniors are worried about staying in the homes they worked a lifetime to own, and renters are being squeezed between the sides by rising costs. When we should be strengthening our neighborhoods and investing in the places people call home, this bill moves in the opposite direction by severely underfunding housing rehabilitation and community development efforts that help repair legacy homes, remove blight, and provide infill housing to restore neighborhoods. If we neglect these investments, we risk allowing communities to deteriorate, pushing the dream of stable, affordable housing further out of reach for millions and millions of Americans. Housing security is economic security, and this bill fails that test.
This bill is not about responsible budgeting, it's about misplaced priorities, and I must oppose it, but look forward to working in a bipartisan manner if we can, as was this committee's long-standing custom, to craft a T-HUD bill that invests in the future of our communities. Congress surely can do better. I thank everyone and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Henry Cuellar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member DeLauro, and certainly I want to thank Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Clyburn and all the staff for working together to put this bill. A lot of good things in this bill. We're still missing a couple of things that we need to address, and I know as we move this process, we will all be on the same page at a later time. But I do want to highlight three things that are important to my district, and I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for adding this. First of all, the language directing more funding toward land ports of entry infrastructure is very important.
As you know, seaports are important, airports are important, but 80 to 85% of all the goods and all the people come through land ports. If there's not a sufficient funding, so I want to thank both the member, the Chairman and the Ranking Member, to directing the department to consider how we can look at the current discretionary grant programs to assist local communities to address this. As an example, I'll give you the Port of Laredo, the largest port of entry that we have.
Last year it was over $339 billion. Right now, every day they handle between 18,000 to 20,000 commercial trucks a day. I'll repeat again, 18,000 to 20,000 commercial trucks a day, and this is why we've got to make sure we have that funding. And I want to thank the committee for allowing us to move this forward on that aspect. Second thing has to do with passenger rail from the Dallas down to San Antonio, Laredo, and then on to Monterrey area.
I want to thank the committee for adding language directing the Federal Railroad Administration to make sure that they work in cooperation with the state of Texas and with the Republic of Mexico to look at what needs to be done to address this particular need. Back about nine years ago, we actually did get a FRA study that was conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, which identified a clear opportunity for growth from Oklahoma, Dallas, San Antonio, and then Laredo down to Monterrey. Having this passenger train will be good for business and it would certainly be good for tourism between the state of Texas, Oklahoma, and of course down to the Republic of Mexico. So I want to thank the committee for adding that language. Finally, I want to talk about the VIA Metropolitan Transit in San Antonio, what we call the San Antonio Advanced Rapid Transit.
As you know, San Antonio is the ninth largest city in the country, and I certainly want to highlight the programmatic funding that got included in this bill, VIA Transit Authority for the San Antonio Advanced Rapid Transit East-West Corridor, which covers directly my part of San Antonio, the East Side project, about $141.7 million. VIA, as you know, serves one of the most populous and fastest growing areas, the ninth largest city in the country, and this is very important to have the East-West Corridor. The city of San Antonio put their share of the money, and I want to thank the judge, Judge Sakai, the Bexar County judge, for putting that money along with the County Commissioners Court. We've done pretty much the NEPA clearance, and we're getting by the design stage by October, and hopefully after that we'll get started on the East-West Corridor in San Antonio. So I want to thank the chairman for that.
And along with that, a couple years ago, we also did the North-South Corridor in San Antonio, and that was programmatic request of about $268 million. So combined, it is a large investment by this committee to the San Antonio area. So I certainly want to thank the VIA Vice President and CEO, Jon Gary Herrera, for the leadership in this program and the other folks that we have in San Antonio, the city of San Antonio, the county of Bexar County, VIA, and all the folks that have been working. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this three things, three areas are very important to me. So I want to thank you.
We've got a little bit more work to do, but knowing the process, we're going to get there in a bipartisan way.
So with that, I say thank you so much. Yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Madeleine Dean
Thank you, Chairman Cole and Chairman Womack, Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Clyburn, thank you all for your work on this bill. Unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the bill, which cuts funding for critical housing programs. Just two days ago, HUD released its annual homelessness assessment report. Listen to this: it found that homelessness declined by 3.4% during the Biden administration. Let's keep that going.
It's good news, but it does not mean that this is the time now to pull the foot off the gas and cut funding to critical programs that are making a difference. In my home state of Pennsylvania, more than 12,000 people are suffering homelessness. In my district alone, that number exceeds a thousand. Behind each of these numbers is a person, a human being, a military veteran, a family, someone struggling with mental health or addiction challenges. We should be redoubling, strengthening our efforts to support those most at risk.
Instead, this bill moves us in the opposite direction. It cuts $256 million from HUD's homelessness assistance grants, including funding for the Continuum of Care program, the backbone of the federal response to homelessness. It also cuts 25 million from the Youth Homeless Demonstration Program, the only federal program addressing unaccompanied youth and young adult homelessness at the local level. And the cuts don't stop there. This bill also reduces funding for programs that help families remain stably housed and avoid homelessness in the first place.
It cuts $355 million from housing choice voucher programs that serves more than 2.3 million families. The Housing Counseling Assistance Program, which facilitates homeownership and reduces foreclosures, that was cut by almost $32 million. And the bill effectively eliminates the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, providing just $200,000 for the purpose of winding down operations. Taken together, these cuts will weaken the very programs that have helped reduce homelessness. If we as a country are serious, serious about continuing the progress reflected in HUD's latest report, we should be investing in these programs, not dismantling them.
As you drove to work today, as you Ubered to work today, I'm certain you drove past homeless person after homeless person. Doesn't that disturb you? Don't you want to be a part of making a difference and making sure our city streets or our rural streets are not the place for all these people suffering homelessness? I wish this administration thought the same. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
And I yield.
Marie Perez
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to make comments about the bill? Gentlelady from Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of several provisions in the report. First, I appreciated the committee's support last year to pass an amendment urging the Department of Transportation to provide a report to the committee on excessively bright headlights. Sorry that Amodei is not here to cheer that on. I am committed to working with the agency to make sure the report is completed, but in the meantime, this year's report builds on that directive and urges the department to brief Congress on the current state of research regarding headlight intensity and its impact on roadway safety.
This is an issue that draws the ire of rural Americans, older Americans, law enforcement, everybody that you meet pretty much. We all think we're going crazy because headlights keep getting brighter and brighter and driving at night feels more and more maddening. So I appreciate the inclusion of this in this report of language and look forward to continuing to work with the agency on the issue. Second, I rise in support of language included in the report encouraging the Federal Housing Administration to update the limits for FHA Title I personal property loans used to purchase manufactured homes that are not placed on permanent foundations. We know the cost of homeownership remains out of reach for far too many Americans.
Manufactured housing continues to provide one of the most attainable pathways to homeownership, but federal financing programs have not kept pace with the reality of today's market. FHA Title I program was specifically designed to help Americans finance manufactured homes that are financed as personal property rather as traditional real estate, but current loan limits have become increasingly disconnected from the actual cost of purchasing a manufactured home and not doing what they were intended to do. If federal loan programs are to remain relevant and effective, they must reflect current costs and market realities. So I appreciate the inclusion of these two provisions in the manager's amendment and with that I will yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady. All right, it's the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop is recognized to address his the bill.
Sanford Bishop
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Womack, and Ranking Member Clyburn, let me thank all of your staffs for the diligent and hard work that you have put in thus far in the bill. I really wish I had good things to say about the bill, but the legislation regrettably does not rise to the occasion. Everything has become unaffordable these days and transportation and housing are right there at the top of the list. People need a place to live and the means to get to work, to buy groceries, to fulfill their social and family obligations.
And it doesn't get any more basic than transportation and housing. But here we have a bill that guts public transit funding, including bus infrastructure investments and transit infrastructure grants, which will lead to service cuts and the loss of innumerable jobs across the country. It also reduces funding for the FAA, which has been implicated in some scary and frightening incidents over the past year due to the lack of resources, including last year's deadly crash at National Airport. The bill unceremoniously slashes funding for public housing, housing for the elderly and those with disabilities, and lead paint abatement, which will lead to poorer life outcomes for our nation's most vulnerable people. These cuts will all but ensure that the government will become less accessible and far less responsive to the needs of everyday Americans.
With our infrastructure continuing to crumble and with transportation and housing costs at an all-time high, now is not the time to abandon our commitment and to leave the public to fend for themselves. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that we all have constituents who rely on the safety, the availability, and the convenience of transportation and housing. That's why I'm confused by the majority's strategy of underfunding and establishing barriers to access.
The federal government should not act as an obstacle to reliable transportation or reliable housing, but that's what this bill does. It's all, it also decimates programs that spur the development of new affordable housing. Do we want to close the door for the hardworking families who want to take ownership and practice stewardship of a piece of their country? This bill drastically underfunds our railroads with an 84% cut to the Federal Railroad Administration and significantly reduces transportation infrastructure spending, which will lead to rail safety issues as well as road congestion and deterioration. Unfortunately, I cannot support an appropriation bill that does not support the American people any better than this one does.
So I urge my colleagues across the aisle to come to the table to craft a reasonable, responsible transportation, housing, and urban development bill instead of going alone down this disastrous path which has adverse impacts on the American people. With that, I urge us to oppose this bill and I yield back my time.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the bill? Seeing no other members wishing to address the bill, I would like to recognize Chairman Womack to offer a manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I seek unanimous consent that my amendment be considered as read.
Steve Womack
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bipartisan manager's amendment includes bill and report changes to the underlying bill and other technical fixes that both sides have agreed to. I want to thank my ranking member Mr. Clyburn and other members who have worked with us on drafting this amendment and I simply ask my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment contains technical corrections and additions to the bill and report language. I have worked on this amendment in a bipartisan way with my friend Mr. Womack, which accommodates requests from both sides of the aisle. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak in support of the manager's amendment and I want to thank Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Clyburn for including my report language in the manager's amendment, which would require the HUD Secretary to conduct a feasibility study on amending the United States Housing Act of 1937 to allow housing choice vouchers to cover security deposits for participating families. This is a small but mighty proposed change that meaningfully lowers housing costs and keeps families off the streets. It's no secret that our country is experiencing a housing affordability crisis. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 50% of all renters in our country are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities.
But that assumes these individuals can even find affordable options and get their foot in the door. As many renters know, even if they land that dream apartment, there's a high upfront cost, the security deposit, which can range from the cost of one to two months' rent. That's thousands of dollars extra families need to cough up just to get a roof over their heads. And for families participating in the housing choice voucher program, it's a double whammy. Often families wait years to get off the waitlist for the HCV program just to get hit with an unexpected cost of a security deposit that makes an affordable apartment out of reach because the housing voucher cannot pay for to cover the security deposit.
Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence. 45% of households awarded a housing choice voucher are unable to use them. Why? Because vouchers don't pay for security deposits. My amendment gives us the data we need to make a sound policy decision that will help more Americans access affordable housing assistance and work to fix this gap facing too many of our constituents.
I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and thank the chair and the ranking member for their help. I yield back.
