H.R. 8870, Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America's 250th Act (BUILD America 250 Act); and other matters cleared for consideration

These spin, these spin right off.

Testing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Room 2167.

I call the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to order. Pursuant to Committee Rule 6F and House Rule 11, Clause 2 HF, the chairman may postpone further proceedings today on any question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment in which a recorded vote of the yeas and nays is ordered. I'd ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's meeting. Without objection, that is so ordered. A bill and amendment text have been distributed electronically, and paper copies are also available here in the hearing room.

As a reminder, the committee may use an electronic voting system for any requested recorded votes. Today, the committee is considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870, The Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-Term Development for America's 250th, or the Build America 250 Act. Finally, I'd ask unanimous consent for the committee to use an amendments roster for any items under consideration by the committee. Without objection, that is so ordered.

All right. Our only item for consideration today is H.R. 8870, The Build America 250 Act. And I ask unanimous consent to discharge the committee, the subcommittee on Highways and Transit and Railroads and Pipelines and Hazardous Materials from further consideration of 8870. Without objection, that is so ordered.

I now call up the bill for consideration. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill is now considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Court, please designate an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Chairman Graves. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read and shall be considered as a base text for the purposes of further amendment. And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for my statement. Today we are marking up the most consequential piece of legislation this committee will work on, in this Congress. Which is H.R.

8870, The Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-Term Development Act of America's 250th, or the Build America 250 Act. One of my top priorities when I became chairman of this committee was to move a bipartisan surface transportation bill that provides multiyear certainty for states, local governments, and to address the needs of our roads, bridges, rail systems, transit systems, Everything. I'm proud that this committee worked together to find some common ground on this crucial bipartisan piece of legislation. This bill was developed with Ranking Member Larson, Highway Subcommittee Chairman Rouser, Highway Subcommittee Ranking Member Norton, and Rail Subcommittee Chairman Webster. I want to thank each of them for the tremendous leadership and work in providing and moving this package forward.

This bill was written following the input and thousands of policy requests we received, not only from members of this committee, but from the entire House of Representatives. This year is an inflection point in our nation's history as we take stock of the previous 250 years of American history and more importantly, imagine what the next 250 years are going to have in store for us. Much like the America 250 celebration this year, The bill is about moving forward and not moving backwards. Americans rely every day on the investments made by the previous generations, whether that's the rail system of the 19th century, the monumental bridges of the early 20th century, or the 70-year-old interstate highway system. Looking forward, it's clear that America must recommit itself to building and maintaining the foundational infrastructure that underpins our nation's surface transportation system.

I believe that this is the most important surface transportation bill since President Eisenhower built the interstate system. That's because we have a duty to not just preserve and hand down President Eisenhower's infrastructure legacy, but to build the next generation of world-class infrastructure for our children and our grandchildren. The Build America 250 Act is a bill that both honors that legacy and ensures that we can build upon it. And it makes smart and targeted reforms to our surface transportation programs to ensure they focus first and foremost on building out our core infrastructure systems for decades to come. It drives innovation across our highways, our transit and rail networks.

It strengthens safety on our roads, gives states and local governments the flexibility they need to deliver for their communities. It cuts through federal red tape to get projects built faster, and it keeps America's commerce moving. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, this bill delivers for your district and for your constituents because it delivers for every single American. I'm most proud of the resources this bill devotes to bridge construction and repair. At more than $50 billion over the 5-year authorization period, the Build America 250 Act is going to provide the largest single bridge investment in America's history.

And current— at current investment rates, a bridge built today will have to wait until America's 375th birthday to be replaced. And that's unacceptable. The millions of Americans who drive every day over obsolete bridges in poor condition deserve better. And this bill will supercharge bridge investment to build and rehabilitate tens of thousands of bridges in reaching every single congressional district. The Build America 250 Act also recognizes we cannot wait any longer to begin addressing the fact that our Highway, uh, Trust Fund isn't keeping up with its needs.

The bill ensures that electric vehicle owners, just like all other users of the highways, begin paying their fair share into the Highway Trust Fund with an annual registration fee, the first new revenue source for the Trust Fund in more than 3 decades. This bill also looks ahead to our future and provides a first-ever federal framework for autonomous motor— autonomous commercial motor vehicles in order to safely integrate them into our roadway system and provide regulatory certainty for their burgeoning industry. Finally, this bill makes an historic commitment to America's great cities and its small towns, ensuring that large public transit agencies are held accountable for improving passenger safety security and accessibility while delivering record investments in rural roads, small community transit, and the freight corridors that connect America's heartland and the global markets. H.R. 8870 Is a bill we can all be proud of, one that I believe will stand alongside other great infrastructure achievements of the last century and serve as a foundation for the next century.

And I want to thank everyone for being here and for all your contributions and hard work. Pulled this bill together. I especially want to thank Rick again for the continued partnership that we have, not only in this bill but obviously other pieces of legislation that, that we've worked together on. And I look forward to a productive markup today and moving this legislation swiftly to the House floor. And now recognize Rick for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Graves, and for scheduling the markup. Thanks for your partnership on this bill. It has been a long, uh, long journey to get to this point and appreciate where we are today. I can't think of a better way to celebrate Infrastructure Week than to mark up the Surface Transportation Bill. But in fact, every day is Infrastructure Day in Washington State's 2nd Congressional District, which is why today is especially exciting for me.

I do want to go back in time a little bit because from the first roads that Paul Revere used to tell us the British are coming to the establishment of the post roads to the establishment of the Cumberland Road, which became I-70, to the transportation communication revolution of the early 1800s. Just fast forwarding to 1956. And of course, in the last 30 to 40 years, from ICE-T and Safty Lou and BIL to today, Congress has been very aggressive about identifying the transportation infrastructure needs of this country and taking action in Congress to support those needs. So passing a strong REOF bill today on time brings certainty, industry, industry stability and jobs, continuing economic growth in the United States. Just think back to the last surface bill that we passed as part of the bill, which supported more than 116,000 projects across the country in every congressional district.

The bill also created 700,000 new jobs in construction and engineering and transit and trucking and rail. These dollars mean stronger, newer infrastructure and safer, more efficient travel options in the communities we represent. The Build America 250 Act is a product of months of negotiations and thousands of policy ideas from constituents, stakeholders, and members. Now, while the bill we're marking up today does not reflect everything I wanted or what Subcommittee Ranking Member Norton wanted, there still is yet a lot to applaud. And I'll be supporting the bill, barring anything too great here, and opposing amendments that undermine the agreement.

Reasons that we should support this: provide strong funding levels. It's $375 billion in guaranteed Highway Trust Fund dollars for highways compared to a combined $350 billion in Highway Trust Fund and advance appropriations for highways in the bill. There's $87.5 billion in guaranteed Highway Trust Fund dollars for transit, which was substantially higher than the Highway Trust Fund amounts in the BIL and just nearly matches the $91 billion in total BIL transit funding. There's higher funding for tribes and territories, and we work with what we can control in T&I Committee and provide authorized, authorized funding levels for rail of $64 billion, comparable to the guaranteed funding level in BIL. We maintain key labor and Buy America protections.

We preserve the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. So that socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses will continue to benefit from federal infrastructure investments. We allow local communities to meet their unique needs by investing nearly $83 billion over 5 years in local communities, including $11 billion specifically for local bridges. Guarantees funding for competitive programs important to local governments like the Safe Streets and Roads for All grants and the new Surface Transportation Accelerator, Accelerator grant. We sustain safe, reliable, and accessible transit through robust bus funding, support for ADA-compliant transit stations, and permitting reforms to expand transit service.

It supports clean transportation and the environment through $1 billion in charging and low-emission fuel infrastructure, higher investments in the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, or CMAC program, and maintain eligibility for some climate-friendly investments and we avoided a punitive EV fee. It creates the nation's first rulebook for autonomous commercial motor vehicles. This AV framework is important, ensuring that we put safety and drivers first and hold manufacturers accountable as we chart a path forward in this new technology as it applies to, to commercial vehicle service. Improves rail service by allowing states to use a portion of their highway dollars for equipment and stations on state-supported routes. It advances rail safety by accelerating the phase-out of dangerous tank cars and mandating railroad participation in the confidential Close Call Reporting System, among other provisions.

Now, we have more work to do, especially on rail safety, and I hope we can achieve that through today's amendment process. In addition, the bill also contains several provisions that are important to the folks I represent, including investment in culverts, $932 million in dedicated funding for the construction of ferries, It includes my bill to authorize $250 million for communities hosting international sporting events, including the World Cup. But with the LA Olympics coming soon, the potential of the 2031 World Cup, Women's World Cup in the US, and the 2034 Utah Olympics— I apologize to my friends from Utah if I got the year wrong, but we need to start making those investments now— and makes funding available for projects improving veterans' access to VA facilities. So Throughout this process, we fought to at least maintain current funding levels for surface transportation modes, save lives through accountability, accountability measures and highway investments and strong rail safety reforms, and focus on people by protecting transportation jobs and defending worker safety gains. I'm pleased with the work we did to support these goals.

Now, I will note that Chair Graves and I have served in Congress together for more than two decades, and I have valued our partnership. And I'm pleased once again that we have managed to beat most of the odds and deliver a bipartisan surface transportation bill. So with that, thank you, and I yield back. Chairman Rouser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Build America 250 Act makes critical investments in our nation's roads, bridges, and infrastructure that Americans rely on every day, strengthening the foundational programs of our surface transportation systems. This bill protects American taxpayer dollars, ensuring federal funds are deployed efficiently to address our most pressing infrastructure needs. Under this legislation, more than 90% of highway funding will be distributed through formula programs, providing states the certainty and flexibility they need to address their unique infrastructure priorities. The legislation also consolidates and eliminates more than a dozen duplicative programs streamlines discretionary grant funding, reduces the bureaucracy, and improves accountability to improve project delivery. This bill expands department-wide categorical exclusions and streamlines the coordination of environmental reviews across federal agencies, among other reforms.

Together, these changes will cut burdensome red tape and accelerate the permitting process delivering projects more quickly and at lower cost. Notably, this bill provides the first new revenue stream for the Highway Trust Fund in more than 30 years, focused on those vehicles that currently do not pay into the trust fund. Very modest registration fees for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will help ensure everyone who uses our roads contributes to maintaining them. This is a small yet significant —first step towards addressing the structural deficit of the trust fund so we can continue to ensure America's infrastructure remains competitive, safe, and well kept. The bill also makes historic investment in bridges across the country, including $10 billion dedicated exclusively to locally owned bridges to support our rural communities.

In my home state of North Carolina, with more than 19,000 bridges, these resources will help the state and local communities with essential construction and rehabilitation projects. North Carolina has seen rapid growth, and our infrastructure must keep pace with that growth. This bill designates two future interstates in North Carolina, helping ensure we have the capacity to better meet the increasing demand in North Carolina's fast-growing population. The Build America 250 Act also enhances safety by making it a priority. The public deserves transportation systems and roads that that are safe, requiring transit agencies to focus on passenger safety, and leveraging innovative technology to make work zones safer.

This bill affirms safety is a top priority when we consider policies regarding the movement of people and goods. So I am quite proud to have helped develop this strong bipartisan bill alongside Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, and Ranking Member Norton. And I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we advance this very critical legislation through the legislative process. And I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their commitment to the bipartisan process that is going to lead to a very strong bipartisan bill that's great for this country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.

Ms. Holmes Norton.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I am pleased to support this bill. While this is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, and while as part of the Big Four agreement I might need to vote against amendments I otherwise support, I applaud the chairs and ranking members for continuing this committee's longstanding commitment to bipartisanship. And I yield back.

Chairman Webster. Chairman Graves, I'm pleased to join you and Ranking Member Larson, Highways and Subcommittees Chairman Rouser, and Highways and Subcommittees Ranking Member Ms. Norton for this important bipartisan legislation. Specifically, I'd like to highlight the importance of Title 10, the bill title addressing railroads and transportation hazardous materials. Railroads are critical to the safe and efficient movement of freight and people. The United States freight rail network Plays a vital role in an effective and efficient transportation of goods throughout our nation.

Approximately 40% of all long-distance freight is moved by rail. The products and commodities, including those shipped, shipments support industries and millions of jobs across the economy, particularly in manufacturing. In addition, the millions of Americans utilize passenger rail as an alternative means to highway or air travel. This bill makes important reforms that will improve both safety, efficiency of the nation's freight and passenger systems. This legislation modernizes the Federal Railroad Administration's regulatory processes, enabling new innovation and investment that will, will enhance safety and efficiency.

The bill also includes important reforms that improve the project delivering process. Millions wasted each year on red tape and other forms of needless bureaucracy are forms that are invested in buildings, infrastructure, real infrastructure, and creating real jobs. Those shoreline, shoreline railroads and passenger rail provides a vital and to my home state, Florida, and the legislation before us today will continue to support these important industries. Further, the bill addresses the transportation hazards of materials, and importantly, we work to regulate parties to codify a registration fee that fixes an error made by ILJ, and, um, that would result in burdensome registration fees. This legislation also consolidates hazardous materials safety grants and, uh, and simplifies the grant application process.

It also includes important safeguards to ensure United States safety standards for hazardous materials are not undermined by foreign competitors seeking an unfair advantage over American producers and workers. In addition to the wins highlighted in Title 10, overall the Build America 250 Act is legislation that returns our nation's investments to core infrastructure projects, makes the largest investment into bridges, and secures the first new revenue in Highway Trust Fund in over 30 years. For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Yield back my time.

Representative Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and Ranking Member Larson for the bipartisan spirit that helped shape this bill. While I appreciate the work that has gone into this legislation, however, there are some serious shortcomings that I hope this committee can address today. As the sole member of this committee representing New York City, I am deeply concerned that this bill fails to adequately prioritize rail and transit infrastructure systems that are essential not only to my district but to the economic strength of the nation.

For example, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor carries more than 800,000 passenger trips each day and serves as a backbone of interstate travel and commerce. Yet this bill falls short of the investment needed to modernize aging infrastructure, improve accessibility, address deferred maintenance, and ensure long-term reliability and resilience. At the same time, transit systems like the MTA continue to operate within a federal framework that disproportionately favors highways over public transportation. Despite serving millions of riders each day, and anchoring one of the nation's most productive regional economies, the MTA, like other public transit systems, receives a far smaller share of federal support than highways. This little— this legislation does little to address that imbalance or to provide the sustained investment needed to strengthen one of the nation's most heavily used transit systems.

When New York's transit network falters, the consequences extend far beyond the region. Affecting mobility, productivity, and economic performance nationwide. Yet this bill continues to lean toward highway expansion at the expense of stronger investment in rail and transit, an approach that is short-sighted and out of step with our transportation and economic needs. Rail and transit must be treated not as secondary priorities, but as core national investments. Just as important, This bill must include strong guardrails to ensure transportation laws are implemented faithfully and as Congress intended.

This legislation will mean little if the executive branch can delay, obstruct, or selectively undermine its execution. Over the past— over the past 16 months, this administration has stalled transit projects, withheld congressionally appropriated infrastructure funding, and injected politics into decisions that should be driven by public need and economic benefit, not political retaliation. New Yorkers know this risk firsthand. The Trump administration has baselessly threatened funding for the Gateway Program, one of the nation's most critical rail projects, attacked New York City's congestion pricing efforts, and shaped planning for revitalization of Penn Station through a closed-door process that prioritizes private interests and the highest bidder over transparency, public oversight, and the transportation needs of New Yorkers. If we fail to establish stronger oversight and protections against politically motivated delays or selective enforcement, we risk authorizing investments that communities may never fully receive.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen this bill and to better serve the transportation needs of New Yorkers and of all Americans. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of the Build America 250 Act, a bipartisan effort to strengthen America's transportation network, modernize critical infrastructure, improve safety, and ensure that federal investments are delivered efficiently and responsibly. This legislation recognizes a simple reality. America cannot maintain a strong economy, competitive workforce, and safe transportation system with outdated infrastructure and broken promises. The Build America 250 Act takes important steps to address those challenges while incorporating priorities that improve accountability, strengthen domestic manufacturing, protect workers, and enhance public safety. I especially appreciate the inclusion of priorities advanced by my office.

First, this bill reflects the goals of my bill, the Break for Kids Act. Illegal passing of stopped school buses continue to put children at risk every single day across this nation. Recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey data make clear that too many drivers either do not understand the law, are distracted, or simply don't care. The Break for Kids Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to implement a national public safety messaging campaign like the Click It or Ticket campaign to educate drivers about the dangers and consequences of illegal passing stopped school buses. Public awareness and education are essential tools to help prevent tragedies before they happen, and I am pleased to see that the school bus safety and public education efforts are reflected in this bill.