Henry Cuellar
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to support this amendment for adding one of my amendments, and this is what I've been asking for all the committees to add this language, and that is the language that directs outcome-based programs and operational reviews across all the agencies that are funded by this particular bill. Again, consistent with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act that this Congress passed, it specifically calls for the review of all existing regulations, internal policies, administrative requirements to identify what is outdated, what is duplicative, and what is unnecessarily burdensome to the taxpayers and to find ways that we could provide cost savings and better program, more efficient, more effective, more accountable government work. So with that, I just want to say thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for adding this amendment to the manager's amendment.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan, is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Mark Pocan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank our subcommittee chair and our ranking member for inclusion in this amendment some language about air traffic control tower assessments. In Madison, Wisconsin, we had a pretty big hailstorm and our very antiquated air traffic tower, which the first time I visited it looked like software from the game Pong from the 80s and now they've kind of moved up to the 90s on their software, but they had a hailstorm big as a fist and got 700 holes in the roof. Water coming through, one room was completely affected, and it's just a real old air traffic tower. At least looking at these kind of conditions to speed it up is really appreciated.
So I just want to thank you for the language and hopefully someone from the department's listening also because it shouldn't take language like this, it should just say if you got 700 holes in your roof you better build a new air traffic tower. So thank you.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. Are there any other comments on the manager's amendment? Seeing none, Chairman Womack is recognized for one minute to close.
Steve Womack
I'm hearing some of my friends on the other side warming up to the bill a little bit. Another spoonful of those strawberry preserves and we may just be there, Mr. Chairman. I again encourage you to vote for the manager's amendment and yield back my time.
Tom Cole
I support your optimism on the amendment. We'll see on the bill. The question is on the manager's amendment. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no.
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The gentlelady from Connecticut, the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. Womack, I think it's probably very lukewarm.
It's a start.
Speaker 165
It's a start. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
I rise to offer this amendment to prohibit the destruction of the federal government's ability to mitigate the worst impacts of the housing crisis and to restore investments that build housing and help American families achieve the stability of home ownership. America is in a cost of living crisis and the cost of housing is one of the primary causes. The US has a shortage of 7.2 million affordable rental homes. We need to build more housing in every state. The situation is no better for those looking to buy.
The Chamber of Commerce estimates there is a 4 and a half million shortage. No matter where on the political spectrum you land, it is clear there are not enough homes for Americans who want to buy them. This is a crisis that affects every part of the country and every age group. Older Americans who have outgrown their homes are staying because there are no affordable options for them to downsize into. That means there are fewer homes going on the market and fewer affordable options for first time buyers looking for starter homes.
It is a vicious cycle in every sense of the word and the only people benefiting are giant institutional investors and private equity firms, which are increasingly buying into the household market. Nationally, private equity firms own more than 500,000 homes. According to some estimates, private equity firms are expected to own up to 40% of the single family rental market by 2030. Families need help. They need more options.
Why then is this majority eager to slash funding for the HOME program? My amendment would restore funding for this critical investment. This is a supply side program which provides grants to state and local governments to produce affordable housing and create pathways to home ownership through first time home buyer assistance. If we are serious about building more homes, we should not be retreating from investing in this tool that has supported new housing construction from Texas to Illinois to Alaska. My amendment also restores level funding for NeighborWorks, which helps local organizations develop and preserve affordable housing, revitalize local communities and provide assistance to help families buy and retain a home.
The 21% cut in this bill would be devastating to the nearly 250 community organizations across the country that rely on NeighborWorks for predictable, flexible support, especially at a time when the cost of property insurance and housing construction is skyrocketing. The partnerships that NeighborWorks has built across the nation have helped leverage over $74 for every dollar of federal investment, an extraordinary return on investment. This amendment also restores level funding for HUD's housing counseling program, which supports thousands of certified housing counselors across the country who provide prospective homeowners with the financial and real estate education they need to achieve home ownership. It also provides foreclosure prevention assistance, which helps families keep their homes and avoid traumatic evictions. I mentioned earlier when I was young we were evicted.
That moment turned our world upside down. I will never forget how awful it felt to see all of our possessions piled on the sidewalk. My family recovered. But many other families have the trajectory of their own lives changed forever. Some spiral into debt or homelessness.
We should be doing everything in our power to ensure evictions are as rare as possible. And that is why my amendment would also restore investment in legal assistance for eviction prevention, which gives struggling families a fair shot and saves taxpayer dollars by helping families stay in their homes. Connecticut launched a right to counsel program in 2022 with $20 million. By November of last year, they saved nearly $58 million by providing legal aid to 9600 households.
How did Connecticut save this money? Because renters were able to stay housed, and the state did not have to spend money on this emergency on emergency shelter services, foster care replacements, and more social services. My amendment restores strong investment in a comprehensive approach to housing stability. HOME builds supply, NeighborWorks develops local capacity for affordable housing development and homebuyer support, housing counseling provides a pathway to sustainable homeownership, and legal assistance reduces costly evictions. We need to use every tool to address the national housing crisis.
If we do not do this, we cannot tackle the cost of living crisis that is holding back working families from reaching their potential. A home is not simply a place to rest your head. It's a source of comfort, pride, and success for families everywhere. It is a central tenet of the quintessential American dream, and I am committed to helping more people make that dream a reality. I'm proud to propose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Womack, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose the amendment. First and foremost, I can't support it because it causes the bill to exceed the allocation, and if adopted, it would prevent the bill from going to the floor. The ranking member's eviction protection grant program has previously been a set-aside in HUD's research account aimed at giving federal money to legal aid societies for work they already do. We didn't fund this program in the FY 24, 25, or 26 House bills, so I find it interesting in a year of such fiscal austerity that the ranking member is focusing on this program.
Our bill restores NeighborWorks from the President's budget, which, as you all know, tried to wind down operation of NeighborWorks. This level does include the scaling back of certain services, but it maintains core services to continue preservation of housing and homeownership and counseling services. Our bill also restores the HOME Investment Partnership with 500 million from the President's budget that had it zeroed out, so we've made progress there. Lastly, on housing counseling, the program is holding nearly two full years' worth of carryover, 109 million. This administration is encouraging these sorts of services to be provided by the private sector, not the taxpayer.
Bottom line, we had a tight allocation, but I maintain that this bill takes the right approach on funding the safety and essential HUD services necessary to care for our nation's most vulnerable. It trims the fat at HUD, and to bust our allocation for these kind of nice-to-have issues is irresponsible in my strong opinion. So I urge a no vote on the amendment. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. It will restore critical housing investments that represent lifelines for families who are struggling with the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. In South Carolina and nationwide, working families are being priced out of homeownership and even basic rental housing. When teachers, nurses, and first responders cannot afford to live in the communities they serve, we have to act, and with urgency.
The HOME program has been the backbone of affordable housing production for over three decades. In South Carolina alone, HOME funds have helped create and preserve tens of thousands of homes and supported tens of thousands of jobs.
Local communities rely on this predictable source of federal funding to close the gap and leverage other resources for housing production. Slashing investment in the HOME program will mean developers, mayors, and governors will walk away from housing construction projects. At the funding level in this bill, tens of thousands of fewer affordable homes will be created or preserved. I would not disagree with anyone who suggests that the HOME program needs improvement and modernization to make the funding easier to use, and in fact, there are bipartisan authorizing efforts underway to address many of these challenges. But in the midst of America's housing affordability crisis, now is not the time to retreat from investing in long-standing housing construction programs.
We should be doubling down. Additionally, HUD's housing counseling program is particularly vital for first-time homebuyers and families who are looking to avoid foreclosure. Homeownership remains the primary vehicle for wealth building in American families. For African American families especially, who have faced decades of discriminatory lending practices and exclusion from homeownership opportunities, these programs represent a pathway to closing the racial wealth gap. When we invest in homeownership, we're investing in economic mobility, self-sufficiency, and the American dream.
NeighborWorks has also been a trusted partner in communities across South Carolina and the nation for nearly 50 years and is critical for supporting local capacity for housing development and homebuyer assistance. Mr. Chairman, at a time when families in every district are struggling to keep up with rising housing costs, this body should be expanding housing opportunities, not slashing them. This amendment restores full funding for programs that work and that have bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject the false choice between fiscal responsibility and housing opportunity. The cost of backing down from making housing more affordable and accessible for Americans is too high.
I support this amendment and yield back.
Speaker 166
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Ranking Member DeLauro's amendment and I thank her for this amendment. I feel I have to remind my colleagues on the other side that housing is a human right. By cutting funds to housing programs, more people will end up unsheltered. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program was cut by $750 million, 60% below FY26.
For 34 years, this program has helped over 1.8 million families find a place to live. It's unconscionable that Republicans would disrupt a program that has done so much good for our communities. Now 27,000 fewer, fewer, fewer affordable units will be developed in 2027 and tens of thousands more of our constituents will be in the streets. At a time where it's harder than ever for everyday American families to find affordable housing, being able to access the counseling provided by the HOME program can be the difference between getting a good deal or being taken advantage of by the market. The national average age of first-time home buyers is 40 years old.
Home buying used to be viewed as a natural component of the American dream. For many people now, however, it has become a luxury and even a pipe dream. It wasn't always like this, nor should it have to be. Once again, how do these cuts make life for American people better? I've lost count how many times I've asked that question.
I support the ranking member's amendment and I encourage everyone who cares about the housing crisis we are definitely in to do the same. Thank you and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks the gentlelady for comments. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member. I rise in support of the ranking member's amendment to restore funding for several critical housing programs that help families find and maintain safe, affordable housing. First, the amendment restores funding for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. The proposed reduction from 1.25 billion to 500 million would significantly weaken one of the federal government's, our most effective tools for expanding and preserving affordable housing. For many states and local governments, my own included, HOME is the only reliable source of funding available to support affordable housing projects.
At a time when communities across the country are struggling with housing shortages and rising costs, cutting HOME by $750 million will make it harder to build the housing families need. The amendment also restores funding for the Housing Counseling Assistance Program. Purchasing and financing a home, you might remember it yourselves, can be a complicated and overwhelming process. This program provides counselors at every stage of the homeownership journey, from preparing to buy a home to avoiding foreclosure during times of financial hardship. Finally, the amendment restores funding for the NeighborhoodWorks, for NeighborhoodWorks America.
As communities nationwide confront housing affordability challenges, NeighborWorks continues to be an essential partner in developing practical, locally-driven solutions. The proposed $33 million reduction would undermine a program with a proven track record of success and it jeopardizes investments that help expand access to affordable housing across this country. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I do thank the ranking member for her lifelong commitment to housing equity. Thank you, I urge support and I yield back.
Speaker 167
Thanks the gentlelady for comments. Gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, is recognized to address the amendment.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you for offering this really important amendment that seeks to mitigate the harsh housing cuts in the bill. The rising cost of living has increased the burden on people who aspire to own their own homes. And if ever there was a time when housing programs are needed, surely it is now. More and more Americans simply cannot afford to purchase a home, ask any realtor. And worse, the younger generation even wonders if they will ever be able to consider even purchasing a home.
By cutting this funding for the HOME Investment Partnership, this bill limits opportunities for families to build wealth through homeownership. This legislation cuts housing counseling in half. And that means people who've never owned their own homes have an even less chance to develop the equity that increases with homeownership. And this bill pulls back existing assistance that helps families achieve homeownership. This legislation slashes investments in programs that expand affordable housing, which would mean thousands of affordable housing projects nationwide would go undeveloped.
I met a woman the other day, she goes, Marcy, I finally, she's 80 years old, she gets $1,420 a month in her Social Security, and she was able to get into a National Church Residences dwelling. And she was in her wheelchair and she was so grateful. And that was because of these programs working together. It just really made my week. It even guts eviction prevention grants that help keep Americans in their homes.
This is completely unacceptable at this time in particular. When you remove pathways to homeownership and building wealth, you make many Americans feel trapped, and indeed they are. We need more homeownership counseling assistance that educates potential homebuyers on how to successfully achieve homeownership. But this bill cuts funding granted through the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to organizations like NeighborWorks America. NeighborWorks supports homegrown initiatives that develop innovative housing designs and teach individuals in local communities how to maintain their homes.
I have seen this program work in Lucas County, Erie County, and areas across my Northwest Ohio district for people of all ages. And within Ohio, in fiscal '25 alone, NeighborWorks organizations operated 10,796 affordable rental units, helped 486 families achieve homeownership, provided housing counseling to 2,399 households, and created or sustained 1,703 jobs. This support helps to maintain and revitalize communities and increase the availability of affordable housing for more of our community residents. The proposed 12% cut in funding will negatively affect the network of nearly 250 local organizations that support this critical work from coast to coast. And I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment.
Let it reaffirm our commitment to housing for all Americans across the United States and the well-being of our national economy so dependent on a thriving housing market for all generations to come at a time we all know it is needed more than ever. Please vote for the DeLauro amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 99
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HOME is cut $750 million, 60%. Housing counseling, $32 million, 55%. NeighborWorks, $33 million, 21%. Eviction and prevention grants are completely eliminated.
I'll tell you what is fiscally irresponsible. It is voting for a bill that provided $4.5 trillion in tax cuts to the richest and to the biggest corporations. Imagine what we could have done with an allocation if we hadn't pandered to the richest and the biggest corporations by providing them that tax feast. We wouldn't be in the situation we are here today.
Available housing, affordable housing is where economic potential begins. People are demanding help with the cost of living. If people cannot afford a home and keep a stable place to raise their children, they cannot succeed or they cannot get ahead in life. Stable housing impacts a child's ability to succeed in school, a parent's ability to keep a job, and the health of the entire family. Homeownership is not only critical to the formation of wealth for families, but also the foundation of safe and stable neighborhoods.
Addressing the cost of housing will require a deliberate, strategic effort including federal investments and understanding of how people are living today and their economic stress. This amendment keeps that effort alive to provide affordable housing. I urge your support for the amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 168
Thanks gentlelady, the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Opinion of the chair the noes have it.
Roll call.
Tom Cole
Roll call is requested, sufficient support has been demonstrated, the clerk will call the roll.
John Carter
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt no, Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar aye, Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford no, Mr. Amodei. Mr. Amodei no, Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice no, Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop aye, Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert no, Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter no, Mr. Case. Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani no, Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline no, Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud no, Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn aye, Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde no, Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole no, Mr. Cuellar. Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro aye, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart no, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards no, Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey no, Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar aye, Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Espaillat aye, Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann no, Ms. Frankel. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin no, Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest no, Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder aye, Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris no, Mrs. Hinson. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer aye, Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey aye, Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce no, Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur aye, Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota no, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Meng. Ms. Malloy no, Ms. McCollum. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin aye, Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Meng aye, Mr. Molinaro. Mr. Molinaro no, Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore no, Mr. Morelle. Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan aye, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse no, Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez aye, Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree aye, Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan aye, Mr. Quigley. Ms. Quigley aye, Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler no, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers no, Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford no, Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive no, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson no, Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong no, Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres aye, Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood aye, Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao aye, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz aye, Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman aye, Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack no, Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke no.
Mark Pocan
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote, gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cuellar aye.
Gentlelady from Florida. This Florida.
Ms. Frankel aye.
Gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Lee aye.
Mark Pocan
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote, seeing none the clerk will tally.
Ms. Frankel, I.
Gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Lee, I.
Speaker 56
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. How's the gentleman from New York recorded?
Tom Cole
Thank you, sir. On this vote, the I's are 27, the no's are 32, the amendment is not adopted. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Womack to offer Republican en bloc amendment.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Chairman Womack is recognized to explain the amendment.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This en bloc amendment includes bill and report changes that would further strengthen the underlying bill. The amendment prohibits the flow of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate and coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security to keep us safe. It also requires the Department of Transportation to maintain drug testing requirements for safety-sensitive positions, like air traffic controllers. So I encourage a yes book, or yes vote, on the Republican en bloc, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I find it ironic that while the President touts support for the 2026 FIFA World Cup and leading a White House task force, members of his own party would strip all federal funding from host cities because you all can't seem to get on the same page. This amendment would eliminate all transportation and housing funding to at least seven FIFA host cities that may not comply with federal law enforcement immigration tactics. We need to be investing in transportation infrastructure in these cities at a time when they are facing a massive influx of visitors using their roads, transit, and airports, not stripping their money away. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to debate federal immigration policy, leave it to the appropriate bills and committees of jurisdiction.
The transportation and housing appropriation bill is not the place for this debate. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.
Tom Cole
Do other members seek recognition to speak on the en bloc amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for... oh, I'm sorry, gentleman from Georgia is recognized to address the amendment. Thank the gentleman for his comments.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I rise in support of Chairman Womack's Republican en bloc amendment, which includes one of my amendments, and this amendment is a straightforward common sense amendment and is long overdue. My amendment is simple. Not one dollar of federal transportation and housing funds made available by this act shall go to any local jurisdiction that refuses to notify the Department of Homeland Security in advance of the scheduled release of an illegal alien in their custody. That's it.
Just tell DHS when you're releasing a criminal alien so federal agents can do their job. If you won't do that, if you will actively hide that information and let dangerous individuals walk out the door before ICE can act, then you do not deserve the hard-earned federal taxpayer dollars of the American people. Sanctuary policies continue to devastate our nation. Innocent Americans going to work, driving their children to school, living their lives, killed by illegal aliens who had already been in local custody or who were already known to law enforcement and who were released back onto our streets without so much as a phone call to federal immigration authorities. These are real families torn apart by tragedies that were entirely preventable.
Each and every life taken by an illegal alien in this country is a preventable death. They should not be here in the first place. And when local governments actively obstruct federal law enforcement from doing their jobs, they become complicit in whatever follows. President Trump understood this. That is why, on April the 28th of last year, he signed an executive order protecting American communities from criminal aliens, making clear that the obstruction of federal immigration enforcement by state and local officials is, in his words, a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of federal law.
The order directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and take action to cut off their federal funding. My amendment puts that same principle directly into this appropriations bill. Let me be clear about what my amendment does and does not require. It does not mandate that localities hold illegal aliens indefinitely. It does not require that local law enforcement to act as federal immigration agents.
All it requires is a phone call. Advance notice of when a particular illegal alien is going to be released. That is the bare minimum of cooperation with the federal government. That is the least a jurisdiction can do to keep our communities safe, and if they refuse even that, then they should not receive federal funds. Democrats will tell you this is cruel.
They'll tell you this is un-American. But let me tell you what is cruel and un-American. Shielding criminal illegal aliens from deportation at the expense of innocent citizens. Letting a violent offender walk out of a local jail without giving ICE a chance to pick them up. That is cruel.
That is un-American. That is what sanctuary policies do, day after day in jurisdictions across this country. The federal government's authority over immigration is not a suggestion. Local officials do not get to pick and choose which federal laws they will honor, and Congress has both the authority and the obligation to use the power of the purse to enforce that principle. Remember, states officially ceded that authority to the federal government back in 1789 when they ratified the Constitution.
Every member of this body has a choice to make today. You can stand with the American people, with the families who have lost loved ones to preventable crimes, with the communities that deserve safe streets, with a president who is fighting every single day to restore the rule of law, or you can stand with the sanctuary politicians who put illegal aliens first and American citizens last. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us send a clear message that if you refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, if you actively obstruct the deportation of criminal illegal aliens, you will not see another federal dollar from this bill. And I yield back one minute.
Speaker 170
I thank the gentleman for the time. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
I just wanted to, if you'll forgive me, words matter.
The words we use matter. I'm really lucky, I have a group of high school students that I meet with quarterly from all over my district, from freshmen through seniors. And literally we met this week, and they wanted to ask me about the SAVE Act. And one young woman in particular said, "I don't really understand this language." "Why does it keep saying illegal alien, illegal alien, when we're talking about the eligibility to vote?"
And I said, "Well, what do you think it means?" "Well, it means something really bad." "It must be a really bad person." "But I think actually when we're talking about legal eligibility to vote," this young woman said, "I think they're simply talking about non-citizens." "But they don't want to say non-citizens, they want to make them less than."
"And so they call them illegal, and they call them aliens, and they call them criminal." With no basis, with not factual basis. Words matter, folks. Let's abandon this illegal alien nonsense. And let's talk about citizens or non-citizens.
Let's stop making people others. I'm tired of it. Words matter. We're better than this. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize Chairman Womack for one minute.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strengthens the underlying text. I want to thank the members who helped write the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment prohibits HUD from implementing the establishing flexibility for implementation of work requirements and term limits proposed rule, which adds burdensome red tape to critical HUD housing assistance programs to keep seniors and families off the streets. Like the big ugly law, this proposed rule is based on a false stereotype that people who receive housing assistance don't or refuse to work. But time and again, data overwhelmingly show that those receiving housing assistance that can work, do work. In fact, studies of work requirements in SNAP and Medicaid show that these policies don't improve employment numbers, and in fact, they lead to many eligible people losing out on assistance.
So what's the point of this rule then? HUD's proposed rule allows public housing authorities to impose requirements and term limits for receiving housing assistance. The rule gives public housing authorities broad discretion in designing these restrictions, including the decision to terminate assistance. Just in case the pain of rent increases, utility bills, and insurance was not already making affordable housing a struggle, now if you do find it through an assistance program and try to start saving or getting back on your feet, you can be kicked out for being there, quote, "too long."
Not only will this lead to a patchwork of inconsistent policies across the over 3,000 public housing authorities, creating mass confusion for tenants, the rule also directly harms seniors and puts them and their families at risk of homelessness. For example, while the proposed rule claims to exempt older adults age 62 and over and people living with disabilities, it still leaves their households exposed. If a younger, able-bodied family member fails to meet the requirements set by the whims of the PHA, the seniors in that household can be kicked to the curb as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. HUD's misguided rule also puts children at risk of homelessness.
Children. Unable to find or afford childcare so you can go to work? Too bad. Get laid off due to a downsizing? Tough luck.
And in total, this proposed rule puts 3 million people, more than half of them children, at risk of eviction and homelessness. And just because someone isn't using housing assistance doesn't mean the costs to the public go away. It's actually the exact opposite. Homelessness costs taxpayers an average of $35,600 per person per year, more than housing them in a $2,000-a-month apartment. This proposed rule is bad policy, hangs our nation's seniors and children out to dry, and it ignores the economic realities working families experience in their daily life.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks, the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? The gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is recognized.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. We should not be appropriating any funds that would support this cruel rule. The rule would allow rental assistance to be taken away from people who cannot meet a stringent 40-hour work requirement per week or if a household reaches a time limit on assistance. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always said work requirements aren't such a burden, yet it's well-documented these requirements decrease enrollment simply due to strict documentation burdens and administrative red tape.
It feels odd that eliminating red tape only comes up for businesses in areas like financial services or in the energy sector, but not for the neediest of people. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has reported that nearly 3.7 million people are at risk of losing rental assistance due to this rule. This includes 1.9 million children. We cannot let this happen. Housing remains unaffordable for so many.