Second, the bill includes my Parity in Engineering Act. Federal transportation projects should operate under clear and consistent standards nationwide. For, for years, nearly every state has followed federal acquisition regulation-based guidance developed in coordination with AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration, except for Minnesota. Ensuring parity and consistency in engineering procurement protects transparency and creates a level playing field for firms competing to deliver infrastructure projects. Addressing broader aspects of the bill, I want to recognize that the bill maintains the consistent application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards.

There's been long— there has long been bipartisan recognition that federally supported infrastructure investments should support good-paying jobs with skilled workers. And as Congress invests in roads, bridges, transit, and rail systems, we must continue ensuring that workers helping build those projects are treated fairly and compensated appropriately. I also strongly support the bill's commitment to Buy American policies. Federal infrastructure dollars should support American workers, American manufacturers, and American supply chains whenever possible. Buy American requirements help create jobs here at home, strengthen domestic industry, and reduce dependence on foreign sources for critical minerals and manufactured products.

Finally, I want to highlight the critical issues this legislation addresses. Permitting reform. For too long, worthy infrastructure projects have been held up by years of delay, litigation, and uncertainty. Communities across the country have seen projects funded but never completed because a permitting process has become too unpredictable and burdensome. This bill takes meaningful steps to improve project delivery by streamlining reviews, reducing unnecessary delays, and providing greater certainty in the permitting process.

Reforms that establish clear timelines for judicial review and focus environmental reviews on the direct impacts of a project can help ensure that infrastructure investments actually translate into completed projects that benefit the American people. At its core, the Build America 250 Act is about long-term investments in America's future. It strengthens infrastructure, improves safety, supports workers, promotes domestic manufacturing, and helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and efficiently. This legislation reflects serious bipartisan work and incorporates many common-sense priorities that will benefit communities across the country. And I want to thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson and the rest of my colleagues for all their hard work on this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the Build America 250 Act, and Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Carson, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Larson, for both of your hard work along with the staff and thoughtful negotiations to bring us a good bill for markup. Although it doesn't have everything that each of us would like to see, it does preserve critical programs this committee has long supported, and it continues newer programs we've established in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which are so important for our communities. I am particularly pleased that my top priorities have been included for rail: overall rail safety, addressing block railroad crossings, including an incident database which I first called for in 2018, and more support to strengthen intercity passenger rail and Amtrak's national network. For transit, dedicated transit funding, new transit services, and transit safety, including bus facilities and personnel. For sustainability, clean transportation, EV infrastructure, and greener materials for infrastructure projects.

For workers, transportation workforce protection and development programs, plus other labor protections. For safety, active transportation programs like pedestrian and bike safety, and reauthorizing the Safe Streets Program for communities, increasing community participation in policy and implementation decisions, and economic participation through continued DBE programs. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues today on thoughtful amendments that can improve the base bill and hope we can work together to craft a final bill that we can all support. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This year marks 70 years since President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law. For Kansans, that anniversary carries a special meaning. President Eisenhower, who hailed from Abilene, Kansas, in my district, understood that a strong transportation network was essential to the safety, commerce, and unity of the United States.

His vision helped connect a growing country and gave future generations a highway system that changed the way Americans live, work, and move. 70 Years later, America's transportation needs have changed, but Congress' basic responsibilities remain the same. We have a duty to maintain a surface transportation system that allows people and goods to move across the country safely, efficiently, and reliably. Every district in America relies on roads, bridges, rail, airports, and freight movement. This is especially true in rural America.

In the Big First, our district alone has more than 83,000 miles of road, 4,000 miles of railroads, and the highest number of bridges of any district in the country—11,172. That infrastructure supports the farmers, ranchers, producers, manufacturers, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and families that keep our communities strong. When a rural bridge is closed, a highway is unsafe, or a freight route is inefficient, the consequences in rural America are real. A farmer may have to take a longer route to get grain to market. A rancher may face higher costs moving livestock.

A manufacturer may struggle to ship products on time. A first responder may lose valuable minutes reaching someone in need. Transportation policy in Washington has a direct effect on the daily lives of all Americans, and that's why it's critical that this reauthorization must get back to the basics. In recent years, Washington has created new programs, expanded existing ones, and spent money our country does not have. The Build America 250 Act gets us back on track, focusing our limited federal resources on the fundamental needs of our transportation system—roads, bridges, freight movement, safety, and the infrastructure that helps Americans get where they need to go.

I'm thankful that the committee included several of my priorities in this legislation to benefit not only Kansans but also Americans across the country. This includes provisions to better target impaired driving, permanent exemptions for our livestock haulers to safely move animals across our transportation systems, innovative improvements to prevent traffic incidents and ensure motor carrier safety, modernization of seasonal agriculture CDLs, and permitting improvements to speed up construction for vital infrastructure. America is a nation that builds. That spirit helped President Eisenhower, a proud Kansan, leave a transportation legacy that still serves our country today. The Build America 250 Act honors that legacy by focusing on the basics, respecting states, spending taxpayer dollars wisely, and strengthening the roads, bridges, and freight networks that keep America moving.

I strongly support this legislation, urge my colleagues to do the same, appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's work, and look forward to supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you and the Ranking Member and your incredible staff for working with us to bring this bill forward. I especially want to thank Claire Schenken and my office, not only for helping move my priorities, but for helping coordinate all the different interests that were involved in the chapters that deal with railroads. We know it feels like just yesterday that we enacted the most significant infrastructure investment in our nation's history when we passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That law has been transformative in my district. In Las Vegas, we're building a high-speed, zero-emission train from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, Southern California.

Safe Streets for All grants are improving our pedestrian infrastructure and saving lives in an area that had a high rate of accidents and deaths. The airport's seen major upgrades, making the first and last impression on the 55 million passengers who fly through Las Vegas for tourists, tourism and business every year. Protect grants are helping us become more resilient against the ravages of extreme heat. We've already hit 104 in Las Vegas. We've built bicycle stations and lanes to give people a safe, healthy way to get around, get out of their cars and use other modes of transportation.

Now, this committee is responsible for reauthorizing that watershed law because it expires in September. So we have an important decision to make. Will we continue to build on this progress and move forward, or will we slip backwards and lose that investment that we have made so effectively in infrastructure? I know many of my colleagues would agree with me that the bill before us today is not perfect, but it has some vital provisions that do build on that progress. And so I'm very happy to report that.

Uh, in the highway chapter, I'm pleased that there are several provisions that I authored. First, my Thermal Runaway Reduction Act creates a $2 million per year grant program at PHMSA to test effective strategies to extinguish thermal runaway. It also requires the federal government to update regulations for the commercial transportation of lithium-ion batteries, which is increasingly a problem. There are provisions based on my Buffer Act to increase the spare bus ratio cap so RTCs around the country can help buses run on time during extreme heat. Make safety improvements, as you've heard, in school zones from the Protect Our Students Act.

300 People— children have already been hit by buses in Clark County. This year. And there are provisions based on the MOVE Act to help families make more informed decisions about e-bikes and e-scooters, keep children out of the emergency room. I've already seen at UMC in Las Vegas a 400% increase in head injuries from riding these new transportation modes on our streets. And it also includes vital programs I've championed like Safe Streets and Roads for All.

I love the wildlife crossing programs than the Protect programs. And while not nearly enough, it does contain some funding for EV charging. Now, with that said, as the ranking member of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I also want to look at that part of the bill. From day one, I've made it very clear that if the bill didn't include comprehensive rail safety provisions, I wouldn't abide by the Four Corners Agreement. Every step of the way, I have fought to include safety provisions in the package to prevent another tragedy like East Palestine.

There are some good provisions in there, but not nearly enough. So today I'm making good on my promise. I didn't sign on to the bill upon introduction, and I fought to make sure that some of these provisions come up in the amendment process. I want to be sure we have a fair vote on the Railway Safety Act, and I thank Mr. Deluzio and Mr. Nails for bringing that amendment. I've also offered some amendments to ensure that track inspections aren't undercut and safeguard labor protections for rail workers for projects that are funded by taxpayer dollars.

As these amendments come forward, I hope my colleagues will vote their conscience today on these unresolved issues and we can come with an even better bill. The safety of our communities, our railroad workers, our travelers, all depend on it. So I thank you. I look forward to working through this process, and I yield back.

Now, Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Larson, for your leadership and for convening today's markup. As a former merchant seaman and as a former commercial, uh, licensed truck driver, I couldn't be happier with Not everything in the bill, but most of it.

I want to thank you, Chairman Graves, for your hard work on this bill and your deep commitment to strengthening our nation's surface transportation network. It's an honor to serve on this committee with you at the helm. I also want to thank the subcommittees and their staffs for their efforts in developing this bill, and I know there was an enormous amount of work, and I'm grateful for your dedication and your perseverance. The Build America 250 Act reauthorizes and strengthens investment in America's critical surface transportation infrastructure for the next 5 years. This legislation refocuses proven programs, delivers the largest investment in bridges in our nation's history, streamlines permitting costs to cut costs and reduce delays, and supports innovation, including establishing the first framework for safe integration of autonomous commercial motor vehicles.

The bill strengthens the Highway Trust Fund by restoring the user pays principle and by creating the first new revenue stream in more than 30 years through user fees on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. It also supports America's truck drivers by investing in dedicated truck parking, providing hours of service flexibility for livestock haulers, and protecting drivers from abusive trucking arrangements. Additionally, this bill enhances motor carrier and highway safety, prioritizes support for law enforcement, promotes accountability at Amtrak, and strengthens secure transportation for hazardous materials. And for Texas, my home state, this bill delivers critical formula funding for highways, roads, and provides resources to to address our state's unique infrastructure needs. As one of the nation's largest freight and logistics hubs, Texas plays a very critical role in moving goods through our ports, our highways, and our rail networks to supply our communities all across America.

In my own home district, Houston Ship Channel is one of the busiest trade gateways in America, moving energy, agriculture, manufactured goods and products that supply communities across our great country. This legislation will help keep people and commerce moving efficiently across our rapidly growing economy. This is a strong bipartisan bill that prioritizes core infrastructure, reduces regulatory burdens, and improves safety and reliability. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into crafting this bill, and I look forward to supporting its advancement today. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield back.

Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson, for your leadership in bringing this bill forward to reauthorize our surface transportation programs. While not perfect, it's a good bill. Your commitment to govern and deliver results for the American people is why I joined this committee. I also want to recognize the committee staff who put in countless hours in drafting this legislation.

I want to express my support for the Build America 250 Act and the investments it makes in our nation's transportation future. Having served on the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors and as a member of this committee during the drafting of what became the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I know firsthand the importance of craft— crafting transportation policy that not only addresses today's infrastructure challenges, but prepares our country for the future. This legislation reflects many of those priorities that I have consistently pushed for on behalf of my constituents and communities on the Central Coast of California, including: it increases funding for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, preserves the Safe Streets for All and PROTECT grant programs, expands investments in the Bridge Formula Program, including a dedicated set-aside for locally owned bridges, and maintains the Davis-Bacon provisions. These are real victories for local governments that are on the front lines of maintaining roads, transit systems, and critical infrastructure that improve mobility for our constituents. I am especially proud that this legislation continues to support the Wildlife Crossings Program, an effort originally included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, otherwise known as the bill.

When we drafted the bill, we recognized that investing in wildlife crossings was not only an environmental priority but a public safety imperative. In California and across the country, wildlife crossings save lives, reduce costly vehicle collisions, and protect biodiversity. The overwhelming demand for this program over the past several years has proven how valuable these investments are for states and local governments alike, and I am proud to see this legislation continue that commitment. For communities like the ones I represent, this bill also helps ensure local leaders have greater flexibility to prioritize projects that reflect, reflect local needs. I can— it continues support for critical rail programs like the CRISI and Corridor ID, which are essential to maintaining and expanding passenger rail service like the Pacific Surfliner and throughout California.

I also appreciate that this legislation takes a forward-looking approach toward emerging transportation technologies. The inclusion of an autonomous vehicle safety title recognizes that innovation is already reshaping our transportation system. Importantly, the bill does not ignore the workforce implications of these technologies. As automation and autonomous commercial vehicles continue to develop, Congress has a responsibility to ensure labor has a seat at the table, that safety remains paramount, and that workers are not left behind as new technologies come online. While I am supportive of this bill, I do have concerns with several provisions that were left out or changed in ways that could negatively impact communities working to transition to cleaner transportation systems.

I am disappointed by the elimination of the Low or No Emissions Bus Program. This program has helped transit agencies modernize fleets, reduce emissions, and deploy cleaner buses in communities across the country. I am also concerned that the EV structure included in the bill does not appear to fairly account for income disparities or affordability challenges. As we work towards long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, we must ensure the transition to cleaner vehicles does not disproportionately burden middle and lower income families who are trying to make more sustainable transportation choices. And I would like— I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that the legislation does not include authorization for a Medium-Sized Transit Intensive Cities, or MTIC, program.

Transit agencies in medium-sized communities provide robust services every day, often with fewer resources and without the recognition afforded to larger, larger urban systems. While I was disappointed this bill did not include an infrastructure bank, I remain optimistic that I can continue to work with Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson to establish an infrastructure bank. I hope we can continue working together to address some of the shortfalls as this bill moves forward. Overall, this legislation represents a bipartisan investment in America's infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Westman. Thank you, Chairman Graves, and thank you for your leadership on bringing this bill to the, to the committee for a markup today. If my math is right, I believe there are 5 other committee chairmen that sit on this committee. And I think we all have an appreciation for what it takes to work hard on a bill like this.

Appreciation for you and your staff and Ranking Member Larson and his staff. And, you know, on a subject that's important to all Americans, that this is— this is— this hearing is probably not going to— or markup is probably not going to be covered live on cable TV because it's not spicy enough, but it's very important, and I can really commend you for a job well done. It shows that we still can govern when it comes to important issues that involve every American. And the, the good things in this bill have been highlighted. I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the focus on infrastructure like highways and bridges, which I think most Americans see that as what transportation and infrastructure is about.

The fact that 90% of highway funding will be through formula funding to the states, which will give states more flexibility in prioritizing projects. The expanded funding for bridges, which is, is very important. And also truck parking is a big issue that is affecting truckers all across our country. The, the CRISI funding grant program, I'm appreciative of that, and many other things in the bill. I'll also say that it's good to see this order coming back to the committee.

Many of us remember being here back in 2020 and 2021 when we tried to do a highway Surface Transportation Reauthorization. Chairman DeFazio was working, uh, very hard to make that happen. And these— the hearings that we had, that was during COVID That's almost like a nightmare thinking back about it, with, uh, many people coming in on the, the big screen, a lot of us traveling here, having late-night markups. And a lot of work was going into create a bill that traditionally is bipartisan and the committee puts a lot of work into. And at the last minute, the, the IIJA got dropped on us from the Senate.

The committee kind of got kicked to the curb, and we supposedly had a bipartisan infrastructure bill that really didn't go through regular order or have the, the oversight and the input that this bill had. So again, thank you for your work on that. Also, thinking back to that last process, I remember there was a big debate on it doesn't really matter how much money you approve in a, in a highway bill. If you can't build the projects, it doesn't make a lot of difference. And this bill does address some of those permitting issues.

We are obviously working on a larger permitting bill that has passed the House. The Senate's working on that. Hopefully we can get these permitting reforms that are in this bill, uh, passed, but I'm hopeful that we can also get a big permitting bill passed. The numbers are staggering when you look at the cost of permitting and delays, not just increased cost to build projects, the problems with mobilization and demobilization, the increased inflationary costs, but it's also the, the lost opportunity cost because we're not building the infrastructure in a timely way so that we can all benefit from that. We also know that there's a safety cost when we can't build infrastructure.

I think the bill that we have before us today is like everybody said, it's not perfect, but it's a huge step forward. It's getting us back on the right track. I look forward to the markup and I yield back.

Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, and to the ranking member as well, for getting us to this moment here today. And I'm pleased to add my support for the Build America 250 Act, the committee's reauthorization of surface transportation programs. This bill is going to provide needed increases in funding for New Hampshire for roads, highways, bridges, safety programs, and more. Build America 250 will deliver more than $1.2 billion in highway formula funding for for my state, as well as over $150 million in transit funding.

I'm pleased that important programs were protected, like the Safe Streets and Roads for All grants, the Transportation Alternatives Program, CMAC, and accessibility for our transit stations. I strongly support the increase in funding for the Bridge Formula Program, which is going to deliver $390 million to New Hampshire's bridges over the next 5 years. That's a 73% increase in overfunding levels from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was already a historic increase. New Hampshire has nearly 200 bridges that are in poor condition, and more are being added every year with that distinction. So those need immediate attention.