As the cost of everything continues to rise due to the actions of this administration, they are now making it even harder for those who are struggling to even keep a roof over their heads. This amendment is to reinstate some humanity in what we do as a body and to ensure we're not forcing people onto the streets. I'm proud to support my colleague's amendment and I hope that everyone else in this room does the same. Thank you, I yield back.
Tom Cole
I thank the gentlelady, and the chair apologizes to the committee. I was so intimidated by my friend from New Jersey, I forgot to go to the chairman and the ranking member first. But as I said, you know who I'm afraid of, and it ain't these guys up here. With that, the chair recognizes Mr. Womack to respond to the amendment.
Steve Womack
What a spell Ms. Watson Coleman has over our distinguished chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose the amendment.
HUD's new proposed rule allows PHAs to help existing residents reach self-sufficiency and move out of HUD-assisted housing faster, making housing available for other eligible families in the community. It just makes sense. Now, local community leadership knows what's best for its residents in need. In my home state of Arkansas, state law requires Arkansas PHAs to implement a 20-hour per week work requirement. This new regulation from HUD will make it easier for PHAs like those in my district to fulfill these state requirements while also complying with federal law.
So I think it makes a lot of sense what we're trying to do, and so I oppose the amendment, and I urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time.
Thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman would like you to know that I am familiar with that emotion that you have about my good friend Ms. Watson Coleman. But I rise in support of this amendment. HUD's proposed rule will allow for potentially sweeping work requirements and time limits on rental assistance that could put millions of people, including children, at risk of eviction. The Trump administration has repeatedly put forward proposals to implement work requirements and time limits.
Congress has rejected those proposals on a bipartisan basis. The administration cannot and should not move forward on this major policy change, the potential impacts of which HUD has failed to fully address without proper authorization from Congress. The evidence we do have about the effectiveness of work requirements and time limits does not support the extremely stringent limits and requirements that this rule would allow. 74 million people work in occupations that pay less than the minimum wage required to afford a decent one- or two-bedroom apartment at market rates. When working people are pushed out of their homes and after they hit an arbitrary time limit and still cannot afford to rent in the private market, where will they go?
Who will foot the bill? How many mayors and governors contend with the potential rise in homelessness? How many people will lose assistance simply because of challenges navigating additional red tape? These questions remain unanswered. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida. Federal rental assistance programs are a lifeline for more than 10 million Americans, including families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. HUD's rulemaking would allow public housing agencies and providers to impose work orders and time limits on rental assistance. While this rulemaking may be intended to promote self-sufficiency, the evidence suggests that it is far more likely to increase housing instability than employment.
The reality is that many recipients already work or care for children or family members or seniors, and time limits are just another tool for this administration to take housing away from those who need it most.
The consequence of losing this assistance is severe. A two-year time limit could result in more than 3.3 million people, 3.3 million people in this country losing their housing assistance, including an estimated 1.7 million children. At a time when housing costs remain unaffordable for millions of Americans, Congress should be strengthening housing stability, not creating new barriers that put families at risk of losing their homes. I urge support for the amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 32
Thanks to the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Florida is recognized for one minute to close.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HUD's proposal, their rule is just another cruel and misguided policy designed to punish our most vulnerable neighbors. That's the bottom line. At a time of exorbitant rent prices and homeownership increasingly out of reach, we should be making it easier, not harder for families to keep a roof over their head. Instead, this administration prefers to make households with seniors and children jump through hoops just so they can have a clean and safe place to sleep at night.
We know work requirements do not work, and we know they often cost more to implement than providing full access to the benefit. Nevertheless, President Trump is back to his old, old playbook: demonize the poor, pull the rug out from under them, and then blame them for the fall. I hope my colleagues won't let this administration do that in their names or on behalf of their constituents. I know I certainly won't allow it on behalf of mine. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
John Carter
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline, no. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
Ms. Dean, aye. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat, aye. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrieve.
Mr. Shrieve, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Speaker 177
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from Oklahoma.
Mrs. Bice, no.
Mr. Joyce, no.
Gentlelady from California.
Mrs. Torres, aye.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I wish to be recorded as a no.
Speaker 184
Nice catch. Are there other members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Oh, gentlelady from Connecticut.
Tom Cole
On this vote, the ayes are 24, the noes are 32, the amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud is recognized for an amendment.
Michael Cloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do I need to waive the reading of it, I guess?
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Michael Cloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first of all, I do want to thank Reps Representative Celeste Maloy and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez for helping nail down the language on this and for Chairman Womack for giving us the space to do so and work on it through the day. This amendment defunds the kill switch provision that mandates technology in cars that would passively monitor the performance of drivers and potentially prevent or limit motor vehicle operation. This has become and rightfully so a great concern of citizens across the country as they see the potential for their rights to be impeded through an altruistic and and noble attempt to to stop drunk driving. As technology tools advance in their capabilities, we are going to have to be very careful to distinguish between what we can do and what we should do.
And I think this is one of those issues where we have to be very careful about what we are going to mandate on most of the American people in order to no doubt stop what is a great evil in in drunk driving. A kill switch though, the way it works is that basically there would be technology in cars and vehicles that would be mandated under the current provision that could be cameras, that could be sensors on the steering wheel, that could be anything that you would basically it would monitor you before turning on the vehicle to make sure that you were okay and ready to drive.
And that sounds good and noble and right. Except that that technology is still there to continue to collect data and to continue to monitor and to continue to do all those different kind of things for law-abiding citizens, for citizens who are doing right, for, you know, teetotalers who never drink a drop of alcohol at all. That's all still in there to make sure to continue to collect data. And then there's the question of how that data's used. What happens to it as it continues to collect data?
Who owns it? Where does it go? No doubt will eventually end up on the market and be sold to the highest bidder. We have to remember, of course, that our Constitution was written for a couple purposes. One was to distribute power and to make sure that it's not collected, that it's not coalesced.
And we have to be careful to make sure that we're protecting our liberties and the liberties of the people that are enshrined in the Constitution. And so it is extremely important that we push back on this kill switch, that we continue to protect the liberties and the American people, and that we do not give the federal government or other entities the power to limit the ability of Americans to use their motor vehicles. And just imagine the false positives that would come from this. Basically, you end up having someone who's innocent proven guilty who has to then prove their innocence just to go to work that day. This is of a concern and why we have to be very careful about where we're headed.
And just one thought on where we're headed, you know, as we deal with this issue and other issues. You know, I bought a scale the other day because it monitored, you know, 20 different things about your health and God knows at this age I'm really having to start to do that and exercise and make sure, especially with all, you know, the snacks everybody brings here in Appropriations Committee. But then I opened it up and to be able to use it, you had to download an app and open an account. And then when I researched the company that was doing it, it was a company from China. So basically this was a data collection tool that would send all our data somewhere else.
And in this world where, you know, our vacuum cleaners are mapping out our houses or our lawnmowers and, you know, we already know our phones listening to us and all the different technology that is coming into our world, we need to be careful that as we address the very real problems that we are trying to address as a country, we don't create a world where we're essentially the nodes of data gathering for, you know, the big AI entity down the line to where we just exist in the sense as data gatherers. So this amendment kills the invasive motor vehicle kill switch and I urge support. Yield back the gentleman's minute, however much time.
Tom Cole
Gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Womack is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Steve Womack
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise to support the amendment. And let me just begin by saying how grateful I am for my colleagues, Mr. Cloud and Ms. Malloy, for collaborating on the text of this amendment. I think they got it right. The kill switch issue's become quite controversial in the last few years, and this bill does its best, or this amendment does its best to strike the balance between two key principles held by our conference: keeping families safe on the roads and stopping needless government overreach. And I understand the concerns raised by both sides.
We want NHTSA to keep reviewing available technologies while ensuring that any resulting safety standard will protect against government overreach and preserve consumer data and privacy rights, the very things that Mr. Cloud talked about in his amendment. And I think this amendment strikes the right balance. So I urge a yes vote on the amendment and, Mr. Chairman, yield back my time.
Speaker 134
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, but I'm a little bit confused here. I think I agree with everything the author of the amendment has said to say about the intent. But it is mandated that the automobile industry move forward with these developments in this science in trying to get to where we need to be. So why, if we want not to be overreached, don't reach at all? Just leave this alone and let the research continue to move as it's going.
I can see us now trying to figure out whether or not the impeded person is in the driver's seat or the passenger seat. We tell people don't let your friend drive drunk. So if I put my friend, not you, my friend in the passenger seat and this technology picks up that he's or she's inebriated, I'm dead sober, would be strange, but I'm dead sober trying to navigate. So why would my car not be allowed to work? I'm trying to carry this friend who's had too much to drink home.
So let's let the technology that they're trying to develop continue without our involvement. That's what we're doing here. So I don't know why we're trying to strike any kind of a balance here. Let's just get out of the way and let the science do its work. I will ask my side to please let's just say no to this amendment and let the process continue unimpeded.
I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. I must say from the description it sounds like a situation he's not entirely unfamiliar with. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke to address the amendment.
Ryan Zinke
Gentleman yield? A question. The way I'm reading it, and I understand the drunk driving part, but what it may spill out is technology that enables any state, local, or federal agency, contractor, subcontractor, or grantee to remotely access any, any data generated or transmit from any motor vehicle. What does that mean? Well, there's non-GPS, there's fleet vehicles that track vehicles, UPS that tracks trucking companies, there's automated, semi-automatic, semi-automated, there's unmanned vehicles that work in the pits.
So we transmit data from vehicles all the time, to include emergency response transmissions. So if it was just limited to drunk driving, I could see it, but it seems to me that there is this extends well beyond drunk driving to just vehicle operations. And so if it doesn't do that, then I need to be, I think it needs to be clarified. Do you, gentleman from Texas, do you see this as, you know, number three and number four spilling out of drunk driving and just transmitting information from a vehicle or a fleet vehicle? That's, that could be a problem.
Michael Cloud
It's it's the study. If you read the studying technologies capable of the context of it says right above it, the Secretary may study technologies capable of preventing drunk driving deaths that do not do the following. So it would be the that's a limiting factor on technology that for the study of technology that prevents drunk driving deaths. So it says let's continue the studying. You know, there's a lot of good work that's been done.
You know, we can think of ride sharing apps, we can think of self-driving technology and those kind of things, but let's do it in a way that's not invasive for the American people. And so this is meant to be to prohibit the study of creating mandates.
Speaker 186
Does it prohibitive does it prohibit the actual action of transmitting data? Because if it does, there's a lot of fleets out there that do that.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. Well, actually, the gentlelady from Connecticut is next and she's recognized to address the amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thanks very much. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires rulemaking to standardize drunk and impaired driving technology in new cars once a rule has been finalized by the Department of Transportation. More than 30 people in the United States die every day in drunk driving crashes. That's about 12,000 people a year and they're mostly preventable deaths. But the but the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law does not prescribe a specific technology.
It allows research and data to drive innovation to prevent impaired driving. Just this February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, what they did was they submitted a report to the Congress acknowledging that the technology necessary for rulemaking is still in development. This builds on two reports that have been published by NHTSA, the transportation safety. And this was in 2024. They identified a broad range of technologies intended to detect or measure alcohol or other measures of impairment.
There are a number of complexities involved in the technology, but there that but that is what is currently underway is to research so that in fact we are not infringing on people's rights or collecting data that can be used elsewhere for any other reasons. What this despite the there is so there's ongoing work here. And this amendment, what it would do would halt the actual testing of the technology that is already underway, moving the goalpost and inserting scare tactics on what should be an independent research-driven process. I want to find out what I think we all ought to find out the results of where they want to go, which would then we can examine what they have, but it's taking time because it's sensitive and it is complex. Using the appropriations process to delay or in any way impede the development of technology to prevent drunk driving, I think it's inappropriate and it's reckless on our part.
You know, you have organizations, I would just tell you, Mothers Against Drunk Driving oppose this legislation. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, I repeat, oppose this legislation. Organizations like the National Safety Council, they have been opposed in the past eff- in past efforts to delay any kind of rulemaking.
Look, we all have constituents, if not family members, who have been impacted by drunk or impaired driving. In one year alone, we know that drunk driving has led to 178 deaths in Washington State, 177 deaths in Texas, 53 deaths in Utah. We should not be preventing the Department of Transportation from engaging in this life-saving rulemaking. Let the processes underway, let it continue, let's not have the appropriations process delay what is moving forward. I strongly oppose this amendment and I yield back and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.
Thank you.
Tom Cole
Thank gentlelady, gentleman from Texas, Mr. Carter's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 190
In Texas, when you get your fourth DWI, it becomes a felony and I tried felony cases. So they would come into my court and they came up with this new great idea that they could hook up this thing to your car and in order to start your car you had to blow into it. It was just that simple. It wasn't magic like this where it's analyzing everything, it's just blowing it. If you blow in it, you've been drinking, you're not going to drive your car for a quite a while.
Well this guy was a laborer, I'd put him on probation with that provision. It was brand new to us and he pulled into this little service station outside of Georgetown, kind of between Georgetown and Round Rock, and they served homemade hamburgers there. And he went in and he bought a hamburger and he parked his large truck in front of all the little places where you get gasoline. And he ate a hamburger with that much onions on it. Okay?
He liked onions. And he had a guy riding with him from the time he got in the car so they knew he hadn't been drinking before this time. He went out and blew in his machine and it beep, knocked out the truck. So they didn't know what to do, the guy's business was blocked, this huge truck was in there and he hadn't been drinking. So he called over to the courthouse and talked to the probation people and they said, well we don't believe you.
He said, well somebody better come get this truck because it's blocking this man's business. Then the guy got on the phone and said, I want that truck out of here right now. So they sent two people over there to test him and they tested him and he didn't have any alcohol. But they still couldn't get the truck to move, so they actually went in and ripped it all out of there so they could get it to go. And so there are real problems that can happen from something like this and I happen to have experienced one and actually thought it was real funny but it wasn't funny to those guys.
I thought I'd share that with you.
Speaker 109
Only in Texas. Just out of curiosity Judge, does that mean you're for the amendment or against the amendment?
Not really sure.
Speaker 187
What I want to know is what's onions. Gentlelady from Ohio's recognized, top that if you can.
Marcy Kaptur
Boy, I don't know, it's getting more complicated as the day goes on.
I just wanted to, I come from auto country. And these studies are going on now, and we better trust the people that attempt to know what they're doing. It's a lot harder than it sounds. But I just wanted to point something out. I support the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but according to, I went through AI here, take it for what it's worth, it says texting while driving is six times more likely to cause an accident than driving under the influence.
But every year drunk driving claims approximately 10,500 lives. Distracted driving involving mobile phones cause over 3,000 deaths, but 330,000, a third of a million, injuries each year. So, with all the things the automotive companies are worrying about, and frankly the expense of technology in these cars now, I think half the cost of a car is all this technology. There's so many gizmos on the car now. We need to be able to make an affordable American car and put technology on there that would create, you know, a safer experience for drivers.
I think my advice would be, if anyone's interested, and I co-chair the Auto Caucus, let's have some of these auto companies in. This is the Appropriations Committee, not the Authorizing Committee. And see if we can't do what's safe for everybody as well as affordable, and see where the research is. So my contribution is coming from auto country, do no harm. Do no harm, try to figure out a way to create a safer vehicle, deal with the public, deal with the automotive dealers.
The issue of price is significant. Deal with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This is more than I think we can solve here tonight. Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record and thank you very much.
Celeste Maloy
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Gentlelady from Utah, Ms. Maloy is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate my colleagues working with me all day on trying to find a solution that meets all of the needs we have here. So I'm hearing a lot of my colleagues say we need to let this study continue, we need to see what the technology can do, and that's exactly what this amendment does. So preventing drunk driving deaths is a worthy goal. We all share that, nobody wants anyone driving drunk.
And it is also true that anti-impairment technology mandate, the anti-impairment technology mandate in the IIJA is too broad and it presents too many opportunities for abuse. We also ensure that the important research into anti-impairment technology that NHTSA is working on can continue. So my colleagues who are urging us to let that continue, that's what we do. But we're also clarifying what Congress expects from them as they're doing this research. So as they're studying, we say study the technologies that can prevent drunk driving deaths, but here are a couple of things that are not available: a kill switch and technology that shares driver information with agencies they're using that.
We want the study, we just don't want the technology to be abused. And some of my colleagues have rightfully pointed out that the technology doesn't actually exist yet. So why would we mandate a technology that we can't verify isn't being abused because we don't know how it works yet? If we do nothing, this mandate goes into effect next year. So what we're doing is saying we want you to continue to study, but here are a couple things we don't want included in that study because that's not how we want to solve the problem.
When I'm in Utah, every single time I go talk to constituents, somebody asks me about this.
The public is very concerned about this. And I was meeting with new car dealers earlier this week who are concerned about a mandate to have to sell cars. And to my colleague's point, cars are getting more and more expensive, they're getting more and more technology. And car dealers are concerned that if they're mandated to put new technologies in cars that make them more expensive, that Americans are going to stop buying cars. And so what we're trying to do with this amendment, which is bipartisan and which we've been negotiating all day, is make sure that we do accomplish the goal that Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others have of studying technologies that can help us prevent drunk driving deaths.
And at the same time, telling them what we expect out of that study to make sure that whatever they come up with is something Congress can accept. And for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And we can move forward and make sure that drivers are safer on the road, that we are preventing drunk driving deaths, but we're not doing it at the expense of Americans' privacy, because I am hearing loud and clear from people out in the country that they are very concerned that this will violate their privacy. And we have a responsibility to address those concerns. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized to address the amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that this amendment has been defeated on the House floor with large bipartisan majorities for the last several years. Let me just be clear, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is totally against this amendment. And the HALT Act that was passed as part of the IIJA is technology neutral. The kill switch reference that proponents of this amendment and limiting the technology that the agency is able to review is always the scare tactic that is used.
There is nothing in the HALT Act that allows for a kill switch to be used. This does not push towards a kill switch, it doesn't say anything about a kill switch, it will not create a kill switch. That is not what the result of these studies would be. I have to make that clear. Additionally, Congress's process when a rule is implemented and we want to overturn that rule because we disagree with it is to use the CRA.
The Republican majority has put CRAs on the House floor multiple times this Congress. And so if the agency comes out with a rule that includes technologies that we don't like or an implementation process that we don't like, we use the CRA process to repeal it. That is the remedy available to us. But allowing this study to go forward in a technology neutral way so that eventually the best technology to ensure that we don't have more heartbreak, more deaths, more tragedy is absolutely essential. The financial cost of drunk driving is astronomical, the emotional toll is incalculable.
It is incomprehensible to me that proponents of this amendment and this language here in Appropriations and on the House floor continually distort and fabricate what actually is likely the result of these technology reviews. No such thing as a kill switch, that's not the intent, and that's what's argued every time because it's the scariest thing that can be said. So members on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, supported the HALT Act requiring car manufacturers to install drunk driving prevention technology as standard equipment in new vehicles. And ultimately, that's what was voted for when this provision passed in the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Now, some might argue that the government shouldn't be putting this life-saving technology in cars because, you know, maybe you think it infringes on a person's privacy. But no one has the right to potentially fatal behavior that has proven to be a major threat to public safety. The Constitution does not give you the right to drive drunk. And passing drunk driving technology could save more than 10,000 lives per year and prevent hundreds of thousands of life-altering injuries. But the importance of this technology goes far beyond numbers and statistics.
It's about saving lives, preventing heartbreak, and proscribing ahead of time the kind of technology that cannot be reviewed just makes it less likely that we can get the most effective technology in place to ensure that people who might make the wrong and poor choice and decide to try to drive drunk cannot. So this amendment sabotages the work that is already underway to review the technology and seeks to ensure that we get nothing out of this process when Congress voted for action. So the language was crafted and, and despite what once may, what some may say, there is no kill switch requirement in this language. I want to underscore that again. It was entirely silent on what technology would be selected and we empowered experts, not appropriators, but experts to identify the best solutions to save lives.
That this amendment seeks to do the opposite and it cherry-picks the most unserious examples of potential technology to attempt justifying throwing roadblocks in the way of road safety. We should oppose the amendment, let the experts do their jobs, and when the technology is selected, if Congress needs to come back to make a correction or change course, we can do that. We're Congress, we have that ability. We shouldn't decide that in advance and hamstring the experts from being able to come up with the best solution to this really terrible and deadly problem. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 192
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Andy Harris
Thank you very much. I, I do want to support the amendment because the specific language in the bill in the IIJA says that whatever you do has to prevent or limit motor vehicle operation. Well, that's a kill switch or a maim switch. I mean, that's it, that's the language in the bill. But I want to point out, we've talked about drunk driving.
That's great if this discussion was 20 years ago or 15 years ago or 10 years ago. But in the largest study of trauma victims in a trauma center, serious injuries following motor vehicle accident between 2019 and 2021, 4,200 patients were tested for alcohol, cannabis, or opioids. 22% had alcohol, 25% had cannabis, 8% had opioids. That was in 2021 before the explosion of recreational marijuana. Now the gentlelady from Ohio points out quite correctly that now we also have distracted driving.
The gentlelady from Connecticut used the correct terms because she called about, she said drunk and impaired driving, which is actually what it says in the bill in the IIJA. If we concentrate only on drunk driving and, and obviously opioids, marijuana or cannabis and alcohol have different physiologic effects, will be picked up in different ways in behavior. Why are we only concentrating on drunk driving? It should be drunk and impaired driving. I'm not sure we're ready for prime time yet.
This does imply a killer maim switch. I think this language is just right. Keep studying it, keep looking at it. That's what we need to do. But we can't forget that the biggest threat now is probably cannabis and distracted driving.
We've made remarkable headway on drunk driving. It's not, it's not solved, still thousands of tragedies, but let's not lose sight that there are other things we have to worry about that are now increasingly prevalent. I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, is recognized for comments on the amendment.
Pete Aguilar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield time to the ranking member.
Rosa DeLauro
I thank the gentleman. Let me, we just received this communication at 9:29 p.m. Good evening. Tonight, Representative Cloud will introduce an amendment that would prohibit funding for NHTSA's rulemaking proceedings to implement the bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act. MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, unequivocally opposes this amendment in bold, okay?