In total, these federal funds will continue investments in good-paying jobs in our infrastructure, promote safety, improve quality of life, uh, modernize needed, uh, infrastructure priorities. And the bill delivers for our communities over the long term, ensuring that guaranteed funding is there for our our transportation sector and making sure states and communities can plan for and invest in the infrastructure needs of the future. There are always steps that we can take to make a good bill even better, and I'm going to continue pushing support for rail, for railway safety, active transportation investment, and addressing the problem of impaired driving. But the bipartisan work done by this committee over the last year is proof that working together and working across the aisle can lead to solutions that will make a real difference for our communities and move our nation forward. I yield back.

Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and begin by thanking you for your work, Ranking Member, and of course the hard work of staff. None of this comes together easily. It's a long and arduous process, and we all appreciate it. Like all the bills this size, there's some good and some not so good.

Unfortunately, we continue to spend money that we simply don't have at a rate far above which we can afford. The top line to this bill is $580 billion, and while that is a little lower than IIJA levels, levels, we have to remember that IIJA levels were so blown out that nearly every Republican in this committee voted against it at the time. The bill does roll back some of the most egregious IIJA Green New Deal programs, but it does not go far enough in rolling back the wasteful spending. Further, it fails to address the very significant and very real problem of Highway Trust Fund money being diverted to non-highway projects. Nearly 30% of Highway Trust Fund money is diverted, and this number continues to grow.

I've offered a number of amendments to address those concerns, and I hope they are given real consideration as we're running out of time to fix this issue. The expiration of this bill aligns with the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. Meaning general fund transfer to the HTF are going to be weighed against much more significant levels of spending. It is vital that we address this issue now and create a solvent trust fund to avoid having to cut off infrastructure spending in the future. Finally, I recognize that this is not T&I's jurisdiction, but we must address the NHTSA's kill switch issue.

When it gets to the floor. Simply cannot allow for the kill switch to go into effect and violate the privacy of every— and the sovereignty of every citizen and American. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance.

Ms. Strickland.

Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson. I support advancing this bipartisan transportation bill that improves safety, delivers jobs, grows local economies, and meets the transportation and infrastructure needs of communities in Washington State, the 10th Congressional District, and across the country. This bill will maintain funding levels set in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for highways and transit. It safeguards critical programs that communities and cities of all sizes and regional economies that rely on delivering transportation projects, and it preserves the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Democrats hold only one-third of the committee staff to support this work, yet we secured well over a third of the wins in the bill.

So thank you to Ranking Member Larson and Chairman Graves for always working in a bipartisan manner. This is a testament to your strong leadership, your resolve, and your effectiveness. I'm proud to have authored provisions on the bill to reduce congestion and wear and tear on roads while enabling greater transportation choice and affordability. Many communities cannot afford all the road capacity and improvement projects that they need. And even if we pass this bill, we know that the needs of all of our communities will still not be fully met.

Construction materials and fuel costs are only increasing. This bill enables communities to use federal dollars for transportation demand management solutions through the Rural and Urban Surface Transportation Accelerator grant, the STAG program. This will help communities find cost savings, focus on resources on projects that necessitate new construction, and expedite transportation network improvements. I'm also pleased to have secured provisions to support metropolitan planning organizations, which are essential partners to help local communities develop and deliver federal aid transportation projects. These provisions will provide greater flexibility and support for for administrative and planning activities to carry out that work more efficiently and more effectively.

I also secured provisions from the Build More Housing Near Transit Act, which I co-led in the last Congress, to solve supply-side housing challenges and encourage the development of transit-served walkable communities. Coupled with the 21st Century Housing Bill that we passed yesterday, this is essential. And for Washington State, this bill delivers continued investments in the fleet expansion and modernization of the Washington State ferry system and the jobs that support them, the development of Cascadia High-Speed Rail, $1 billion for court-mandated culvert replacement and rehabilitation, and a 25% set-aside in the Bridge Formula Program to help repair locally owned bridges. At a time when tariffs and skyrocketing fuel costs are driving up the cost of building infrastructure, infrastructure, we must continue to give our communities certainty, job security, and the support they need to sustain and grow their economies. Investing in infrastructure has a high return on investment.

It is money well spent. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A major factor powering American excellence for a long time has been our national commitment to infrastructure. Rather than have a bunch of disconnected regions, we just decided a long time ago we're gonna have one interconnected nation. And man alive, does it pay a lot of dividends for a lot of us. Look at I-90 through South Dakota, major interstate.

It's not a state asset, it's a national asset. In fact, more than 70% of all of the traffic on Interstate 90 neither originates nor terminates in South Dakota. And so I think it's important that we take a— we have a national lens that we're looking through when we're talking about this surface transportation bill. And Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what you— exactly what we together have done. And this does right by America, and it does right by South Dakota.

You look at bridges, we know that we have a bridge crisis in America, probably in a more pronounced way in rural America. But everywhere. This bill almost doubles the amount of bridge funding that will come to South Dakota. It is a substantial increase as well in the funding for highways and other, and other surface transportation priorities. That is going to make our country stronger.

It's going to reduce inefficiencies. It's going to make supply chains more resilient. It is going to be an excellent investment in this country. There are a number of policy wins in this bill as well. I'll call out my bill, the Securing Infrastructure from Adversaries Act.

Thank you for its inclusion. LiDAR is hardly a household name, and yet this exquisite technology really does power a tremendous amount of future gains and efficiencies and effectiveness in the transportation space because it provides millimeter, millimeter-level data about what's what's going on in these interconnected systems. And our country has unfortunately grown too reliant on China and Chinese companies when it comes to LiDAR. This bill makes it clear that our Department of Transportation is not going to be using federal funds to procure technology that would give that millimeter-level data, uh, on our country's critical infrastructure to companies that are affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. And so here we are with a bill that does right by investing in tribal infrastructure, does right by investing in rural infrastructure, does right by investing in our nation's infrastructure assets.

And it's also got some pretty good wins for America. And Mr. Chairman, I am so looking forward to passing this bill out of committee on a bipartisan basis. And with that, I would yield back. Ms. Sykes. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to the chair and ranking member for holding today's markup.

For many Americans, their primary interaction with their government is through the roads we drive and the trains we ride on, the bridges and railroad tracks that we cross. And every day when people ride to work, they notice the potholes and the crumbling roads. And they let us know about that too. And after work, they face traffic that keeps them from their families and their loved ones and their blood pressure high. Transportation infrastructure is a key part of governance.

It is about providing a baseline of safety and protection for everyone on our roads, and it advances innovation on our trains, planes, and automobiles. It connects us home, to work, to school, to our communities. Well, I'm excited to have the opportunity to work on these programs for our constituents, and I am thrilled to see bipartisan legislation that will address our nation's crumbling infrastructure. I am reminded that many of the provisions in this bill are way past due. On February 3rd, 2023, a Norfolk Southern freight train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, causing 20 cars to spill hazardous chemicals that ignited fires which burned for over 2 days.

These dangerous chemicals spread through the air, seeped through the ground, and found their way to the water supply. It has been over 3 years since this tragic train derailment, and Congress is only just now taking up legislation to address concerns stemming from this derailment. I consider this to be a disservice to all the people at East Palestine, Ohio, who are still dealing with the fallout of this tragedy, in addition to all of the communities bisected by railroads that could be be the face of the next derailment disaster. And the overarching theme that I heard from those impacted in East Palestine was that they wanted to make sure that there was legislation in place so that this did not happen to another community. They did not want their suffering to be in vain.

After the tragic plane crash over Washington, D.C., the House passed the Alert Act within a year. Clearly, Congress can act in a timely manner, and it is disappointing it has taken it's taken this long to address the concerns, but I am glad that we are finally here today. That's why, after years of requesting hearings and calling for votes to address this issue, I made it a priority to include more rail safety measurements in this year's rail authorization. And this package does this, just that, by including the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee and would accelerate the removal of dangerous tank cars from circulation. Additionally, it would ensure that placards design— designating a train car has hazardous materials cannot melt in a fire as it did in East Palestine, making it exceptionally hard for its first responders to respond appropriately.

And this package would also create a training program for first responders on how to best respond to a situation involving hazardous chemicals. These and other investments in transportation research, development, and demonstration in this legislation are necessary to support a safe resilient, equitable, and sustainable transportation future. Before I continue, I would like to recognize and thank my colleagues from Ohio who very quickly after the train derailment in East Palestine came together to introduce the RAIL Act, led by myself and former Congressman Bill Johnson, who represented the area at the time. 11 Of the 15 members of our delegation stood together in solidarity to say we do not want to see this happen again. So for that reason, I want to make a special shout out and thank you to the Ohio delegation for uplifting the concerns and the cares of people of East Palestine, Ohio, and jumping to the opportunity to come together.

At the time, we were told, and I was told by many people on and off the Hill, that they had not seen such a bipartisan act of unity and solidarity amongst our delegation, and I am so glad to be part of that and to have led that act to make sure that we were working on behalf of the people that we represent in the great state, the greatest state in the nation, Ohio. As a member of both the Science, Space and Technology Committee and the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both committees to advance the priorities outlined in this bill and for continued transportation innovation. Finally, I'd just like to thank all of the individuals on our staffs individually, collectively, and from the committee for working together. I can't imagine how many late nights and early mornings that you had, but your work is not going to go unseen, and we appreciate it. For every call that we will not receive about a pothole or a crumbling bridge, we will think of you and thank you for the hard work that you have done.

Again, I am going to support this legislation on behalf of not only the people in Ohio's 13th Congressional District but the entire state of Ohio and our nation, who relies upon transportation for our well-being, for our connectivity, and for our economy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Mr. Bresnahan.

Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, and to all of my colleagues on this committee who put in a lot of work to get us here today. It's fitting that we're finally doing this markup during Infrastructure Week, but in northeastern Pennsylvania, every day my constituents are driving on one of the 5 major highways that run through my district or over one of the thousands of local bridges. Unfortunately, these roads and bridges are in serious need of work. We're seeing freight trucks, commuters, and first responders adding time to their routes because bridges have been out for years. Road projects are stuck in permitting for 5 years when they should take 2.

This bill targets those issues, and that's why I'm proud to support it here today. Pennsylvania has one of the highest numbers of structurally deficient bridges in the country. You've all heard me say this by now, but 25% of the bridges in my district fall under that category. That ends today. The Build America 250 Act is the largest investment in bridges in American history.

The Commonwealth is set to receive over $350 million a year to rehabilitate and reconstruct our bridges. The bill dedicates a significant portion of those investments to locally owned bridges, a concept taken right from the Bipartisan Basics Act, which I was proud to lead with Representative McDonald-Rever to return infrastructure investment back to our local communities. This is a critical, crucial component for many small towns that see one or more of those bridges sit on a waitlist for years before being prioritized. The people who know what their communities need are the ones who live and drive every single day. This bill finally invests in them, and our local bridges finally get their turn.

As a former highway contractor, I've seen firsthand how infrastructure investments can create well-paying jobs that that support working families. At the same time, I've also seen the real dangers workers face in active work zones. Between 2014 and 2023, 192 lives were lost in Pennsylvania work zones, underscoring the urgent need for stronger safety measures. I know people who have been injured on the job. I know families who have lost loved ones.

We don't talk nearly enough about keeping those workers safe once they're out getting that job done. That's why I'm proud this bill includes Preventing Roadside and Work Zone Deaths Act, which I worked with Representative Carter to make sure that work zone safety is a priority at the Department of Transportation. Finally, all these investments mean nothing unless shovels are actually put into the ground. If it takes a decade to cut through red tape before a project starts, that's a failure. This bill includes meaningful permitting reforms to streamline the process and get projects moving.

In northeastern Pennsylvania, our infrastructure does not have time to wait. This is a good bill for the people of northeastern Pennsylvania. It delivers for our bridges, big and small, for our construction workers, and for every community that has been waiting far too long for Washington to get it done. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.

Ms. Skolton. Thank you so much, uh, Chair Graves, um, Rouser, Webster, and Ranking Members Larson, Holmes Norton, and Titus, uh, as well as the incredible T&I staff that have worked worked so tirelessly on this bill. I want to give a huge shout out to my T&I staffer Layla as well. Many of you know her, and my entire legislative team that has been working so hard on this. I talk a lot about being from Michigan, and I am really proud of it.

We put the world on wheels, and Woodward Avenue has been described as the world's first concrete highway. This is a big deal. Bragging rights aside, it's incredible how much progress our nation and transportation system has made since 1909, when Michigan made history in paving the first road. I know this bill will build on that legacy and help us keep pace with the progress made through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and I'm pleased to support it. These investments aren't just theoretical.

This is not an academic exercise. The work done in this committee will create jobs that help parents support their families. It'll allow kids to bike safely to school. It'll connect communities as folks head to church. It'll provide options as people try to squeeze in doctor's appointments.

The Build America Act will preserve guaranteed funding for highways and transit. It's, it's going to make sure that moving forward, uh, local governments can make infrastructure investments important to their communities, bolster safety for workers, drivers, and pedestrians, create good-paying jobs, support American innovation, and safeguard small businesses through the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. I am so proud of this bipartisan deal, and I'm thrilled that key priorities for West Michigan are included in the text. This bill includes language from my bipartisan Paving the Way for the American Industry Act to ensure that American tax dollars stay in the United States of America, in our domestic chemical industry, investing in our domestic chemical industry, and safeguarding good union jobs. I also championed the Unlocking Affordable Housing Act to help developers access TIFIA and, uh, RRIF loans to build more housing.

Where transit already exists. This bill will boost housing supply and lower costs for Americans. I'm so proud, uh, that my Safe Transit Act was additionally included in the bipartisan deal to streamline transit projects and get federal dollars out the door into a community— into communities. The Build America Act also includes my Roadway Resiliency Act, which establishes a common-sense interagency working group to provide communities with roadway safety best practices in inclement weather, something we know a lot about in Michigan. Thank you again to the committee leadership and their staff and my staff in particular for their work to put together this bipartisan measure.

I'm eager to support the Build America 250 Act to invest in America's transportation system, and I yield back. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson, for holding this markup today. I'm proud to speak in favor of the Build America 250 Act, otherwise known as the Surface Transportation Bill. After 5 years of the Democrats' disastrous infrastructure bill, the IIJA, we are now considering a bill that funds vital infrastructure projects rather than Green New Deal pet projects.

Through a new bridge formula, Ohio will receive billions of dollars to repair and build bridges across the state, making this legislation one of the largest investments ever in our nation's bridges. Additionally, this bill makes common sense permitting reforms by removing unnecessary review steps and expanding categorical exclusions, which will streamline project delivery and lower costs. The Build America 250 Act also supports our rail and trucking industries by dedicating funding towards truck parking, CRISI grants, and the Rail Crossing Elimination Program to ensure our nation's supply chains are sound and protected. As founder and chair of the Congressional Trucking Caucus, I was also thrilled that language was included directing the Secretary to remove CDL mills from the training provider registry and to ensure CDLs are awarded exclusively to eligible citizens. By giving states the flexibility to determine their infrastructure needs and removing burdensome federal requirements, districts like mine in southern Ohio will see widespread infrastructure growth.

I want to thank Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, Chairman Rouser, and Ranking Member Holmes Norton for their hard work on this bill. As well as all the amazing staffers who made it possible. I'm proud to have worked on this product that could transform rural America, and I'm looking forward to this rule becoming law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Ms. Pope.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me begin by saying thank you to the chairman and to the ranking member and also our very, very hardworking committee staff for helping craft this bipartisan reauthorization bill. I am proud that among the provisions of this package is my bipartisan bill, the SAFE TRACK Act, a bill to strengthen highway rail grade crossing safety regulations and help prevent suicides. I recognize that this bill does not do everything for every member here had requested. So let me be clear, more work needs to be done.

But before us is a strong bipartisan investment in our safety and improvement to our highways, rails, and transit systems. New Jersey and my district will receive significant wins, including Amtrak rail safety planning, block grants, and congestion, uh, mitigation. The Safe Streets and Roads for All, as well as the Vent for Burn research and testing programs, continue in this measure. We also established new programs including Transit Ambassadors, a program to provide transit passengers and staff with, with Essential Support. That is based on legislation that I co-sponsored with Representative, uh, Simon and Garamenti.