It will undermine a historic bipartisan law that will save more than 10,000 lives every year. Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot compromise the implementation of a law fought for by thousands of victims and survivors of drunk driving crashes. The HALT Drunk Driving Act does not, does not authorize the government to remotely control or activate a kill switch in vehicles. It does not create GPS tracking or government surveillance of a personal vehicle. It does not allow law enforcement, any third party, to access or shut down vehicles remotely, does not allow continuous monitoring of drivers, does not give the government or any third party access to personal driving data.
What the HALT Drunk Driving Act does, it requires NHTSA to establish a vehicle safety standard similar to seatbelts, airbags, automatic emergency braking, and other crash prevention technologies that Americans now rely on every day. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is willing to work with any member of Congress to preserve the HALT Drunk Driving Act and address critics of the law who have cited concerns over government surveillance and remote control of vehicles. The clarity of this from the organization that has established the safety standards in driving and that we all subscribe to has said to, and this is an urgent message, urgent, vote no on the Cloud amendment to defund the HALT Drunk Driving Act. I hope my colleagues will heed what Mothers Against Drunk Driving have said tonight and vote no on this amendment. In fact, the studies need to continue and as our, my colleague from Florida said, we will have the opportunity to review those and if we don't like it, we just say no.
Thank you and I yield back. I thank the gentleman.
Speaker 194
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, is recognized to address the amendment.
Stephanie Bice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it very clear, and I'm going to yield the balance of my time to my colleague, but we are not defunding this and we are not, we are not repealing the HALT Act. We are making some changes to it to ensure that we have all of the information we need to be able to make the right decision in the future. And with that, I yield the balance of my time to Ms. Malloy.
Celeste Maloy
Thank you. I just want to clarify one more time that I am in favor of studying how to prevent drunk driving deaths. So Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been saying for a year, since we voted on this a year ago, that this is a study and there's no kill switch. So we're clarifying language because in IIJA, in section 24220, it says that new cars have to be sold with technology to prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected. That's language that needs to be clarified.
So we are saying, as my colleagues have pointed out, Congress can amend this at any point.
We can clarify what we mean at any point. This is a point at which I want to clarify that we support studying how to prevent drunk driving deaths. And that study should not include active technology that will act as a kill switch or something that will transmit technology from your car to an agency that will prevent you from having your day in court, having your due process. We're trying to make sure that whatever they study, they don't waste time in studying something and bring it back to us and we say, that violates American civil liberties, go start over. So we're telling them now, while they're doing the study, that we want them to find ways to prevent drunk driving deaths that do not violate the civil liberties of Americans.
And several of my colleagues have just argued in favor of that and then said they oppose this amendment. So I just want everyone to take a second. I know we've been here for a long time today. Everybody's getting a little tired and maybe grumpy. But I think we've all said we want the same thing here.
We all want to figure out how to prevent drunk driving deaths and we all want to make sure that those answers don't violate Americans' privacy rights. So we're clarifying that now before they have a final product and we have to go make them change the final product. That seems like the kindest way to do it to NHTSA and the most fiscally conservative way to do it so we're not doing this twice. And it is worth reiterating that the people who sell cars are also concerned about this. When the government mandates something, it has consequences for people who are out there working for a living and we should be very conscious of that and not sit here in our ivory tower and say we know what all the answers are and we don't need to take input from the people who are on the ground trying to market these products.
And with that I will yield back again.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Thanks to the gentlelady, and the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say to the author and the collaborators, I understand where you're coming from and I think your motivations are good. Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to drunk driving. But I do rise in opposition to this amendment. And in fact, let me read you some statistics.
Texas is home to five cities with the highest rate of drunk driving fatalities and unfortunately my community has the dubious distinction of being the top offender. Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Arlington all have alcohol-related crash fatality rates between 46.3% and 51.9%. In El Paso that number is 61%. We should not be standing in the way of options provided to Congress. As my colleague from the state of Florida mentioned, we will have the ability to say no to technology that we think goes too far.
In my community, my constituents think Congress isn't doing enough to stop drunk driving. Vehicles are weapons when an impaired or drunk driver is behind the wheel. And absolutely, there's different forms of impairment, for sure. Distracted driving, texting while driving, changing radio stations, other drugs, and we have to think about that as well. But the statistics show that someone has driven drunk 80 times on average before they are finally caught.
And this is a crisis in many communities. There is no kill switch right now. Frankly, one of the organizations in my community, the Sober Streets movement, would probably love a kill switch because they are a club no one wants to be a part of. They have lost children, spouses, loved ones to someone who didn't bother to order an Uber, a Lyft, or get a ride home. There's a lot of work we have to do as members to create safer communities, and I want to look at the menu of options.
That's what the language in the bipartisan bill did. When we get the options before us, we can then debate those options. But why would we place limitations on something that is a crisis in many communities right now and the research that's going in to finding solutions? I'd like for us to do more, not less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 196
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Chair, I'd like to yield my time, yield my time to the gentlewoman from Florida.
There's just no way around that. Thank you, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Let me be clear. Dressing it up as a no-funds amendment doesn't change the fact that what this amendment does is it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. What the proponents of this amendment are trying to do is repeal the HALT Act.
Just because you throw in the word "except" does not change the core part of this amendment. You're blocking them from implementing the HALT Act. This is the Appropriations Committee. Doing this as a no-funds-can-be-spent amendment is trying to turn a policy issue into an appropriations issue. This is not the place to be making a major change in a federal law that the full House has repeated, has repeatedly defeated when we've debated this on the House floor.
This is a law that was passed. It is, there's a process that is taking place where technology is being studied, and trying to do an end run around the fact that the proponents of this amendment and the industry behind this amendment has been unable to defeat it on the House floor, has been unable to pass it on the House floor, sneaking through the back door in the Appropriations Committee where we don't have the expertise. We, it is 10:00 at night, debating an issue through a no-funds-can-be-spent to implement this amendment is, is really irresponsible and dangerous. So I urge opposition to this amendment. It is late at night.
This is not the appropriate way to pass a significant policy. We need to do this in the light of day, and we need to not do this in the Appropriations Committee where this is a policy decision that needs to be made either in an authorizing committee or on the full House floor like this is usually debated and discussed. Thank you, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentlelady.
I yield back.
Marie Perez
Thank you. Gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Perez, is recognized to address the amendment.
I rise in support of this amendment. And look, like we're all talking about what the intentions of MADD are in this. If it is not the intention of MADD to have a kill switch, let's confirm that we're not going to fund a study of a kill switch. You all have heard, like, we own an auto repair shop. I got calls relentlessly from vendors trying to get us to agree to install the onion detection devices.
I saw people losing their jobs who were trying their damnedest to get their life back on the track because they couldn't get these things serviced appropriately. Now the failure of technology, look, I think we should not continue to put our eggs in the basket of a techno-optimist solution to what is a crisis. It is a crisis and a stain on this country that we are continuing to have deaths from drunk driving. I'm in the club of people who have lost family members to drunk driving. This is a stain on our country.
We also have tools to address this, like funding law enforcement appropriately. What about that? Tools that we know work, that don't incur the potential real incursion on privacy. And I will say, if you get online and look around, there are tests of this kind of system that are triggered by driving on a gravel road, your eyes darting around, your car hopping over potholes. Imagine driving your spouse to the hospital while they're in labor.
Do you want to have the detection system get triggered by that? Pursuing a techno-optimist solution to a very real crisis, you know, the idea that we're going to find technology that will solve the human failing of drunk driving has not provided the solution that we've looked for, it has not addressed this. You know, things that we do know that work to prevent deaths in automotive accidents, look, like when you look at the data, if you dig deep on the data of drunk driving deaths, you'll find a strong correlation to people who are driving old unsafe cars, people who don't have side airbags. You know, there are a lot of solutions to address the scourge of drunk driving. And I think the work that's been done here to clarify that the kind of remote monitoring, kill switches, let's just be clear what we don't accept as a solution to this problem and fund what we do know works: law enforcement, alcohol abuse programs, access to transportation.
All of those things are proven viable methods. So I support the amendment and I support the work to end drunk driving deaths. I yield back.
Glenn Ivey
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey, is recognized to address the amendment.
I thank the chairman and my colleagues who have worked on putting this legislation together and those who've expressed their views about it on both sides. I've got multiple concerns about this, and this is just off the top of my head because we haven't had any hearings or anything like that to figure out where this stands. When the judge started out on his story, I thought he was going to go into a different direction there, but I was a prosecutor about 15 years ago plus, and one of the things we had was drunk driving is a serious issue. One of the steps the police and courts took was to put the blow machines on the steering wheel so you couldn't start the car until you blew in.
As Dr. Harris mentioned, impairment is another piece that's been there and it's growing in a variety of ways. I don't know if anybody's just mentioned exhaustion. People fall asleep and have accidents. I almost lost a friend a couple of weeks ago. She just fell asleep while she was driving.
So, I think trying to figure out if there are ways to address that, and I'm not afraid of the technology doing it necessarily because I think you can separate that out from the privacy issue depending on how you gather and use the technology. But I think that we ought to give them a chance to study it and see what they come up with. And if they come up with something that makes sense and it's good, we can implement it. If we don't agree with what they come up with, and I don't think a study would come up with just a single solution by the way either, they'll probably come up with multiple solutions that we can either accept or reject. You could even imagine a scenario where different jurisdictions, let's just stick with the law enforcement piece because I think it takes the privacy issue out of it.
Once you've had your fourth DUI as the judge referenced, you don't have a privacy protection with respect to being able to drive a car again, right? And from the standpoint of public safety, since a lot of these people, you know, alcoholism is an illness, so it's sometimes they need help being stopped in doing whatever it is that they're doing. This might be a really good way to do it. This study might turn up something that's extremely helpful in doing that. So I wouldn't be for shutting that down.
Number two on the list, in-vehicle technologies to monitor or transmit vehicle operational, location, biometric, or behavioral data. Now let's say monitor for example. So Dr. Harris's point about impairment, you can't necessarily detect it just by if you have a blow machine in the car, but you may be able to develop a machine that can detect it by what it perceives the person doing. And I know that's where they're going with respect to the sleepiness piece because they've been working on that for years. In fact, I had a client who was working on that ten years ago.
So wouldn't that be a good thing if they can come up with a study, if they come up with a device that says, you know, somebody's about to fall asleep, the beeper goes off? Why would that be a bad thing? We've got cars now where if you're about to make a left turn or change lanes and there's a car there, it beeps. If you swerve onto the lane, the yellow lane, it beeps. I don't think that's bad stuff.
I really don't. So, you know, I'd be very inclined to let the studies go forward, let's see what they come up with. If we don't like it, we can make a decision then. And I'm deeply troubled right now by what we're essentially doing is we're going on anecdotal information. That's what I'm stuck with anyway.
I haven't heard from any experts testify on this. I haven't heard any prosecutors or judges talk about this. I haven't heard the automakers talk about it. I've heard what people say the automakers are saying and I'm not saying you're wrong, but it'd be nice to hear it directly to be sure. And I'd love to hear the public safety people too.
I'm old enough to remember back when cars did not have seatbelts and I remember the arguments against it at the time, right? Now I don't think there's any dispute that when we put seatbelts in cars it saved probably millions of lives at this point. My kids can't even imagine when I was telling this story, they're just like, there was a time when you didn't have seatbelts in cars? Yeah. Or the bags that, you know, come out when you make the, when you have impact, airbags.
Why not allow the studies to go forward and see what they come up with and then we can make rational decisions based on expert information and testimony in my view and then make the decision, then use the power of the Congress to make a decision about what should go forward. And maybe there are ways to actually increase public safety and protect the privacy interests. Maybe we can try and do both things. But one thing we know tonight, we're definitely not going to know, we don't have crystal balls, we don't know going forward. Let's see what we get when we do the studies.
And I yield back.
Speaker 197
The gentleman does not have any time left. Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the issue? Gentlelady from Illinois is recognized.
Speaker 198
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I'd be delighted to yield to my colleague from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur.
Marcy Kaptur
I thank you very much for yielding, dear gentlelady from Illinois. I just wanted to put this on the record since I figure the auto industry will be listening to all this on both sides because here's my complaint as an American. And I travel as you do all the expressways and everything out in the Midwest where we got more racetracks than you can imagine. But there are people, what I really want in a car, I want a button right on the front dash. And when somebody goes by me, two cars, one black, one white, going 95 miles an hour when I'm up on I-75 going to Detroit to the airport or something, I want to take a picture of that license plate.
And I want to send it to the police. Honestly, I do. Because what's going on when Mr. Congressman Harris talked about this, and this'll probably get me in trouble with somebody, but the impaired driving that I see happening, I can guarantee you one reason it's happening is because in places like I represent, people can't afford to pay for driving lessons. Costs $400. They can't do it.
So they somehow learn how to drive and they don't drive very safely. But it's extremely dangerous. And I'm not going fast enough to pursue them at 95, I don't want to go 95. But there's something really wrong. Have any of you, raise your hand, have any of you ever confronted that kind of racing team?
There's usually two of them, one black car, one white car, they go like this in between the lanes, they don't even know how to stay in the lanes. And they're going well over 90 miles an hour. You've never confronted this? Anybody? Okay.
So so this is getting worse. And I don't know what the impairment is, Dr. Harris, I like your words, but it is extremely dangerous. I don't know if they're drunk, I don't know if they're on drugs or whatever it is. But I just wanted to say that to the automotive company because I haven't had a chance to tell their CEOs. So thank you very much to the gentlelady for yielding.
Speaker 199
You know, I appreciate Ms. Kaptur for giving us a summary of the Fast and the Furious franchise. There's 10 movies that detail exactly what you have experienced, Marcy, it will blow your mind. No kidding. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 109
I thank the gentlelady and I hesitate to disagree with either of the last two, but I can almost certainly assure you anybody in the auto industry is watching the Spurs and the Knicks right now, not this hearing. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is Mr. Cloud is recognized for one minute to close.
Michael Cloud
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's been a lot of talk about this being a study that needs to continue and I'll just read the IIJA language. The Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing federal motor vehicle safety standards that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured by the effective date, which is next year, to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology. And then it also defines what it means by drunk and impaired driving technology, says passively monitor the performance of a driver, prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.
I will say that airbags, seatbelts, child locks do not do those two things. And so it's important for us to remember why we are here. While we are working to protect and make roads safer, for all the differences in this room, I do not think there's one individual in this room who would wish that the child of anyone be killed by a drunk driver. It's horrific. We don't want to see that happen.
We want to do what we can to prevent it, which is why the study is allowed to continue under the guise of not conflicting with our constitutional liberties. But two Mondays ago, I stood on a field draped with flags and we laid ribbons on hundreds of crosses of sons and daughters who also didn't come home from their kids to see their families. And those people died protecting our liberties. It's important that we remember that as well. While we want to do what we can to be safe, our first job as a government is to ensure that our citizens remain free.
And we have to do what we can to make sure that we push back on this kind of encroachment. And so I urge the passage of this amendment. And I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. All those in favor say aye.
Tom Cole
Roll call's been requested, sufficient support has been demonstrated. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, aye. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, no. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, aye. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, aye. Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice, aye. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, no. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, no. Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Cline, aye. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Clyde, aye. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, aye. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, aye. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, aye. Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Frankel, no. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, aye. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, aye. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, no. Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris, aye. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson, aye. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, no. Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey, no. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, aye. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur, no. Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, aye. Ms. Lee.
Mr. Levin, no. Ms. Malliotakis.
Mr. Moore, aye. Mr. Morelle.
Mark Pocan
No. Mr. Mervan, no. Mr. Newhouse. Aye. Mr. Newhouse, aye. Ms. Perez. Aye.
Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree. No. Ms. Pingree, no. Mr. Pocan. No. Mr. Pocan, no. Mr. Quigley.
No. Mr. Quigley, no. Mr. Reschenthaler. Aye. Mr. Reschenthaler, aye. Mr. Rogers. Aye.
Mr. Rogers, aye. Mr. Rutherford. Aye. Mr. Rutherford, aye. Mr. Shrieve. Aye. Mr. Shrieve, aye. Mr. Simpson.
Aye. Mr. Simpson, aye. Mr. Strong. Aye. Mr. Strong, aye. Mrs. Torres. No.
Mrs. Torres, no. Ms. Underwood. No. Ms. Underwood, no. Mr. Valadao. Aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
No. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mrs. Watson Coleman. No. Mrs. Watson Coleman, no. Mr. Womack. Aye.
Mr. Womack, aye. Mr. Zinke. No. Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 56
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will tally. I do not believe the gentleman from Tennessee has been recorded.
Tom Cole
Thanks, gentlemen, on this vote the ayes are 33, the noes are 26, the amendment is adopted. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk and I move we dispense with the reading.
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Thank you. Uh, I know it's late and we have several amendments to go, so I can make this relatively easy for everyone. Uh, this is a program I've talked about before. I've mentioned to many of you that I live on an island, it's 12 miles off the coast of Maine and I ride for an hour on a ferry to get home, like everyone else who lives on the island. There are programs within this bill that provide grant programs to ferries for things like the vessels, the terminals, the docks, and related infrastructure on both sides, the mainland and the island or wherever the ferry is traveling from.
They amount to about $40 million and they were eliminated in this year's budget. So, we can make it easy, just put the $40 million back, and I'll sit down and go home. Yeah, literally. I'll call it a night. Ferries aren't a luxury, and many of your states have ferries.
We all depend on a variety of things that get federal funding for transportation. I was thinking about it. You know, we travel on the highways, we use the airports, many of us travel on Amtrak, we use mass transit, buses, subways, light rail. Maybe you've got cable cars or trolleys in your town.
I don't know what it is, but each one of those are a vital part of the transportation in the exact same way that ferries are. So why in the world would we cut out the funding for this vital service to so many places? Now you may not even know that there are important ferries in your community, but many of our states have ferries. They cross from a mainland town across the ocean to an island. Sometimes they're crossing a river, they're on the Great Lakes, they cross sounds and bays to make transportation more efficient.
They are all over the place. Some of the states that have ferries include Massachusetts and California, Florida, Michigan, Delaware, New Jersey, Washington State, which has the most ferries of all, Alaska, North Carolina, Maryland, and so many more. There are ferries everywhere. People use them to get to work every day. In my community, people take the ferry to go to the doctor.
They go to go shopping. When I came over this week, I was on the morning ferry and the entire middle school was going to a track meet. You never know who's going to be on the ferry with you, but they are a vital service and they're essential to all of us. So I am just suggesting that we don't cut the funding for ferries. They're critically important and this amendment would just restore that funding to make sure the money is there for those communities that need it.
I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Womack, is recognized to address the amendment.
Steve Womack
I rise in opposition to the amendment and and I feel bad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do. I feel bad doing this because that damn blueberry pie with that ice cream on top of it, it was to die for. So, Ms. Pingree, help yourself to a couple of jars of huckleberry jelly and we'll call it even.
I can't support the amendment because it causes the bill to exceed the allocation. We can't do that. The demand and rate of obligation of either of these ferry grant programs does not justify the increase. Our bill through continuing contract authority levels from fiscal 26 for FTA includes 30 million for passenger ferry grants. The IIJA's division J appropriations provided 50 million annually for passenger ferry programs low-no set-aside.
It provided 200 million annually for the rural ferry program. In total, there's 916 million dollars left in unobligated balances between these two programs. So to throw more money at these programs would contribute to a problem we all know exists. And so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back.
Thanks to the gentleman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate my colleague's work in this area. We were able to work on the bipartisan basis to help advance your priorities as a part of the 2026 process. And I want to continue to work with you and the chairman to advance your priorities as part of a full year funding package for 2027.
And I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thanks to the gentleman. Is there any further debate on the issue? The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized to address the amendment.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Pingree amendment that would bring back the ferry boat grant program to FY 26 levels as she has expressed. I could not not stand because I represent Port Clinton, Marblehead, all ports, the Port of Toledo, ferry boats at all of these, Put-in-Bay, North Bass, Middle Bass, South Bass Islands, 59,000 boats registered on Lake Erie alone, more boats than all the other Great Lakes combined.
So ferry boats are important to us, the Miller Boat Lines, the Jet Express that takes thousand, tens of thousands of visitors all around the Great Lakes, including Lake Erie, to places like Six Flags at the center part of Ohio at Cedar Point. So this investment will ensure that we continue to have safe, resilient transit between Ohio and our islands, North Bass, Middle Bass, South Bass Island. It's not like Kingston, Ontario, and some of the Gananoque, those parts of the northeastern part of our continent, but believe me, we're busy and ferry boats are extremely important to us and they have all kinds of problems that need attention, such as new power systems, such as the ability to power up at the dock. I won't go into all of that, but for some time rising lake levels and severe weather have increasingly threatened ferry operations, so we need to have really modern boats. And without sustained investments, how will we safeguard vital routes for passengers, goods, and emergency services out to the islands?
In the winter, people don't leave the islands, they live on the islands. During the summer, we have thousands and thousands of visitors. In recent years, extreme weather events and record high water levels on Lake Erie have underscored the need for robust infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted access to the islands, including for emergency health issues. A small but important community in my district called Port Clinton is a hub for recreation and tourism. And a few years ago, some might remember federal investment helped to repair the East Jetty that had been damaged during the Superstorm Sandy along Lake Erie's southern shore.
So this important restoration project helped to protect the shoreline and ensure Port Clinton Harbor can continue to support the region's boating activity and tourism and jobs. Additionally, as many of my constituents know all too well, many who live on the beautiful Lake Erie islands face missed doctors, dental, other appointments because of issues related to dock freezing for one of our main ferries from Port Clinton to the islands. And we used federal funds to help fix that problem. Now the Miller Boat Line ferry from our islands to Port Clinton is on path to running year-round regardless of the weather. Another project initiated by the Put-in-Bay Authority, one of our island's most popular summer destinations, created a designated maintenance berth.
And this illustrates the types of forward-thinking projects involving ferry transportation which they can achieve. The project and others like it will help to ensure that our Lake Erie island communities remain connected and thriving, and the improvements will also directly support the operations of Miller Boat Line, a primary ferry operator on Lake Erie. Ferry transportation is the primary affordable means of accessing South Bass Island, Put-in-Bay, Kelleys Island, and so many other Lake Erie islands. The infrastructure enhancement will benefit over 850,000 annual visitors and the islands' year-round residents. Finally, our Great Lakes region's economic strength depends on resilient infrastructure and diverse means of transportation because not all Ohioans can afford private charter flights.