I am also very pleased that this bill will, will rename Norristown Penn Station for the late Congressman Donald Payne Jr., a valued member of this committee. Congressman Payne was a longtime public servant who cared deeply about his community. I am grateful that we will, we will be able to honor him in a, in such a fitting way. From highway investment to roads to our buses and light rail, New Jersey's transportation will see significant improvements. While this bill, as I said earlier, may not be perfect, it is absolutely a good first step in the right direction.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, and again, a very special thank you to the committee for helping prioritize numerous New Jersey priorities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Ms. Gillen.

Thank you so much, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson. Um, it really is a pleasure to serve on this committee where we do the work that the American people sent us here to do, which is to work in a bipartisan fashion where we disagree, we hammer out deals if we can, and we deliver for the American people. So I thank you both for your leadership. Uh, I thank the staff of the committee. I thank, um, my legislative staff and my transportation staffer, John Older, who's right here.

So I rise today in strong support of the underlying surface transportation package. This legislation builds on the historic progress made through the bipartisan infrastructure law and continues our bipartisan commitment to creating a transportation system that is safer, stronger, and better prepared for our future. This bill makes critical investments in both our transportation infrastructure and equally important in our transportation safety. It will support projects that my community on Long Island and others across our country rely on every day. It will strengthen and create programs aimed at reducing crashes and improving our roadway safety.

And it will protect and honor our transportation workforce, the hardworking men and women who maintain our highways, operate our transit systems, and keep us moving safely and efficiently across our country. I'm especially grateful that this package includes several bipartisan pieces of legislation that I have authored focused on traffic safety and saving lives. One provision will help educate parents about the importance of properly installed and compliant car seats. Non-compliant and counterfeit car seats put babies' and children's lives at risk due to improper testing, inadequate safety features, and poor construction. This leaves our children vulnerable in the mo— matter— in the moments that matter most.

My bipartisan bill, the Car Seat Act, which I introduced proudly with Republican co-sponsors Delegate King-Hines and Congressman McKenzie, will ensure that parents have the education and resources that they need to identify and avoid these dangerous products and give states the tools they need to keep every child safe on the road. The surface bill also includes two provisions from my bipartisan Drunk Driving Prevention and Enforcement Act, which I introduced with Congressman Lawler and Congresswoman Dingell, to address drunk driving and drug-involved driving on our roads. The first would create a new Traffic Safety Enforcement Center of Excellence to provide states with evidence-based— evidence-backed insights into the most effective forms of traffic enforcement. And the second would help improve our data collection on drug-involved crashes by investing more than $100 million in a new National Drug-Involved Crash Data Collection System grant program, giving states more support than ever before to report accurate, standardized crash data. When I got to Congress and was appointed to this committee, I promised Long Islanders that I would fight to improve Nassau County's infrastructure, repair our heavily traveled roads and bridges, and prioritize safety.

I'm pleased that this Build America 250 bill moves our nation in the right direction to accomplish these very important goals. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and continue investing in a safer, more reliable transportation for the American people. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Figures.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am pleased to offer my, uh, presumptive support here for the Build America 250 Act. I'm grateful to to have had the opportunity to work in a bipartisan way on a number of priorities. When I ran for Congress, this was where I wanted to be.

I almost feel like a kid here that grew up to play in the NFL and is playing in the Super Bowl today, because this is what it was about for me, being here on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, particularly with the infrastructure challenges that we— and needs in my district. You know, I represent a district now where we're in the midst of building a new international airport. We have a big new bridge that we have to build across the Mobile Bay. And, you know, we are now home to the deepest port in the entire Gulf. And so being here today is very important to the future capacity of my region, of my hometown, of the Port of Mobile, to be able to capitalize on that newfound resource that we have in being the deepest and, and soon to hopefully be one of, if not the busiest port in the Gulf.

But it starts with our ability to be able to move goods and resources off of those container ships and get them into the, the, the flow of the economy regionally and across the country. And the work that we do here today is going to help that significantly. I'm very pleased in the way that this process has been handled, Mr. Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, it has felt, to be totally honest with you, the most inclusive process that I've been a part of since I've been a member of Congress here in my first year.

And so I gratefully appreciate that and appreciate the broader collegiality and cooperation that we have across party lines in this committee. This bill will ultimately include several amendments that I have worked on to propose, amendments that deal with bridge funding, amendments that will help drive more more resources across my state of Alabama and certainly across the region in the district that I represent. I'm very proud of the fact that, you know, the state of Alabama will now see over $100 million more annually under the new bridge investment formula than we currently have, and that is something that is significant, especially given the challenges that we have had in funding the bridge that we need down across Mobile Bay. And so I am looking forward to getting this across the finish line and hopefully getting it across the floor of the House as well so that we can continue to move forward economically in my region, as well as bringing more jobs and more investments to the future of the state of Alabama. I, uh, I am disappointed, I must say, that, you know, that this does not include specific project funding, but I understand the reason, uh, the reason that the majority has taken that position.

But nevertheless, I, I I still believe that members, particularly members on this committee, we are the best sources of being able to direct the project needs given our connectivity that we have to local and state leadership in terms of where money and resources are needed to fund specific types of infrastructure projects. But nevertheless, this bill certainly opens up more doors for that type of funding to flow through different programs and ultimately hopefully get to the places where that money is needed the most. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to the process. And thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. Frost.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, one of my goals in Congress is to work for faster, safer, and more accessible transportation for my constituents in Central Florida. And so I'm very excited to be participating in today's markup of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. I'm also very proud that my bill, the Safer Rail Crossings Act, is included in the text of this reauthorization. I introduced this bill with my colleague from Florida, Representative Mast.

While rail moves goods and people safely, efficiently, and with low environmental impact, grade crossings where the rail meets the road still pose a danger. Representative Mast and I know this to be especially true in our state and in our districts. In 2023, there were almost 2,000 pedestrian accidents at grade crossings in the United States. Florida ranks third in the entire nation for the number of pedestrians injured in train accidents, showing the need for stronger safety measures. Luckily, we have a way to deal with this issue.

The Federal Highway Administration's Railway Highway Crossing Program, or the RHCP, provides funds to make public railway crossings safer. Since 2019, there's been a reduction in accidents of 82% in crossings where an RHCP project was completed. These life-saving results are being achieved even as traffic on both, both roads and railways has increased over the few years. This really shows the program's effectiveness in improving safety. But the program can be better.

And we found that state and local governments using this program reported needing better guidance, technical assistance, and examples of when it comes to these projects. This problem has made it harder for communities to fully utilize funds for pedestrian-focused improvements. The Safer Rail Crossing Act would address this need by instructing the Federal Highway Administration to issue clear guidance on the types of pedestrian safety projects eligible under this program. Including this bill in the Build America 250 Act will help create an environment where both pedestrians and commuters can move freely without fear. It will ensure rail remains a safe and vital part of Florida's and the nation's infrastructure.

And economy, and I'm proud that it's included in the bill. I'm also proud to be a co-lead of Representative Bresnahan's amendment to ensure the fair distribution of funding for local bridges. I want to stress why this important— this amendment is so important. Our local elected officials and metro planning organizations are the decision makers closest to their constituents, and nobody knows the transportation and infrastructure needs of a community better than the people who take the local bus. Who drive our local roads and bridges or have to navigate their neighborhoods by foot or bike.

Especially relevant to our amendment, my constituents know that their local roads cross a lot of bodies of water. Local needs must not be ignored at the state level. I know that less connected or underserved communities are often left out of the state-level decision-making. This makes for geographic distribution of projects an important consideration. My district contains Orlando's urban core, surrounding suburbs, and continues out to rural East Orange County.

And so I know the need to ensure fair distribution of projects amongst both urban and rural communities. This amendment speaks to another important priority to make sure that transportation funding does not just go to new projects. It must also fund existing infrastructure because so much of that infrastructure is in desperate need of repairs and improvements. I want to thank my colleague Representative Bresnahan for filing this important amendment. I'm proud to co-lead it with him and the work that he's done to ensure that its inclusion in the manager's amendment.

I yield back. Ms. King-Hines.

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, and members of the committee, thank you for bringing forward H.R. 8870, The Build America 250 Act. I also want to give a special shout out and express my deep appreciation to the committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work throughout this process. Mr. Chairman, for most of America, transportation infrastructure is about convenience. For the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, transportation is survival.

When roads fail in the territories, communities can become isolated. When ports fail, supply chains break down. When airports struggle, our economy suffers almost immediately. And for island communities, thousands of miles from the continental United States, there is no backup route. That reality became even more clear following Super Typhoon Sinulaku when our transportation systems became critical not just for economic activity, but for emergency response, recovery, recovery operations, movement of supplies, and restoring basic connectivity for our people.

And that is why I'm especially grateful this legislation increasing increases funding for the Territorial Highway Program and expands ferry funding opportunities for the territories. These investments matter. For the CNMI, transportation infrastructure is directly tied to public safety, tourism, commerce, disaster resilience, and long-term economic sustainability. And for small island economies like ours, sustainability is national security. The territories sit at the front lines of America's strategic interests in the Pacific, but too often federal policy treat us as an afterthought when it comes to infrastructure investment and economic planning.

This bill moves us in a better direction. It recognizes that America's transportation network does not end at the mainland shoreline and that Americans living in the territories deserve infrastructure systems that are modern, resilient, and capable of supporting economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Last but not least, Mr. Garamendi.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Larson and your committee staff, you've done yeoman work here. Thank you for doing that. The infrastructure for this nation is absolutely critical for our economic growth, for individuals, for society, and the rest. No bill is perfect, and there's going to be, I don't know, several dozen amendments that are going to be offered to improve the bill along the way, some of which will be mine. But my mind's on a different thing, perhaps because I started this morning looking at the $1,500,000,000,000 defense budget for one year, and I began to compare it to the $580 billion to be spent over 5 years, which is about $116 billion a year.

And I'm going, what are our priorities here? Can this nation actually grow and prosper if our money is spent on the military?

$1,500 Billion for one year, $580 billion for 5 years, $116 billion a year. The infrastructure in this bill is absolutely critical for our economy to grow, for our citizens to prosper, and for social justice to occur. But there's a larger question that this Congress has to consider, and that is our priority. Is our priority to build our domestic economy and provide opportunity for every citizen, Or is it elsewhere?

The dollars that are being authorized by this Congress is a clear indication of the priorities, and the priorities is not to build the foundation for economic growth, in this case transportation. Yes, this money will be spent. In America, the Buy America provisions are in this bill, thankfully. And there are other provisions in this bill and other reforms, all of which are critically important. But there's a larger question for this Congress.

How are we going to allocate the financial resources of this nation on growing our domestic economy are building bombs and rockets to deliver nuclear weapons around the world.

We need to think about this larger question. And as we move this bill, as we should, and as I will ultimately vote for it, and I'll have amendments that I think will improve it, we need to think beyond the scope of this committee. We need to think about our larger requirement as a representative of the American people as to where our priorities are. More nuclear weapons, more Sentinel missiles, more delivery systems, hypersonic nuclear weapons, or maybe it's just to patch a pothole in our community. And to build a bridge or rebuild a bridge that's going to be safe.

I want us all to think about the larger priorities of this Congress.

$1,500 Billion— $1,500 trillion for the military for one year. And $116 billion for transportation infrastructure. I yield back.

We're now concerning the bill, uh, for amendments. I recognize myself for the purpose of offering a manager's amendment. Please designate. A manager's amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Chairman Graves.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and I recognize myself for a quick statement. The manager's amendment makes various, uh, technical corrections and conforming changes to the, uh, Amendment of the Nature of a Substitute. It also incorporates more than 60 amendments that were filed by members that were agreed to, um, through collaboration between, uh, Representative Larson and myself. And I want to thank, uh, Rick for working with me on this package, um, and I would also like to thank all the members whose amendments were incorporated for helping us with, with this manager's amendment. With that, I yield back.

Rick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the manager's amendment. There's a lot of good stuff in it.

You're all welcome. Vote for it. I yield back.

Mr. Taylor.

Thank you, Chairman Graves. I'm proud to speak in favor of the manager's amendment, which contains 3 of my amendments expressing congressional support for the I-73 corridor. Ensuring truck drivers can operate safely, ensuring the Secretary can provide oversight to protect our roads from chameleon carriers. Since President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law, the United States interstate highway system has been pivotal in connecting rural communities, minimizing congestion, and promoting economic development. Currently, the Ohio Department of Transportation is conducting a feasibility study on the potential development of an I-73 corridor extending from Toledo to Chesapeake, Ohio.

This project is part of a larger plan to have an interstate running from Michigan to South Carolina. Once completed, this proposed I-73 interstate corridor would alleviate transportation bottlenecks, expand healthcare access in rural communities across Ohio, and improve freight mobility, bringing development to the poorest parts of Ohio. Southern Ohio has been forgotten about for too long. And this project, which would go right through the heart of Appalachia, could be a transformational investment in our future. With the United States growing, it is critical that we support infrastructure projects that connect communities and grow our economy.

I'm also proud that this manager's amendment addresses the challenges towing and recovery workers continue to face because of inconsistent interpretation and application of existing laws. These changes will limit the time tow truck drivers and first responders are on the side of the road and prevent dangerous side-of-the-road situations we see today. Lastly, I would like to highlight the work this manager's amendment does to address chameleon characters— characters— carriers plaguing our roads by removing an outdated provision from 2005. My provision within the manager's amendment will provide FMCSA with enforcement mechanisms to keep our roads safe. Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson, for working with me on these important items, and I yield back.

The chair unwisely left me in charge so I can call on people, so I will call on Andre Carson. Good man. Thank you, sir. I'm pleased to support the manager's amendment. I'd like to thank Chairman and Ranking Member Larson for including my amendment into this package.

This amendment provides motorcycle safety and was offered by my friend Mr. Pappas of New Hampshire. Section 4011 of the underlying bill has a very good provision prohibiting federal safety checkpoint funding to any local or state program that discriminates against motorcyclists by profiling them for traffic stops based on the type of vehicle they use. But after conversations with Hoosier Bikers and other motorcyclists, I realize the base bill doesn't go far enough. So my amendment adds appearance or attire. Too often motorcyclists are profiled for traffic stops based on how they look while riding or what they're wearing, whether it's protective road gear like lots of leather or bike club attire, or even long hair or beards.

It's a form of biased profiling. And that's just not fair. As a former law enforcement officer, I've worked hard to promote best practices and end biased profiling. Whether it's driving while Black or riding a motorcycle, biased profiling is simply wrong. This amendment is endorsed by the National Motorcycle Riders Foundation, ABATE of Indiana, and the New Hampshire Motorcyclists' Rights Organization, just to name a few.

And I thank them for working with us on this long overdue correction. Colleagues, as we approach Memorial Day weekend and the Rolling Thunder Memorial Ride to honor POWs, MIAs, and other veterans, approving this amendment is a good way to show our respect and appreciation for their service. I urge support and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Burleson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also, too, want to say thank you to Representative Carson for his, his, his amendment on the making sure that we do not profile the appearance of motorcyclists. Had you not sponsored that, I would have sponsored it myself. And I appreciate your work.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you for allowing my language recognizing Route 66. And its 100th birthday this year. For a century, Route 66 has stood as more than just a road on a map. It's the symbol of the American spirit, a road built on freedom and hard work. It connects small cities and growing cities.

And nowhere is that history more deeply rooted than in Springfield, Missouri. Springfield is widely recognized as the birthplace of Route 66 because it was there in 1926 where officials first proposed to name it Route 66. And so as we celebrate this centennial anniversary, we are not simply honoring a highway but generations of Americans who built communities along that road while defending freedom and the— while traveling on it. And for Missouri and especially for Springfield, this anniversary is an enormous source of pride. Pride, and I'm proud to support this recognition of Route 66's 100th anniversary in the manager's amendment.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this. Ms. Sykes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me today. I know in my backyard of Northeast Ohio, trucks are constantly coming through our communities, driven by hardworking Americans who are away from their families just to put food on their tables. However, trucking is not an easy job, and it certainly is not the safest one either. And that's why it's important that our truck stops and rest areas have resources available for truckers to promote, to promote their safety and the safety of everyone on our highway system.

My amendment will require certain facilities, including truck stops and parking areas that receive federal funding for construction, reopening, or improvement to post placards that include information on important issues truckers unfortunately face on the road every day. This includes combating human trafficking. Tragically, Ohio ranks among the top 10 states for the number of calls made to the National Human Trafficking Hotline. And because traffickers rely on frequently relocating their victims to avoid detection, truckers are indispensable in the fight against human trafficking and are often the first line of defense. Given that information, truck drivers can recognize the signs of human trafficking report them, and help victims escape.

That's why this amendment will require that certain facilities receiving federal funding, including truck stops and parking areas, post information that includes resources to prevent and report human trafficking. While truckers play a vital role in protecting the safety of others, we owe it to them to look out for them as well. That's why this amendment will also require these truck stops and parking areas to post information on suicide prevention, including the 988 suicide hotline. 988 Has served as a lifeline for millions of Americans, making over 14 million contacts with folks in need since it was created. People are able to call into the 988 hotline and receive guidance and consultation from counselors, with studies finding that callers feel less suicidal, depressed, and overwhelmed after connecting.

Like I said, trucking is not an easy job, and drivers often work long hours away from their home and away from their families. And this also means that workers in the transport industry have been found to be at higher risk of suicide, and it is important that those who find themselves in need or in crisis know that there are resources available to them. This amendment would not— is not unusual or new to this committee, as they were both offered and accepted in a previous piece of legislation last Congress. And so I'm hopeful that everyone in this Congress and this committee will also see fit to add this into the underlying bill. Again, a program is only as good as if people know that it exists, and this amendment aims to increase awareness of critical programs and resources to combat human trafficking and to reduce suicide and mental health issues amongst truckers.

I'm proud this amendment was included in the manager's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. And I yield back. Mr. Van Drew. Is that me?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong support of the manager's amendment and to highlight the inclusion of 3 critical amendments that will strengthen our bridges, improve our transparency, and enhance our regional airports. First, I want to thank Chairman Graves and the committee staff for working with us to include these provisions in the manager's amendments. In the wake of catastrophic bridge incidents we've seen across the nation, my First Amendment co-led by my friend Rep Titus establishes interdisciplinary bridge safety team within the Department of Transportation.

It will bring together the Federal Highway Administration, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps, and other relevant agencies agencies to coordinate bridge vulnerability assessments and vessel collision risk reduction efforts. These agencies operate in silos very often, so this will ensure that expertise is shared as it should be and vulnerabilities are identified as they should be. The bill has the highest level investment in— this bill, our bill today has the highest level of investment in bridges in American history. So we must do everything we can to protect our investments, our infrastructure, and the safety of the traveling public. The second provision included is co-led by my friend Nellie Poe, is about transparency and fairness for the bus operators.

These operators are often left in the dark about what price they are paying at tolls compared to other drivers. The provisions here addresses this by requiring the Federal Highway Administration to publish a public database containing toll rates, terms, and conditions to improve transparency for motorcoach operators so they can better plan their, their routes, and they can also keep costs down for them and their passengers. Last but certainly not least, I am proud to have worked with Reps Bresnahan and Deluzio on a provision that is very meaningful to me in my district in South Jersey, the motorcoach employment pilot program. Under this pilot program, passengers who board an air carrier operated motorcoach at one airport for transport to another airport to continue their flight journey will now count toward airport passenger boarding totals. That's a big deal for airports like the Atlantic City International Airport.

Passenger boarding numbers are critical because they affect eligibility for federal airport funding and infrastructure support. Nowhere is this more important right now than South Jersey. Atlantic City International Airport has been hit hard by the closure and service reductions that you've all read about. Associated with Spirit Airlines. The airport is facing real economic pressure, and the surrounding region depends on that airport for tourism, jobs, and connectivity.

South Jersey can't afford to lose this critical asset, and America can't afford to lose it. And this pilot program helping ensure that we won't lose it. I want to thank you again to my partners on these provisions. I want to thank Chairman Graves again. I want to thank Ranking Member Larson again, all of them for their support.

And I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Po.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend my gratitude to our committee leadership for their work on this bipartisan amendment and working with members to include important policies within this text. Included in the text are 3 of my amendments. First, uh, Amendment Number 36, which directs the Government Accountability Office to review the Department of Transportation's Protect program and to identify strategies and recommendations for preventing flooding, enhancing safety, and improving infrastructure, uh, resiliency.

Second, it includes my bipartisan Amendment Number 40, which mandates DOT consult with labor groups, and also that labor has a seat on the advisory panel created by this bill. And third, it includes my Amendment Number 43, which creates new eligibility under DOT's MAGA discretionary grant program for projects at facilities designated as a National Highway System Intermodal Connector. This includes projects like the Midtown bus terminal replacement used by so many New Jersey commuters. These amendments are common sense provision that improves our transportation hubs, utilize the expertise of labor entities, and help communities like mine develop effective projects with resiliency against flooding. I want to extend a particular thank you, um, to my colleagues Representative Bresnan, Bresnan, and Representative Johnson for collaborating on the labor amendment.

This manager's amendment reflects how this committee and Congress works best, with lawmakers coming together to solve problems with constituents that, that constituents want addressed. Thank you to the chairman and thank you to our ranking member. I am truly proud to support this amendment and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Representative Kiley, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the committee and the chair for working on some AV bus testing issues that we were talking with them on in the manager's amendment. I want to take a moment just to say a few words about why I'll be supporting this legislation today.

You know, there are so many ways in which Congress is not working as it should, where the gridlock has just gotten out of control and paralyzing. But this legislation and the work of this committee is a much— is much closer to the way Congress really should work. And I say that for a few reasons. Number one is that this First, this legislation is bipartisan, as we've heard from various people who have remarked already, and I believe it will have broad bipartisan support in this committee and on the floor. Secondly, it's really about taking care of the basics.

I think a lot of people look at government and think, wow, government's doing a lot of things that really ought not to be doing, while meanwhile it's neglecting the basics that we need and expect. From government. This is taking care of roads, bridges, uh, and railways. And what's more, it's doing so in a way that makes sense. We're turning to a formula-based, uh, funding system for over 90% of the funds, which makes it much more practical, uh, for transportation agencies to be able to plan useful, uh, projects.

It also places a, uh, priority on performance, gets away from the paradigm we're just spending money is sort of the accomplishment. It's making sure the money is able to be spent, uh, in a way that benefits people. And it does that through, uh, permitting reform, uh, other reforms, categorical exclusions that are designed to actually get projects off the ground and finished. It also moves away from, uh, prescriptive, uh, mandates coming from Washington, DC, and seeks to provide maximum flexibility to states and localities, uh, for the projects that that will best serve their communities. And finally, this is a bill that also looks to the future.

Too often in legislating, we kind of legislate from the perspective of the past or get into the mentality that the way things are now is the way they're always going to be. This is a bill that also looks to the future by incorporating new frameworks for emerging technologies that I think are going to become much more salient in our daily lives. And in so doing, it can help to, to shape the future as well. So I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their collaboration in making this bill possible, and I look forward to supporting it today. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Miss Hillary, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Chair. I am so pleased to support the manager's amendment and thrilled that it includes two of my common-sense amendments.

West Michigan, uh, is home to miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline, so it is no surprise that water transit is absolutely critical. My amendment, which is sponsored by my good friend Congressman Ezel, uh, is an important first step to ensure that America continues to innovate to maximize the performance and capacity of these transit systems. This language will, will task the Transportation Research Board to evaluate innovative hull designs, as well as how to use the alternative materials and construction technologies that can boost operational fleet performance and payload capacities of waterborne transit systems. I'm grateful that this bipartisan amendment was included to keep our coastal communities and transit systems competitive. Additionally, this manager's amendment includes my amendment to streamline process and get federal funding out the door.

We know how necessary this is at a time when we are all demanding permitting reform. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must consider the impact a given project might have on historic properties, as well as provide state historic preservation offices with the opportunity to weigh in on the project. I fully support thoughtful conversations between federal and state governments, but this builds on that collaboration by encouraging project sponsors to engage with state historic preservation offices directly before the formal review process even begins, thereby making it go faster. This will improve outcomes for project sponsors who understand the context of their community and respect the established relationship they maintain with their state partners, rather than relying on federal agencies agencies to mediate that communication. Again, thank you to committee leadership for this manager's amendment and supporting my common sense proposals to support American innovation and cut red tape.

Thank you, and I yield back. Gentlewoman yields back. Uh, Representative Rasnaan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. I rise in support of this manager's amendment, which includes 2 of my bipartisan common sense amendments.

The local bridge fund in this bill are major wins, and I want to make sure every corner of Pennsylvania benefits from them. My amendment ensures those dollars are distributed fairly across the Commonwealth, not just to big cities, not just to small towns. Every community that has a bridge in need deserves their fair share, and this amendment makes sure they get just that. Secondly, the Preventing Roadside and Work Zone Deaths Act is critical legislation, and my amendment makes sure every word of it makes it into this bill. It expands protections to include the occupants of disabled vehicles involved in a crash alongside roadway workers and pedestrians.

These are both bipartisan amendments, and I urge my colleagues to support. I yield. Gentleman yields back. Representative Hank Johnson, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you and the ranking member for your work on this manager's amendment and for including the bridge inspection workforce training provision. I truly appreciate the cooperation that made this possible. Across the country, our bridges depend on skilled inspectors, men and women who climb the beams, crawl the decks, and put their eyes on places most people never see. They are the first line of defense against tragedy. But too many states are facing shortages of trained and certified inspectors particularly in the specialized skills that modern bridge maintenance demands.

This provision helps close that gap. It gives states the flexibility to use the resources they already have to train and certify the workforce that keeps our bridges standing strong. No new bureaucracy, just practical support for the people doing this essential work. When we strengthen the inspection workforce, we strengthen safety, we strengthen public trust, we strengthen the very infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on every single day. That is not a small thing.

It is the difference between catching a problem early and dealing with a disaster later. So I'm grateful for the bipartisan effort that brought who brought this bill to fruition and brought my amendment into this manager's amendment. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. Ranking Member, for your leadership and for working with us to make this legislation stronger and safer for the American people. And with that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lauren Gellin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last March, I stood with leaders of the village of Hempstead, just steps away from one of the most dangerous intersections on Long Island. In less than 9 years, there were over 200 traffic accidents at that one intersection alone, some involving fatalities, others very serious injuries.

There is a serious car crash every 7 minutes on Long Island. As a member of this committee, I am proud to advocate on behalf of Nassau County residents and the American people to make our roads safer by investing in infrastructure that prioritizes safety over speed. Roundabouts are one of 28 proven safety countermeasures endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration to reduce traffic collisions and vehicular fatalities. According to the Department of Transportation, compared to intersections, installing roundabouts leads to an 82% reduction in fatal and injurious crashes, crashes, by minimizing conflict points and lowering speeds. I'm glad that the manager's amendment includes my bipartisan common sense amendment to codify the eligibility of roundabout construction for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.

I was proud to work with Congressman Bresnahan on this amendment and on our bipartisan bill, the Traffic Safety Enhancement Act. Mr. Chairman, This is a common sense solution to a very serious problem. I thank Congressman Bresnahan for his partnership in working with me on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. And with that, I yield back. Thank you to the lady.

Are there any further speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. It's my understanding that the chair and the ranking member urge an aye vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

One moment, please, as we prepare for further amendment activity.

Mr. Nadler, it's my understanding that you seek recognition. I do indeed. Very good. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Nadler of New York, number 040. Very good. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized for 5 minutes to speak on your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan decision to maintain Section 5337 State of Good Repair formula funding and avoid cuts to one of the most important federal transit programs. That is meaningful progress, and I thank the committee for recognizing the importance of keeping our transit systems safe and reliable. But maintaining current funding levels alone is not enough to meet the scale of need facing transit systems systems across the country. The nationwide State of Good Repair backlog now exceeds $150 billion, and nowhere is that challenge more urgent or more economically significant than in New York City. The amendment I am offering would robustly increase Section 5337 funding and build upon the successful advance appropriations provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Transit systems simply cannot afford to fall further behind on basic infrastructure renewal. In New York City, the MTA operates the largest transit network in North America and serves millions of riders every day. Yet much of this infrastructure riders depend on is decades old. Subway signals in some areas date back nearly a century, while critical tunnels, tracks, substations, and power systems require ongoing rehabilitation and modernization. And when aging infrastructure falls in New York City, The impacts extend far beyond the five boroughs.

Delays and breakdowns disrupt interstate commerce, regional mobility, tourism, and the productivity of one of the nation's largest economic engines. This additional funding would help transit agencies like the MTA. So we're not talking only about New York, but transit agencies like the MTA. And in addition to the MTA, replace worn tracks, aging signals, railcars, power systems, and other critical infrastructure before failures become more severe and more costly. Public transportation is fundamental national infrastructure.

It moves millions of Americans to jobs, schools, and businesses every day while reducing highway congestion and supporting economic activity across the country. If we are serious about safety, reliability, economic competitiveness, and matching the infrastructure that powers our economy, then we must invest at a level that matches the challenge. I urge my colleagues to work to ensure that America's transit systems remain in a true state of good repair.

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. I oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase the top-line funding levels for transit in the bill.

The bill already provides robust funding for highways and transit projects, and unfortunately, we cannot accommodate accommodate additional spending within the bill's top-line funding level. For these reasons, Chair Graves must oppose the amendment. And with that, I yield back. Are there further speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. Again, Chair Graves urges a nay vote. Mr. Chairman? Yes? I withdraw the amendment.

Very good. The amendment is withdrawn without objection. And with that, we will move to Mr. Webster's amendment, if you seek recognition, sir. Yes, I do. Very good.

We will designate— will the clerk designate the amendment? An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida, number 038.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Webster, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 5 Minutes. Thank you, Chairman. This amendment strengthens the underlying bill by ensuring that pulsating stoplight lamp systems are evaluated and authorized based on clear safety standards, practical data, and real-world performance.

Importantly, the amendment prevents premature or inconsistent enforcement actions while the rulemaking process is underway. Giving stakeholders clarity and preventing unnecessary burdens on operators who already comply with established safety criteria. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment and yield back my time.

Thank you, Mr. Webster. Does anyone else wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. Ranking Member, yes, sir, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Mr. Chair, I oppose Webster Amendment 38. This amendment would weaken the standard for Transportation Rulemaking Committee to determine if pulsating light systems are safe. It's not the job of Congress to determine what complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards.

These determinations are made by neutral experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And so I would encourage folks to oppose this amendment with that. I yield back. Thank you, sir. Are there any further speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question before the committee is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

With that, we will move to Mr. Garamendi. Do you wish to be recognized? Yes. Proceed, sir. You are recognized.

I was hoping that Mr. Graves would be in the seat, but— My apologies, Mr. Garamendi. You seek recognition. We need to have the the clerk designate. One moment, sir. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California, number 078. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Now, Mr. Garamendi, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, temporary chairman. I was hoping Mr. Graves might be in the seat because he's been one to really advocate, um, reform of the permitting system.

However, my interaction with you over the years indicates to me that you're just as interested in permitting reform as is the chairman. So the committee is also, I'm sure. California is often discussed as being the state that is out of line. Well, the line that it's in is a very significant environmental reform— environmental review process. And it actually is stronger than the federal NEPA program.

Uh, the— California's had a, um, pilot program available to it for several years in which they would be able to have just one of the two reviews, the CEQA, the California Environmental Program, uh, which was stronger than NEPA, and thereby not having to do both. Uh, it's working, it works well, and this amendment would make that pilot program permanent so that California and other states who have their own environmental review programs that are equal to or stronger than NEPA would only need to do their own state environmental review program and not have to do the duplicate and unnecessary NEPA review. And it also extends the underlying program from just highways to airports and ports. That's what it is. It's an effort to try to reduce the burden of environmental reviews for California and for— I think there's 2 or maybe 4 other states that have their own environmental programs that are equal to or greater than NEPA, and they would be able to take advantage of this as California has been able to do.

Very simple, a little bit of permitting reform, eliminating a duplicate and unnecessary expense. With that, I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. I recognize myself. Chair Graves has requested that I offer his opposition to the amendment.

While he supports the intent of the amendment, the underlying bill has significant streamlining wins for all projects, not just those in California, and given the concerns raised by some other members of the committee relating to this provision, the chairman must oppose the amendment. And with that, I yield back. Are there further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. As per recorded vote.

Very good. The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. With that, Mr. Perry, do you seek recognition? I do, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment at the desk. Very good. The clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania, number 224. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.

Mr. Perry, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment repeals 23 U.S.C. 104, Bowlegs F1, and 49 U.S.C. 5334, Bowlegs I, which allows for the transfer of highway funds to transit projects.

This amendment is simple. The money the federal government provides for highways should be spent on highway projects. Current law allows for the transfer of highway funds to transit projects. This transfer mechanism is used to divert approximately $5 billion from the highways to transit in FY '21 to '23. Again, no good deed goes unpunished.

We wanted, I think, this committee and the federal government to allow governors the flexibility, states the flexibility to flex their funds. But again, in Pennsylvania anyhow, in November of 2024, Governor Shapiro flexed $153 million from future highway projects, including in central Pennsylvania, York County in particular, to bail out SEPTA yet again. That money wasn't intended for SEPTA. That money was intended for highways. And it just continues to happen.