Affordable year-round ferry service is imperative and I really would urge my colleagues, as this bill moves forward, to support the Pingree amendment and reaffirm our commitment to ferries and other creative and diverse modes of transportation, including on our Great Lakes waterway systems. I thank you all for listening and for your courtesy and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Before I recognize the gentlelady to close, I would just like to say we would just like one river or one body of water in Oklahoma worthy of a ferry. The gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm proud to come from a state that has plenty of water, so many times. I thank the ranking member for offering to work with me, and I will continue to see if there are ways we can make sure that we restore the funding in this bill as this process moves along. And I encourage all of you, the ferry season, the summer season is coming up. If you want a real taste of a ferry, you just come visit us in Maine.
We'll give you another blueberry pie and a lobster roll, and you'll get a ride on a ferry, and you'll come back convinced that you'll want to support this amendment. And I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading.
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
I rise today in support of my amendment, which strikes the exemptions from the prohibition of funds for automated traffic enforcement cameras included in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, in recent years across the country, the United States has expanded the use of automated traffic enforcement cameras for red light, speed, and stop sign enforcement. While this technology is often implemented for the purpose of enforcing the law, it gives way to serious constitutional violation, specifically Fifth Amendment violation. My primary concern is that these cameras create a presumption of guilt for the accused without any human evidence to confirm or deny the charges brought against the accused, except that the person owns a certain vehicle.
I am concerned with the complete reliance on technology to determine the guilt of a crime. In 2014, an investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that thousands of drivers were incorrectly fined for running a red light because of a technological glitch in the camera's technology. Currently, at least nine states explicitly prohibit red light cameras, and approximately eight states prohibit speed cameras. In many jurisdictions, these systems have also been struck down by state supreme courts for the very reason that automated enforcement undermines the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That is not the legal system upon which this country was founded.
While I was encouraged to see some restrictions on these automated enforcement measures included in this year's bill, I was disappointed that the provisions this year include multiple loopholes that jurisdictions can use to get around this important constitutional protection. In Tinker versus Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students don't, quote, shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Well, that same principle applies here. We do not shed our Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of due process in a school or construction zone. With the exemptions to the prohibition in the bill, anyone driving through a school or construction zone would shed their Fifth Amendment rights to due process by being subject to those automated traffic enforcement measures that make you innocent, excuse me, that make you guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
The truth is that this practice shouldn't actually happen at all. Constitutional protections are not subject to exemptions. You know, two weeks ago, we recognized Memorial Day, where we honored those who gave their lives to protect and defend our freedoms, to protect and defend our constitutional rights.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for the purchase, installation, or operation of these automated traffic enforcement devices. We must ensure that our constituents' constitutional rights do not depend on where they happen to be driving. I support increased law enforcement presence and stricter penalties in more sensitive traffic areas, but simply put, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars on systems that infringe upon our Fifth Amendment due process rights. Thank you, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Womack, is recognized to address the amendment.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I rise to oppose the amendment respectfully of my colleague. At the request of several transportation stakeholders, after we included this language in last year's House bill, we added a couple of common, what I believe are common sense safety exceptions for this provision: school zones and construction zones. So I think they're common sense. I fully recognize his argument about Fifth Amendment protections and that they don't stop at the school gate and in construction sites, but we have some real challenges right now around school zones.
We have real challenges, particularly real challenges in a lot of these construction zones that we all drive through, created in part because we appropriate money to help build better roads and bridges, and we have these construction zones everywhere. So I reluctantly oppose his amendment because I think what we have is common sense and should pass muster. So I recommend a no vote on this amendment.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my good friend Mr. Womack in opposition to this amendment. This is one of those blessed experiences that I spoke of earlier. Traffic enforcement cameras have been proven effective in reducing speeding and crashes, and state and local governments should have the autonomy to decide where or not, or whether or not they want to use them. They should also be able to decide where to use them.
According to the National Safety Highway Safety Traffic Safety Administration, 11,775 people were killed in speeding-related crashes in 2023. Studies show that fixed speed camera sites have reduced speeding-related crashes by almost 20%. According to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, cameras reduced the fatal red light running crash rate of large cities by 21%. And this amendment would specifically prohibit cameras in school zones, even though studies of speed camera programs in school zones have found reductions in speeding of up to 60%. School zone safety cameras contributed to a 15% reduction in crashes and a 17% reduction in injuries.
In 2024, nearly 100 roadway workers were killed in road in work zone incidents nationwide.
These workers face daily risks from speeding, distracted driving, and other dangerous behaviors in active construction and maintenance zones. Speed enforcement and red light safety cameras are a way to identify people who break those rules, just like traditional enforcement. They reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities. I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no. And I yield back.
Speaker 103
Thank gentlemen, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, Sheriff Rutherford, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 203
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Clearly, the restriction of federal dollars for protecting children in school zones and workers in construction zones is something that I think we have a responsibility for public safety. There is no Fifth Amendment violation here. If there was, in fact, a Fifth Amendment violation, what you would see is the Civil Rights Commission would be chalk full of cases being filed under 1983, and they're not. Nor are they being filed under 18 USC 242, which is a criminal violation of a deprivation of rights, you don't see that either.
That is a fallacious argument. Due process is guaranteed throughout this video enforcement process. Now, it's based on state laws and application of those state laws by the various law enforcement agencies. I'm not saying that you can't have mistakes being made, but it's not a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Due process from the time that a police officer views that video and says that there was a violation to the time that a judge hears that case in court and convicts or no bills, that's that is the way the process is meant to work.
And anytime you're arrested or cited, a case must be proven against you, and these cases are absolutely no different. In fact, safekids.org did a report. These these numbers are shocking. 25,000 children are injured every year in school zone incidents. 25,000 yearly.
NHTSA says on average 131 of those children die. I can't imagine a better use of federal dollars than reducing those injuries and those fatalities. And I'll say this as well, in many cases, the videos are actually used to not convict the alleged perpetrator, but actually to prove their innocence because a child darted out in front of them or whatever the case may be, but they had no personal liability for the for the accident. So it can actually help determine exactly what happened.
And lastly, I would say the video enforcement program is totally voluntary. If you don't want a ticket, don't speed. It's pretty simple. So I want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this child-endangering amendment. Vote no and help our children and our workers on the highways.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 60
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you. I respectfully very much disagree with my colleague here because what you have is a picture of a vehicle and a picture of a license plate. You have no idea who the actual driver is. And that's where the Fifth Amendment violation occurs because you don't know who the driver is. And that's the problem right there.
You only know what the vehicle is. And therefore, you're ticketing the owner of the vehicle and not the actual driver. So you're accusing someone and providing a penalty to someone who may very well have done absolutely nothing wrong. That's the problem where it is where someone is then accused of a crime and then has to prove themselves innocent. And that is guilty until proven innocent, and that is not the way our system, our legal system operates.
We are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. And that's what this amendment does. It restores that innocent until proven guilty and eliminates the Fifth Amendment violations. With that, I ask for a approval on this amendment, and I yield back.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman from Georgia. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
The gentleman really want a roll call? All right, the chair will render in favor of the noes. So the amendment is not adopted. And since I brought it up, you should know it was 76-76 at the end of the third quarter between the Spurs and Knicks. It is now 86 to 86 with about seven and a half minutes left.
So I know you're having a good time. I just want you to know other people are having a much better time. No, we cannot put that on the screen. With that, all right, I'm sorry. That was my fault.
I got us down that rabbit hole all by myself. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 205
Mr. Chairman, you did spur a thought that maybe I propose a rule change to give you a kill switch on debate after 10 o'clock at night.
Speaker 109
We will persevere and finish the bill. It's up to you guys how long it will be, and I mean everybody here collectively.
Speaker 204
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent to dispense of the reading.
Tom Cole
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 205
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would simply restore funding for the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing, or the PRO Housing program. Mr. Chairman, the PRO Housing program creates a competitive grant program to fund state and local governments who remove barriers to building housing.
It incentivizes local governments to encourage building more housing. According to the National Association of Home Builders, regulations add 24% to the final price of a single-family home and closer to 40% for multi-family homes. While we have a shortage of 4 million homes across the US, which is driving up home prices and rents. In Chicago, we have a shortage of 100,000 affordable houses. We have to build or preserve more homes more cheaply to restore the American dream.
As I travel across our city, families and young people trying to buy their first home and builders express the frustration of lack of supply and how hard it is to build. When I got out of college, the average age for the first-time homebuyer was 28, it is now 40. The cost per unit for affordable housing is around 800,000 in Chicago. That is higher than market rate. And that is true across the country as a whole.
This is unacceptable. We have to bring these costs down. And the way to do that as the federal government is to offer incentives to local policymakers willing to cut the red tape. The PRO Housing program will incentivize localities across the US to take steps that will produce more housing. For example, it will encourage localities to streamline permitting.
I talk to builders who tell me it now takes up to a year just to get the building permit. Time is money when it comes to housing, so we have to shorten the time frame. The PRO Housing program will also incentivize localities to update their zoning laws to allow more units, particularly near transportation. Let's be clear, the PRO Housing program does not force localities to allow giant apartment complexes in single-family neighborhoods. It does not even encourage this.
The funding of this program does allow localities to design regulatory reforms that fit their communities and receive federal funding to help them make the case to their legislators. According to HUD, the grant program received 200 submissions from communities across 47 states, 11 times the amount of funding available. So the demand is high. That's why I'm requesting 100 million for this program, the amount included in this bill two years ago with bipartisan support. I also note that the program was cut from the House bill this year, but it was included again with bipartisan support at 50 million in last year's bill.
I also want to thank my colleague across the aisle, Mr. Ciscomani, for working with me on the FAST Housing Act, which sets up a similar program to incentivize localities to remove barriers. With today's housing crisis, the truth is Congress needs to use every tool in its toolbox. The American dream is built on the ability to own a home. Those of us who are baby boomers or even elder millennials were able to get into the housing market. But with the supply constricted and now interest rates up, we need creative solutions to buy more homes, build missing middle homes, homes for middle class and working families within reach.
As appropriators, I believe we need to do our part, and that means allocating targeted resources to encourage states and localities to cut the red tape and lower the house of construction. This program does just that, and I encourage my colleagues to support the American dream and this amendment.
Tom Cole
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Womack, is recognized to address the amendment.
Steve Womack
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I respond to the gentleman's amendment, let me just remind everybody in here that I'm told the over-under on the prediction market for us getting out of here tonight was midnight.
So roll call votes, long-winded dissertations, if you're in that market, you could be accused of insider trading. So let's speed this up. I rise to oppose the amendment. First and foremost, I don't support it because it's greater than the allocation. We've talked about that earlier tonight.
My good friend knows we've not funded this program in the FY26 or 25 House bills. It's a creation of Senate thud and something we accepted in FY24 conference that was a fact of life inclusion in the FY25 full year CR, a consequence of CRs rather than what we should be doing in good faith negotiations. I agree with the intent of the program. However, it's a nice to have when compared to the rental assistance and supportive set-asides we necessarily fund in this bill. As I've said, we had a tight allocation, but I maintain that this bill takes the right approach on funding the safety and essential HUD services necessary to care for our nation's most vulnerable.
It trims the fat at HUD, and to bust our allocation for this increase would be, in my strong opinion, irresponsible. I urge a no vote and I yield back.
Speaker 206
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am sure that all of us in here would like to have efficient and good government. Yet, this bill eliminates the Pro-Housing program, which helps communities build more affordable housing with incentives to cut red tape at the local level. We all know we are facing a housing crisis.
The cost of housing is untenable and the American people are struggling.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.