So continued diversion of highway funding has left our highway system in a state of disrepair. Drained the highway trust fund and greatly contributed to the American people's distrust of anything labeled as highway user fee because they're paying the fees, but they're not going to the highway. They're going to whatever political project the governor at the time has on his mind. This amendment would end the diversion of funding intended for highways to transit projects. Let's spend the money where we intend it to go and, and end this political game.

And make sure our highways are actually funded. With that, I yield the balance, urge adoption. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Larson, ranking member, is recognized. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I oppose the Perry Amendment 224. This flexibility has been in the law since DISCO ended, and we haven't changed it since, and we shouldn't change it now. It would repeal the ability for states to flex highway dollars to transit. Flexing highway dollars is not a requirement.

It's an option for states that choose to exercise it, an option I support because transit is one of the safest, most affordable, and cleanest ways of getting around. And I urge members to oppose this amendment, as I would suggest they oppose disco. I yield back. A disco reference allowed me to fill out a spot on my bingo card for the day, sir. Thank you.

Do others wish to be recognized on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question before the committee is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, nay.

No. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote is requested by the gentleman. As previously announced, pursuant to committee rules, further proceedings on the question are postponed. Mr. Johnson, do you seek recognition?

I do. Very good. The clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia, number 062. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.

Mr. Johnson, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is packed with provisions. It adds new programs, new requirements, new responsibilities, page after page of changes for the people who plan plan and manage our transportation system. But in the middle of all of that, there's a provision that doesn't quite line up with the work we already require.

Section 1107 reduces the local match for a very narrow slice of planning activities, but it does not extend that same flexibility to the full range of planning work that metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of transportation are already required to do under federal law. And that's where the confusion comes in, because the most important planning work, the long-range plans, the TIPs, the equity analysis, the multimodal coordination, is still charged at the higher match. So now we have a bill that essentially says, we'll help you with this tiny piece of planning, but not the rest of the planning we already require require you to do. That creates an uneven structure. It puts heavier burdens on local governments for the very planning work we expect them to complete.

This amendment is a technical fix that says if federal law requires the planning, then the reduced match should apply to all of it, not just a sliver carved out in Section 1107. Planning is the backbone of every transportation decision we make. And that backbone shouldn't be weakened by unclear or uneven rules. This amendment brings the bill back in line with the real work planners do and makes sure the support matches the responsibilities we already place on our managers. I urge my colleagues to support, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. With that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes to relay the chair's opposition to the amendment. This bill provides an increased federal share of 90% specifically for metropolitan planning program activities. The chairman supports retaining the federal share and thus opposes the amendment, and he urges his colleagues to vote no. With that, I yield back.

Are there further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, nay.

The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask for a recorded vote. The gentleman has requested a vote on the amendment. As previously announced, further proceedings will be postponed. One moment, please.

Mr. Fong, do you seek to be recognized?

Yes. Very good. For the purposes of offering amendment, I assume, sir? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. Very good.

The clerk will designate.

For the clerk, it is BOST 27 being offered by Mr. Fong.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870. Offered by Mr. Fong of California on behalf of Mr. Boss, number 027. Very good. Without objection, the amendment will be read.

Mr. Fong, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would add language from H.R. 979, The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, into the base text. This important bipartisan provision would ensure that vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States come equipped with AM radio.

When cell service, broadband internet, or cable fail during a storm or some other emergency, AM radio continues to broadcast. It is a consistent form of communication and one that over 82 million Americans depend on for emergency alerts at times when it matters most. I'm proud to support this initiative, and I am pleased to hear that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has chosen to include this language in the base text of their portion of the Build America 250 Act. For that reason, I will withdraw this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support this provision to keep AM radios in all vehicles and pass the Build America 250 Act when our sections are combined for a vote on the House floor.

With that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Nadler, it's already been withdrawn. I'd like to speak on it anyway. Um, point to Mr. Nadler.

Do you insist, sir? It's been withdrawn. Yes, I do. One moment while I confer with counsel. The amendment has been withdrawn.

There's no amendment before the committee, and as a result, we will move to See if, uh, Ms. Titus, would you— do you seek to be recognized? Uh, yes, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh, the clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Titus of Nevada, number 294. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Ms. Titus, you are recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier in my opening statement, safety has been and always will be my priority as the ranking member of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. This is personal also for my constituents in Southern Nevada. Trains carrying hazardous materials run right through the heart of my district, right through downtown Las Vegas, and that's the case in many of our districts.

Uh, they run past businesses, homes, schools, churches, neighborhoods. So this impacts all of us. Just one example: in September 2021, an Amtrak Empire Builder train derailed on BNSF-owned and maintained track in Joplin, Montana. That was caused by bad track conditions. That derailment killed 3 passengers and injured 49 other passenger and crew members.

In its final report, the NTSB stated that while automated track inspections provide detailed information provide information on specific track parameters, they do not— they do not capture the diverse array of unique track hazards detectable to human inspectors. My amendment, which is based on my legislation, the Secure Tracks Act, would protect visual track inspections while also supporting ATI technology. I'd like to thank Representative Van Drew for joining me in offering this amendment. It would ensure that any track defects that threaten public safety are identified and addressed right away, protecting rail workers and our communities from the health and environmental risk associated with derailments. Now, be clear, this amendment is not anti-technology or anti-innovation.

On the contrary, it requires railroads to use automated track inspection, ATI technology, at regular intervals, which would supplement the visual track inspections. I always hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the need to balance technology with visual inspections, and this proposal would do just that with the right amount of balance. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back.

Do any other members wish to be recognized? Seeing none, I recognize myself for 5 minutes to relay the chairman's opposition to the amendment. He urges his colleagues to oppose this amendment, which is nearly identical to rulemaking attempted at the end of the previous administration. It does undermine innovation in rail technology under the false guise of promoting rail safety technology. To be clear, the use of automated track inspection technologies, which have the capability to identify hundreds of defects compared to visual inspections, Make it possible for railroads to prioritize track maintenance and to deploy their maintenance and repair personnel more efficiently, often resulting in more maintenance job and work for employees, and most importantly, more safety.

And it allows safety to be proactive rather than reactive. For these reasons, the chairman must oppose the amendment. And with that, I yield back. Are there further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, state aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The lady has— the gentlelady requests a vote on the amendment, and as previously stated, pursuant to committee rules, further questions on the amendment are postponed.

Phone. With that, Mr. Mast, do you seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. Very good. The clerk will designate 154, I believe.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Mast of Florida, number 154, revision 1. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Mast is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman.

This amendment is all about know your customer, know your client, uh, as we're talking about grants that are doled out from the taxpayer through the federal government to, uh, nonprofits, for-profits, uh, municipalities, states, you name it. Uh, if you go out there and you ask a bank for a loan, uh, whether it's to buy a home, to start a business, to send a kid to college, you have to prove your income. You have to prove your employment history, your debt-to-income ratio. In other words, you're your assets and your liabilities. That's what responsible lending does so that somebody doesn't get stuck with a bill that somebody can't pay for.

Uh, the bank has to make sure that you can hold up your end of the deal. But when a private entity stands to benefit from federal taxpayer dollars in the form of grants, the government will write a check for millions or hundreds of millions of dollars with little to no underwriting at all. And so that raises some very real real questions. What happens if the operator folds? What then?

Are taxpayers made whole, or are they left with infrastructure that they can no longer use? And why is the federal government cutting checks of those sizes that we know they are without looking at the financial— the, the finances of the entities that they're dealing with? The same pattern repeats everywhere. A private operator partners with a public applicant to reach federal funds, as so often happens. A company that could maybe not pass a bank's loan application can get a check from the US taxpayer just because the application carries the name of a city or a port authority or a navigation district or a trans— uh, a transit agency.

The public entity gets a project, the private operator gets the contract, and the community, uh, they will go out there and they will get the risk. The taxpayer will get the risk. So a federal grant cannot be a lifeline for a failing private entity at the taxpayer's expense. My amendment requires that the Department of Transportation adopt new grant applications that asks every applicant, every business owner, guarantee, controlling manager, or third-party operator behind them for the same information that any lender would expect to see: tax returns, financial statements, annual revenue and profit, outstanding debts, monthly payments, ownership stakes, full names of people who are involved. It's important to note that many of these questions come straight from the applications that bank customers fill out.

I didn't just pull this stuff out of my backside. This amendment is also divided into 3 separate parts depending on whether a grant applicant is a government entity, a for-profit business or a nonprofit, and the questions are designed to speak to their financial situations. It then says that when the Department of Transportation receives the application, this committee, the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, needs to be CC'd on that. That matters. How, how often are we as members of Congress asked to issue letters of support for these type of applications?

You know, they We have companies that want us to go out there, or municipalities that want us to go out there and support a grant application. But again, we don't have the capability to do the underwriting. We don't have the underwriting information, but we're asked to go out there and support on it. That is a real problem. And so as representatives, we should know more about the— those that are asking for these grants.

The principle here is very simple. The federal government should not be handing out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on terms looser than what a community bank would accept. The federal government should know our customers, know our clients, know those that are requesting grants. I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I thank you, and I yield back. Do other members seek recognition?

Ranking Member. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I oppose Mass Amendment 154.

The federal government does not just hand out money. We have our own oversight. We have agency oversight, we have the GAO, we have the Inspector General, we have plenty of oversight, and we have to be aggressive about that. But this amendment would supersede all grant application forms for individual programs or modes and replace them with one standardized form. While it may sound good in theory, there can be valid reasons for differences depending upon the program requirements or agency needs, particularly to assist evaluations among qualified applicants in surface transportation grant programs, which are almost always oversubscribed.

Further, many of these requirements, as the proponent has said in this amendment, are appropriate for a private business and much more appropriate for a private business, like annual net revenue or sales, when most of the agencies applying for these grants are state DOTs, transit agencies, cities, or counties. So given all that, I would oppose this amendment and urge Others who oppose, with that, yield back. Very good. Do other members seek recognition? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question before the committee is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

Recorded vote requested. The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment, and proceedings are postponed. That, Ms. Brownlee. No, I'm sorry, Mr. Huffman. You are— for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Huffman of California, number 075, previously circulated as Huffman Word One.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank Congressmembers Foushee, Brownlee, and Frost for offering this amendment with me. Our amendment would strike Section 1129 of the bill, which imposes a punitive and unworkable new federal tax on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. And we all know the Highway Trust Fund needs a long-term solution, but this provision is not a serious solution.

It's a regressive tax that unfairly targets drivers who choose cleaner and more efficient vehicles while creating major implementation problems and raising very little meaningful revenue at the end of the day. At a time when Americans are dealing with both an affordability crisis and a climate crisis, Congress should not be penalizing people for choosing cleaner vehicles. For most families, transportation is already the second largest household expense. Right after housing. And now we're proposing a new federal tax on people who are trying to save money at the pump.

As this tax discourages Americans from adopting cleaner, more affordable transportation alternatives, it locks consumers into higher gasoline costs and protects the market share and profits of major oil companies at the expense of innovation and competition and consumer choice. What makes this even harder to justify is that the numbers don't— add up fairly. The $150 flat tax on EVs and $50 tax on plug-in hybrids does not take into account how much someone drives. That means a senior citizen who rarely drives, or a working family trying to cut commuting costs, could end up paying more than drivers who use the road far more heavily. That makes no sense.

And all of this is a project— is projected to raise only $1 billion annually, against a Highway Trust Fund shortfall exceeding $30 billion a year. This provision also creates a massive administrative headache for states without meaningfully addressing the problem. States would have to pass new laws, overhaul registration systems, and create entirely new collection mechanisms in just 2 years, or face steep federal penalties. California alone could face penalties exceeding $300 million annually. So this is not a workable partnership between states.

It's Congress setting up states to fail. We also need to stop repeating the claim that EV drivers are somehow getting a free ride. In many states, EV owners already pay substantial taxes and fees, in some cases more overall than drivers of conventional vehicles. This provision is not about fixing the Highway Trust Fund. It's about singling out one category of vehicle and punishing people for driving it.

So, Mr. Chairman, um, I do feel strongly about this, but because our friends in the Senate have made it very, very clear that this EV tax is a non-starter, it is not going to become law, uh, I will withdraw this amendment. I nevertheless thank my colleagues for joining me in presenting it and for standing strong in, uh, opposition to this punitive and unworkable tax on EVs. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn and we will proceed. Ms. Brownlee, do you seek— for what? I'm sorry, we've got—.

We're going to go—. Well, Ms. Brownlee is here. Yes. Okay. Burchett.

All right. Mr. Burchett, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my amendment's on the desk.

Yes, sir, it is. The clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Burchett of Tennessee, number 148.

Without objection, um, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Uh, my amendment would— is very simple— would exclude would exclude weight scales from being considered as bridges under the Federal Railroad Administration's regulatory guidelines. Removing the scales from the list clears up unnecessary regulation and red tape and is one step towards a more efficient government. It is clear to me that scales are not the same as bridges, and I hope it's just as clear to my colleagues.

In the interest of efficiency, I will end my remarks now, and we have a lot of amendments to get through. Through. And I'm— with that, I yield back. The gentleman is to be commended for his efficiency. Do other members seek recognition?

Uh, Mr. Ranking Member, you are recognized. Um, thank you. I thank the gentleman for his efficiency and oppose his amendment as well. This amendment exempts track scales from the FRA's rail bridge safety and reporting requirements.

A track scale is used to determine how much a freight railroad charges to move cargo. The FRA considers track scales as bridges for purposes of maintaining bridge safety standards. I do not support reducing the FRA's safety oversight of this rail infrastructure. I'd urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. Do other members seek recognition?

Seeing none. Are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question before the committee is on the amendment. All those in favor, state aye. All those opposed say nay.

No. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Nays have it. I was louder than you.

With that— very good. A recorded vote having been requested, activity on that amendment, on that, that action will be postponed. Ms. Brownlee, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Very good, ma'am. Uh, the clerk will designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Brownlee of California, number 062. Mr. Chairman, I want— wanted to ask unanimous consent to consider amendments, uh, 62 and 71 and 64 en bloc, so I can do all three together.

62, 71, And what? 64. Without unanimous objection. Yeah, without objection.

Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson, for your work on this legislation. The bill before us today provides critical funding for infrastructure priorities in California and in my district. Including for our roads, bridges, transit systems, and rail network. The bill also incorporates many of the key policy priorities that I worked to advance through the committee process. I also appreciate that the manager's amendment adopted earlier today incorporated 5 of my amendments.

2 Of the amendments that I am offering in this en bloc package are intended to address a problem with the Federal Highway Administration's interpretation of federal law as it relates to the project selection process. For over 3 decades, California successfully operated under a locally driven framework through which the state suballocated program funds to county transportation commissions based on population. This approach empowered local transportation planning agencies to plan and deliver transportation projects. Unfortunately, in 2021, the Federal Highway Administration upended this longstanding planning process and prohibited metropolitan planning organizations from delegating project selection to the counties, effectively centralizing control of project selection at the regional level. In the Southern California Association of, of Governments region, which is home to over 18.8 million people across 6 counties and nearly 200 cities, this shift has disrupted the traditional project selection process.

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of members from the Southern California region asked the committee to include language to restore direct formula allocation to county transportation agencies. Since our request was not included in the base text, I offered these amendments today to address these local control issues. The language in my amendment is supported by both Democrats and Republicans who represented the region. The third amendment that I am offering in this en bloc was intended to direct more resources from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program to local communities nationwide. The STBG suballocation is the best and most direct way that our committee can ensure resources get to our congressional districts.

I understand the committee has concerns about these amendments. I hope we can continue to work together as the legislative process advances to address these important issues. Um, at this time, I will respectfully withdraw the amendments on Block 062, 062, 071, and 064. Uh, thank you, Miss Brownlee. I appreciate that.

And yes, be happy to continue to—. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We'll go ahead. We'll wait on Dusty. He'll be back in just a minute. We'll go to Mr. Carbajal.

Thank you. Are we doing— Great. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Please designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Carbajal of California, number 070. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would establish a new Medium Transit Intensive Cities, or MTIC, set-aside within the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula grant program.

This builds on the proven success of Small Transit Intensive Cities, STIC, formula by creating a parallel program for medium-sized urbanized areas, UZAs, those with populations between 200,000 and under a million. These communities are often doing the same kind of work as the largest transit systems in our country. They run frequent service, move significant numbers of riders, and serve as critical links between suburban, urban mobility, and urban mobility. But under the current formula, they're treated the same as the largest metropolitan systems. They are competing against cities with far greater scale and resources.

That is not a fair comparison, and it doesn't reflect performance. My amendment fixes that by setting aside a small portion of Section 5307 funding to recognize and reward medium-sized transit systems that meet or exceed performance benchmarks comparable to large urbanized areas. In short, if a transit agency is delivering high-quality, high-frequency service, it should be recognized for it. This can be a win-win for everyone. For communities like mine in Santa Barbara, this means a more level playing field.

Strong transit systems such as Santa Barbara MTD that move people efficiently every day would be recognized and provided the federal resources to continue delivering vital mobility services for our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help us build a formula that works for every community, not just large ones. While I understand the limitations of the Big Four agreement, I hope I can continue to get commitment from you, Mr. Chairman, that we can continue to work on this issue. And with that, I would like to withdraw my amendment. Thank you.

And absolutely, my good friend, we will continue. Thank you.

I do. All right, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. What? Okay. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Nails of Texas, number 094, revision 2. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Nails, you're recognized for speaking on your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our committee has an opportunity today to deliver on President Trump's call for stronger rail safety protections and to ensure that the tragedy we witnessed in East Palestine, Ohio, never happens again.

Can't have it. February 3rd, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials derailed in East Palestine. Tank cars exploded into flames. Families were forced from their homes. Toxic smoke filled the sky.

You could all see it. And dangerous chemicals contaminated nearby land and water. That disaster did not happen in a vacuum. It exposed serious weaknesses in the freight rail industry safety practices, particularly when it comes to transporting hazardous materials through our communities. Just 2 months ago, a derailment occurred in my own congressional district in Texas.

The derailed equipment included 2 empty rail cars, 4 rail cars carrying non-hazardous materials, 18 tank cars carrying hazardous materials. 10 Of the derailed rail cars released materials, including 7 breached, punctured, or torn cars that collectively released about 120,000 gallons of ethanol, which is a hazardous material. Now, luckily, no injuries. Luckily, there are no injuries, and this derailment had no immediate harm to the public. Still a derailment.

However, since 2024, the NTSB has been on the scene of 53 rail accidents and incidents that resulted in 17 fatalities and 10 injuries. 27 Investigations are worker-related. In fact, listen, the NTSB has increased its number of rail investigations each year by 33% in 2025 over that of 2024. In 2025 alone— this is a big number, folks— 2025 alone, There was a total of 9,836 rail accidents and incidents, of which there were 969 fatalities and 6,291 injuries. Now, that's a big number.

You think about it. This committee, what did we do? When you had the crash over the Potomac, took 67 lives, everybody's concerned about safety, this committee immediately put $12.5 billion to address it. With ATC modernization, $12.5 billion, and it looks like you're going to get another $20 billion to make sure our skies are safe. But yet we have 969 fatalities, 6,000, and we've done nothing.

We've done nothing since East Palestine. The NTSB standards, their acceptable number, zero. We'd love to have it. As the NTSB Chairwoman Hammoudi said in her letter to urge this committee dated 2 days ago, May 20th, She reinstated the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to address critical rail safety issues, which are included in my bipartisan rail safety amendment before us today. According to the NTSB, quote, Congress's discussion today aligns with many of our recommendations, including those on high-hazardous flammable train lengths and consistents, DOT 111 tank car regulations, wayside defect detectors, and other urgent concerns.

My bipartisan amendment, it just does that. It takes practical, common sense steps to address those failures. First, it strengthens safety procedures for trains carrying hazardous materials by improving emergency response planning and ensuring states receive advanced notification when dangerous substances move through their jurisdictions. Second, it helps prevent wheel bearing failures, one of the key issues identified in East Palestine derailment, by requiring the largest freight railroads to deploy better detention technology and install additional sensors near populated areas. Third, it improves rail safety inspections by prohibiting arbitrary time limits on inspection and ensuring qualified inspectors have the ability to do their jobs thoroughly and correctly.

Safety inspections— they should never, ever, ever be rough— be rushed. My amendment, it's bipartisan, is supported by President Trump and his administration. As well as shippers, unions, other key stakeholders across the freight network. Two days ago, President said, I am strongly urging Congress to include the Rail Safety Act, which I strongly endorsed in 2023, in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. I'm asking Republicans to vote yes when this bill comes up as an amendment in the Transportation Committee this week.

We must not delay any further on this important issue. And folks, let me remind you, while the large railroads are attempting to find any avenue they can to skew the message on my amendment. Two-person crews are already the standard across all major railroads in America. There is $0 impact to their expenses and $0 impact to their bottom line. I'll also note my amendment doesn't strike any of the underlying provisions in the base text.

Rather, it adds critical safety measures while also adhering to the bipartisan negotiated provisions for civil penalties, DOT 111 tank car phase-out schedule, hazardous materials registration fees. Sir, this is the right thing to do. The people living alongside these rail corridors deserve confidence, and every reasonable precaution is taken to protect their families, their properties, and their communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Let's do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

And with that, I yield. Mr. Larson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment from Mr. Nelson and urge members to vote for it. Since the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, in 2023, nearly 3.5 years ago, this committee has not considered rail safety legislation until today. I'm very thankful for the work that has been done by Representative Nelson, Sykes, Deluzio, Bresnahan, and Ranking Member Titus and Van Drew and others to ensure this issue is not forgotten. Because of their hard work, we have a bipartisan rail safety amendment.

The Railway Safety Act protects rail workers and communities that railroads travel through, requires the placement of wayside defect detectors, strengthens penalties on railroads for safety violations, and removes older, dangerous tank cars from service sooner. This amendment would make significant updates to freight rail safety, including requiring 2 crew members on all freight trains, updating the definition of high-hazard trains, requiring a rulemaking to address train length, prohibiting railroads from limiting the amount of time available to inspect railcars before a train departs a rail yard, and updating hazardous materials grants to help first responders purchase personal protective equipment for hazardous material leaks. Having this vote today is a culmination of years of work from members from both parties, the women and men of rail labor, countless advocates and of course, communities and people in them like the folks from East Palestine. So I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

Mr. Knopp.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the spirit of this bill, or this amendment rather, and the goals that were articulated by my colleagues. But I do have a question, and I would be happy to pose it to either Mr. Nelson or Mr. Larson or whoever would like to to, to, uh, engage. I do, upon reading the bill and the language that was presented lately, um, fairly recently, do you believe that there's a risk to, um, initiating a federalism issue of some kind? I'm thinking about states like Texas— like, Mr. Nils, you might want to talk— um, like North Carolina, Utah, that are more of a— without taking a position on the merits of this, right-to-work states, it seems like this particular bill would override state legislatures' laws, regulations as it relates to the labor issue.

That seemed to be more of a top-down metric as opposed to respecting the states' rights. So is there a federalism issue with this amendment? I'm happy to yield to anyone who wants to answer that.

No.

Correct answer. Are you confident in that? Yes. Does this amendment override railway policy in North Carolina? Because from my interpretation of it, there's a risk that it does.

From a regulatory standpoint, from a personnel standpoint, staffing standpoints. Safety inspections is a top-down issue, and that interplay could get very questionable, I would say. So is it your position that a state's legislature, if they have a different standard, a different policy, that that will govern over the rules that are coming out of this committee?

Can I respond to that? Sure. Sure. This is what I do know. And that this administration supports this legislation like everybody else.

So many other people support it. Strongly supports Nails Amendment 94 to include the Rail Safety Act of 2026 in H.R. 8870, The Building Unrivaled Infrastructure, Build American Act, the bipartisan 5-year Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. The administration commends Representative Nails for his sustained commitment to rail safety. That's what this is about.

It's about rail safety. Because we've done nothing. We've done nothing. In the wake of February 3rd, 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, the president has pledged to the people of East Palestine that they will not be forgotten. And this amendment represents meaningful legislative action to fulfill that promise and to prevent toxic train derailments in the future.

The administration— let me just read it— working with Congress and gets this important action into law. And that's what we're doing today. I'm for all of that. Respectfully, but, you know, we heard from the industry, and one section requires that there be a change to the inspection regulations so that two different crews represented by two different unions get to do the same visual inspection on the same train. Again, if North Carolina has a different regulation, the interplay between the state law versus this particular amendment is just puzzling to me.

Miss Schnell's bad. I'm sorry, I yield to yourself. This amendment applies to classified. Mr. Knott's time. Well, I would be happy to yield to anybody, um, who, who just— again, I'm not taking position on the, on the, the merits of the labor policy.

I'm just using that as an example of state legislatures, right, having their own standards. And are we imposing in this amendment standards that could override prickly issues at the state level? Yes, it's a good question. This amendment applies to Class I railroads. Those are interstate railroads.

So if there are small short lines, tourist lines or things like that that operate within a state like yours that have different regulations, then this would not— Does the federal government have jurisdiction over interstate railroads exclusively today? Yes, we do. Even as it relates to labor policy, it's my understanding that that's not the case as it relates to labor policy with private companies. No, it— Class 1 railroads are regulated by the federal government because they have interstate commerce. Class 1 railroads are only the largest railroads in the country.

I'm aware of that. I'm aware of that. Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to comment, I welcome it. That was just one of the main questions I had as it related to this particular amendment. And with that, I can yield back.

Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really want to thank Mr. Mills for his leadership here on this amendment. I want to thank Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Bresnahan on the Republican side, Ms. Sykes, Titus, Mr. Carson, Moulton, Pappas here on our side. This is a great coalition that also includes everyone from workers in this to the White House folks on both sides of the aisle here.

And it tells you this is a bill we should pass. You know, it's been more than 3 years since this derailment. I've got constituents who were in the evacuation zone. We've got neighbors in Ohio who are all clamoring for the same thing, for something to come out of this Congress to make rail safer. People I represent, our neighbors in Ohio, do not want to be treated like collateral damage in the way of railroads' profits.

And I think one of the most important things we can do in this committee is to pass our Railway Safety Act. So I'm excited to see that movement today. You heard Mr. Nels talk about the bill. It's straightforward. It responds to problems around staffing, around wayside defect detectors, and more.

These are common sense provisions. It is the right thing for us to do, not just for the people of East Palestine and Beaver County, but for people who live along the tracks all over this country, so many of whom we all represent. Mr. Nels, thank you for introducing the amendment. I'm proud to support it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Vendrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Nelles too. And let me be clear, um, this is Class 1 railways. It is interstate.

It is regulated by the federal government for that reason. And I understand the concept of federalism, and I agree with you to some extent, but here is a case where you have to have minimum standards for safety. And there are cases— look at air traffic control. And what we do at our airports. It's the same thing.

Safety has to dominate here. It's still adhering to the policies and the prescription of the Constitution. I believe that this does do both of those because of the reason they're interstate. I yield. I yield back.

Mr. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to lead this— co-lead this amendment with Representative Nelson DeLuzio to today has been 3 years in the making. This committee hadn't taken a vote on a comprehensive rail safety bill since the train carrying hazardous materials tragically derailed in East Palestine in February 2023. When I became the ranking member of the Rail Subcommittee at the start of this Congress, I said we would take action to help prevent further instances like that one, and I'm glad to see that we're doing that today.

I'm sorry it wasn't in the Rail Safety Act base text, but I'm glad we're going to have a fair vote on it now as an amendment. That way everybody can weigh in. I'm confident that when people look at the details of this and think about the safety of their constituents on both sides of the aisle, they'll do what's right and vote yes. The amendment implements recommendations that resulted from the NTSB's independent investigation. Investigation into the causes of the derailment.

For example, it would phase out the use of DOT-111 tank cars, the type of car that was punctured and caused the fire after the derailment. It strengthens the standards for wayside detectors, which could have prevented the derailment. And of course, I'd like to mention it codifies the common sense two-person crew rule, which I've long advocated for. Each year, nearly 250 million tons of hazardous materials are shipped by rail. So many communities from all our districts are along these routes.

As I noted, it goes right through the heart of downtown Las Vegas. We have to protect these communities and the rail workers. In— excuse me— the NTSB has endorsed the amendment. The White House has endorsed the amendment. The Rail Labor Coalition has endorsed the amendment.

The support is just overwhelming. So I think a vote for the amendment is a vote for safety.

I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment originated with a piece of legislation that Congressman Nels and I worked on for months, months and months and months to improve rail safety. But too often we hear people talk about this issue as if the railroads are fundamentally dangerous. We hear the statistics about how many tons of hazardous materials they carry, how many miles it traverses, the communities they go through, and we leave out some basic statistics like the fact that In 2023, there were 22,543 hazardous material incidents on highways and only 297 hazmat incidents on railways. From 2012 to 2023, there have been zero railway deaths with hazardous materials, while there have been 82 fatalities on the highway— highways with hazmat.

The point is that we have an opportunity to strengthen the reputation of the railroads, to encourage more people to ship hazardous materials by rail, and give confidence to America that the railways are in fact as safe as the statistics proclaim. This is not an anti-commerce, anti-industry, anti- railway amendment. It strengthens protections that we have. It modernizes protections. It makes things keep up with the progress of technology.

And we've worked very closely with all the different industry groups, interest groups, and whatnot, especially labor, to make sure that this happens. So enough with the fearmongering. Rail is by far the safest way to transport hazmat in the United States of America. We should reinforce that fact. We should reinforce that reputation and ensure that more shippers choose to ship by rail with the confidence that this amendment will bring to our railways, to our transportation system, that Congress is not asleep on the job.

That we are working with industry and labor and our communities to ensure that rail maintains its incredible safety record and only gets better over time. It's pretty amazing to go back to those numbers. In just one year, 22,543 hazardous material incidents on highways and only 297 freight rail hazmat incidents. But let's get that 297 down to zero. Then there will be no debate that we should be shipping more by rail, especially hazardous materials, because it makes it safer for our communities across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Seeing no one, I'm going to recognize myself, which I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment and much of the underlying bill that it's based on, it isn't about railroad safety. It's natural to want to find solutions to accidents in order to prevent them from ever happening again. And my colleagues know well that I always insist on waiting for the facts to come out before legislating after any accident. And the accident in East Palestine is no different.

The National Transportation Safety Board's investigations are essential to understanding just what went wrong and how we can prevent future accidents from occurring. After the NTSB released its report on June 25th, 2024, it was clear that many pieces of the amendment that we are considering today would have had absolutely no impact on that accident. For example, a key piece of this amendment is the two-man crew mandate. I find it absolutely fascinating that in a world where we have autonomous vehicles, no driver, autonomous trucks with no driver, we have aircraft with no pilot, and here it is, we have the only mode of transportation operating on a rail, and we say we got to have two individuals in the cab to, uh, to prevent something. The fact is there were 3 people in the cab in East Palestine.

What's more, we don't need anybody in the cab with today's technology and positive train control. These trains can be run from the dispatch center. That's a fact. We don't need anybody else in the cab. You know, this amendment asserts that 2-man crews is essential key for safety.

But the facts just directly contradict that. It is so important to acknowledge also the costs of this amendment and what impact that's going to have on all Americans. Billions of dollars within 10 years. It's going to ripple across the entire supply chain, resulting in slower, less fluid service, higher costs, and more frequent delays for shippers. Our farmers, our manufacturers, and more rely on an efficient rail system to get products to consumers.

This mandate included in this amendment is going to ultimately raise costs for all Americans. So when the price of your energy goes up, this is why. When the price of your food goes up, this is why. When the price of your lumber goes up, This is why everything is going to go up. And I'm sure many of these members in the committee, many of the members in the committee would agree that we should not compromise safety due to cost concerns.

However, here's a fact. The freight rail industry just had its safest safety record this year or last year in 2025, setting safety records for derailments, for equipment-caused accidents, track-related accidents, and employee injury rate. The best record it has ever had. The reason for those safety records is clear. The emergence of new technology has made the industry safer.

The broader use of autonomous or automated track inspection to catch issues on the tracks that are invisible to the naked eye has directly led to the lowest rate of track-caused accidents on record. Additionally, we've seen the lowest rate of equipment-caused accidents on record due to technology advancements. Unfortunately, despite these safety achievements, adopting this amendment is going to move us backward. And it's for these reasons and many, many more that I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. And with that, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the ayes, or opinion of the chair, the nays have it.

Yeah, I request a recorded vote, boss. Thank you, sir.

The gentleman requests a recorded vote on the amendment. As previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

Mr. Stanton.

Better be good, Stanton. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Please designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Stanton of Arizona, number 087.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Stanton, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This bipartisan amendment adds to the bipartisan HEAT Act co-led by Congressman Lawler of New York to the underlying text. Extreme heat is no longer a regional concern.

It's an urgent growing threat to human health, our environment, and increasingly to our critical infrastructure across our country. When heat wave hits, extreme temperatures accelerate the aging of our critical infrastructure. Roadway cracking and warping that would normally take years can happen in much shorter period of time. Steel joints on aging bridges freeze up. The structural integrity of concrete and asphalt can degrade faster than they can be maintained.

I'm from Arizona. We're no strangers to heat, but this challenge is actually more acute across the Northeast, where bridges are older, more numerous, and often more vulnerable. Unplanned closures driven by heat stress disrupt freight movement, break supply chains, strand commuters, imposing significant costs on local economies and reducing national productivity. Our emergency relief programs were designed with floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes in mind. Extreme heat should be in the same category.

The Heat Act does two straightforward things. It explicitly adds extreme heat as a recognized natural disaster for purposes of deploying federal emergency transportation resources, and it directs the Department of Transportation to assess the impacts of heat on our transportation networks and develop best practices for mitigation. It's a common sense, straightforward-looking policy. The infrastructure we're funding in this bill will be around for decades. We should build it to withstand the conditions that we'll actually face.

To keep faith with the four-corner agreement from the committee, I'm offering and withdrawing this amendment today, but I look forward to continuing to work with the chair and Ranking Member Larson to find a path forward for this important provision. Thank you. I yield back.

Without objection. Thank you. So I'm going to Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis, please designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Davis of Kansas, number 067.

Without objection, the amendment would be considered as read. Sharice, you're recognized.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your— actually, I might be entering something into the record later on related to this. I don't have it with me right now. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer an amendment that allows for increased flexibility flexibility for our local transit agencies.

While federal law does allow transit authorities in cities with less than 200,000 residents to use federal formula funds for transit operations, transit systems in regions with more than 200,000, like Kansas City, are not permitted to do so. As transit agencies continue to make tough decisions about how to manage their budgets, having more flexibility to use their Section 5307 dollars may help them bridge the gap to keep bus routes and operations sustained. Strained. This is certainly the case in Kansas City, where the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority is struggling to keep all their bus routes running while dealing with local budget challenges, all at the same time that they are preparing for Kansas City to be one of the host cities for the World Cup in just a few weeks. Especially in a time when gas prices have climbed and more folks are trying to keep costs down, we need to be doing all that we can to allow our transit agencies the flexibility to serve our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?

Seeing no one, I recognize myself, uh, real quick for a statement, which I very much appreciate, um, what you're trying to do, but I do oppose the amendment because it grants federal operating assistance to large city transit agencies that have have not meaningfully addressed the crime on their systems.

While some limited federal dollars can be used for operations, it's important that the, that the systems are able to maintain operations themselves and use federal funds for their capital needs. And for those reasons, I do oppose the amendment. And with that, I'd yield back. Mr. Chairman, I first I'd like to thank my colleague Laura Friedman for co-sponsoring this amendment with me, and hopefully we can work on this together while we still have you here.

Sure. And I'll go ahead and withdraw the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Sharice. And yes, absolutely.

Mr. Collins.

Yes, sir. I've got an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia, number 023.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Collins, 5 minutes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I'm proud to offer an amendment, the Fresh Act, that would empower states to let some of the heaviest trucks on the road take the safest roads— our interstates.

The federal bridge formula, which governs weight limits on interstates, was adopted in 1975, more than 50 years ago, and it has not been updated since then. While the federal government is stuck in 1975, many states have updated the weight limits for their state roads, leading to a situation where many of the heaviest trucks travel on state roads because modern weight limits allow them to maximize payload and reduce total trips. Our truckers are already on a time crunch every time they deliver the goods you and I use every day, goods that keep the U.S. economy moving. When they're forced to take neighborhood streets, their delivery times are extended and the threat of crashes increases. Interstates are the safest roads in America.

3 In 4 fatal large truck crashes occur off the interstate system on local roads and state highways. This amendment would move some of the heaviest trucks off these congested roads where crashes are most likely and onto the interstates where they were designed for heavy freight. Some people may be concerned about the impacts on the roads, but this has been tested. The MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub used fully loaded, ready-mixed concrete trucks to model the impacts of heavier vehicles. They found that across a 50-year pavement life, there were no negative impacts on pavement or increased maintenance cost.

We're seeing many states with higher weight limits and a positive track record. Florida, Michigan, Maine, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and others have authorized higher truck weights on state roads. And pavements have not failed and crash rates have not spiked. The FRESH Act is a common sense bill. It will not raise federal truck weight limits.

It will not change the federal bridge formula. It will not force any state to participate. This amendment will not apply across state lines or to over-the-road freight, and it won't allow heavier trucks and the truck's rated capacity on the state's own rules. But it will fix overly complicated federal truck weight standards, improve safety, cut emissions, and reduce traffic. In my district, the same trucks that haul our crops, our timber, our poultry, and the concrete that pours the foundations of our schools and hospitals are pushed off the safest roads in the country and onto the local routes that run by those same schools and hospitals.

The FRESH Act lets each state fix that on its own terms, for its own roads, and for its own people. It deserves a place in this reauthorization. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. This is one of several amendments throughout the day that are on truck weights, and this— on this one in particular, I just will note, I'll I'll oppose the amendment. This amendment would allow any state to waive federal interstate weight limits for commercial motor vehicles and replace them with a patchwork of state weight limits. Further, this amendment exempts a laundry list of commodities that are allowed to be transported at higher weights, including allowing any governor to decide which categories of products are exempt from those limits. This fundamentally breaks the purpose of our interstate system with uniform rules instead of consistent rules.

We'd have a level of chaos. A truck carrying overweight cargo in one state could violate another state's weight laws. This amendment would make truck safety enforcement extremely difficult and cause confusion and risk when we need to focus on saving lives on our roads. I urge all members to oppose this amendment. I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? By the way, congratulations, Mr. Collins, last night on making it to the runoff in your state.

So moving forward, um, are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, we'll vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay.

It appears the nays have it. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote. The gentleman requests a vote on the amendments previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.

Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870, Offered by Mr. Garcia of Illinois, number 042. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Mr. Garcia, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start by saying that I intend to withdraw this amendment, but my amendment would create a new grant program to provide federal assistance for the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation needs of commuter rail systems' old bridges. In the late 19th century, Chicago— a Chicago ordinance required that all railroad tracks be elevated in the city.

This resulted in the construction of hundreds of bridges in a short time frame. Many of these same bridges continue to be in service and are deteriorating at the same rate. In Chicagoland, Metra is the commuter rail system tasked with providing rail service spanning 6 counties and 500 route miles. They also own hundreds of bridges that, while currently operating in a safe working condition, are in dire need of capacity improvements to meet modern-day standards. My amendment would ensure that Metro and other commuter rail systems around the country have access to a dedicated funding stream to cover the cost to maintain their old bridges.

It's important that we support the safe and efficient movement of people traveling via commuter rail. And this amendment does just that. I, I realize this bill, uh, is on its way to passage, but this issue I wanted to lift up because it will remain relevant for the next and for future Congresses. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And now I withdraw my amendment. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Kiley. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. Mr.

Chair, an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Kiley of California, number 045. Without objection, the amendment would be considered as read. Mr. Kiley, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Federal transportation dollars build the roads and infrastructure necessary to move people and goods, but aging water and sewer infrastructure in the corridors around those facilities too often prevents the development that would make those investments pay off. This amendment that I'm offering today gives regions a practical tool to fix that. It does, it does a couple things. Number one, it makes public infrastructure eligible under the Surface Transportation Block Grant, so up to 20% of each region's suballocated funds under the Block Grant Program can be used for projects that directly serve a federally assisted transportation facility.

And then number 2, it adds public infrastructure as an eligible project type under the Surface Transportation Accelerator Grant Program, giving regions a competitive pathway to federal dollars for these larger investments. Together, these changes give regions the tools to pair public infrastructure investment with transportation facilities to unlock private development, increase ridership, and maximize the return on federal transportation dollars already spent. I yield back.

Mr. Larson. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I oppose the Kiley Amendment, and it's not because it's a terrible amendment necessarily, but this amendment adds new eligibilities to the Surface Transportation Block Grant and Accelerate accelerated grant programs for public infrastructure such as water and sewer.

And broadening the scope of these programs so dramatically undermines the user pays, user benefits principle and jeopardizes the investment in the surface transportation competitive grant programs, which are already highly oversubscribed. The other point I certainly want to make is that we have the state revolving funds, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. We have USDA programs that can be used in rural areas as well for sewer and water infrastructure. Infrastructure. So there are other grant programs available to address these other public infrastructure needs as well.

So with the limited— as great as this bill is at $580 billion, as limited as those dollars are for the next 5 years, we have other work to do on Water Resources Development Act, on State Revolving Fund, where we can address some of these issues. So I would just urge members to oppose this amendment, but certainly want to figure out a way to move forward on these other elements so that we can continue to fund the state revolving funds that states use for water and sewer. With that, yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?

Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay. Nay.

Opinion of the chair. The nays have it. The nays do have it.

All right. Mr.— Ms. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Doesn't it?

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Strickland of Washington, number 079. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Strickland, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a technical correction by defining Transportation Demand Management, otherwise known as TDM, which this bill already authorizes as an eligibility under the Rural and Urban Surface Transportation Accelerator grant program.

Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, is the use of demand-side strategies to enhance the efficiency of existing road infrastructure. I've secured language in this bill that will allow states, localities, and tribes to use federal dollars for transportation demand management solutions that will maximize efficiencies within their transportation systems. We all know that local communities know their own transportation needs best. However, because of the lack of clarity around what TDM is, regional Federal Highway Administration offices have adopted their own interpretation. This has resulted in inconsistencies in which projects receive federal funding, inefficiencies in how funds are administered and delivered, and missed opportunities for communities to address congestion and transportation affordability through the use of TDM.

Defining TDM will ensure that all communities, regardless of region, have fair access to federal dollars for TDM projects and can deliver, deliver those projects more efficiently. I urge my colleagues to support this technical correction that will allow communities to access the funds that this bill has already authorized. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?

Seeing none, I recognize myself. I do oppose the amendment. The bill already requires the secretary to complete a study on travel demand. The study in the underlying bill is going to advise states and MPOs on best practices to use when forecasting travel demand. With that, I would urge— I would urge opposition.

Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay.

Opinion of the chair, the nays have it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote, please. The gentlelady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.

Mr. Fong. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Fong of California, number 041, revision 1.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Fong, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment that helps bring affordability back to everyday Americans. I want to thank Representative Gillin for her partnership in this matter.

In California, we've seen firsthand how broken insurance and litigation systems drive costs directly onto consumers. When insurance costs rise, everyday people foot the bill. Millions of Americans rely on rideshare to get to work, get home safely, attend medical appointments, pick up groceries, or support their families every single day. Yet these companies are being increasingly targeted by lawsuits seeking massive payouts, even when the company itself is not alleged to have done anything wrong. And this is happening despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of trips are completed without any reported safety incident, and every trip already carries at least $1 million in liability insurance coverage.

The problem is that even meritless lawsuits are extraordinarily expensive to defend. Across the system, these costs add up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, costs that are ultimately passed on to the consumers through higher fares and reduced transportation access. We have seen the impact directly in California. Roughly one-third of a rideshare fare in my home state has been going toward government-mandated insurance costs. Last year in Los Angeles, that number climbed to nearly half a fare.

Imagine that. Half of your trip fare just to cover insurance costs. The results are predictable. Higher costs create lower demand. The people who rely on rideshares for their everyday lives are priced out and locked out due to the impacts of these frivolous lawsuits.

It's not just California. In states across the country, we know that costs have gotten out of hand, particularly with commercial auto insurance. My amendment addresses this problem with a balanced, common-sense federal standard. It doesn't— it does not eliminate accountability. Companies would still be fully liable for their own— for their own negligence, misconduct, safety features, or violations of law.

Transportation network companies would still be required to maintain robust insurance coverage. Conduct driver screenings, and comply with all applicable safety regulations. What this amendment does is stop the abusive litigation where the company itself is not at fault. And Congress has already recognized this principle before, thanks to the persistent efforts of the chairman who now holds the gavel today. The Graves Amendment, which was added to the 2005 Surface Transportation Bill, established a federal standard protecting rental car companies from unlimited vicarious liability while preserving liability for a company's own wrongdoing.

The same logic applies here. Companies should be liable for their own actions, not exposed to limitless litigation simply because they operate an app and are viewed as deep-pocket defendants. We know reform works. Florida and Texas have already implemented this model and seen positive results. Georgia and Nevada have followed suit and expect to see similar benefits.

This amendment seeks to replicate those cost savings on a national basis. Lower litigation costs mean lower insurance costs. Lower insurance costs mean lower fares, and lower fares mean better access to affordable transportation and more opportunities for drivers. At a time when Americans are already stretched thin, we should not allow abusive litigation to function as a hidden tax on consumers. This amendment is about fairness, affordability, accountability, and protecting access to modern transportation for the millions of Americans who depend on it every single day.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your work and leadership in this issue. I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Azell for his leadership on this issue as well, as, and as, as well thank Representatives Crawford, Gillen, Hurd, and Owens for co-sponsoring this effort. And I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back. Mr. Larson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, today I've opposed the Fong Amendment 41. The amendment establishes vicarious liability shield for transportation network companies. This preemption would limit the liability of rideshare companies from actions of drivers who carry out the transportation services for these companies.

The stated intent of the amendment is to address rising insurance costs due to crashes involving rideshare drivers, which increases the cost of rides for consumers. By limiting liability, we remove accountability from the rideshare companies, leaving victims without appropriate, proper recourse or access to fair compensation for any negligence or wrongdoing in a crash. This broadly worded amendment would further shield rideshare companies from pending lawsuits that relate to sexual assault and harassment of riders utilizing services. Transportation network companies are fundamentally different than traditional rental car companies and have a different relationship with their drivers. And so because of that, I would urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment which I have co-sponsored, and I thank Congressman Fong for his partnership on this issue. Long Islanders are getting crushed by rising auto insurance costs. New Yorkers pay more than $4,000 annually for car insurance, and nearly $1,500 above the national average, and statewide rates have continued to climb year after year. At the same time, litigation costs tied to the rideshare industry have exploded, especially as incidents of staged accident fraud have risen.

Last year, insurance carriers reported more than 40,000 incidents of suspected motor vehicle insurance fraud, driving up expenses that ultimately get passed on to consumers. The top issue I hear about when I'm back home on Long Island is the cost of living. Providing reasonable liability protections would help reduce excessive legal costs, stabilize the insurance market, and ease pressure on premiums while still ensuring bad actors are held accountable. I'm proud to support this common sense reform to help make life more affordable for working families across New York and across our nation. Thank you.

And I yield back. I yield myself 5 minutes. I do support this common sense amendment. Americans are already facing various affordability challenges, and this amendment helps to make sure that the threat of frivolous lawsuits doesn't needlessly contribute to higher transportation costs. The Fong Amendment, it builds on a very similar vicarious liability provision that I led in 2005 in the surface reauthorization bill back then, which we called Safety Lou.

This amendment is going to hold rideshare companies appropriately accountable in their instances of their own wrongdoing, but it's going to prevent opportunities for endless litigation that is going to end in simply driving up costs for American use— Americans using our transportation networks. With that, I yield back. Will the chairman yield? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pose a question to Mr. Fong, just to be sure we're clear.

This is not in any way preempting the tort system or precluding recovery if there is a negligent actor. And I want to make sure that that is on the record and just fleshed out for the viewers and for the members of this committee. We're not— we're not precluding recovery. We're just not doing a federal program. Is that correct, Mr. Fong?

It doesn't— yeah, it doesn't eliminate accountability. Companies would still be fully liable for their own negligence, misconduct, safety failures, or violations of the law. As I said before, it's just to prevent the going after the deep pockets of, you know, by frivolous lawsuits. Okay. Thank you.

I yield back. Are there any further speakers?

Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Mr. Chair, ask for a recorded vote.

The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.

Ms. Hoyle.

Sorry, um, uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, number 053. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Ms. Hoyle, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would give additional consideration under the Bus and Bus Facilities Program to applications that support transit workforce training. The Bus and Bus Facilities Program is one of the main tools transit transit agencies use to buy buses, replace aging vehicles, and build or modernize the facilities needed to keep the service running. Those needs are important, and this amendment does not change that.

But as transit agencies buy new buses and update their fleets, they also need a skilled workforce to operate, maintain, and repair those investments. A new bus does not help riders if the agency cannot train enough operators to drive it or enough mechanics to keep it on the road. There are over 160,000 public transit bus drivers in the United States. Our bus drivers sometimes spend up to 160 hours to get certified. Training often costs agencies $12,000 per driver.

We need cutting-edge tools and facilities to train the very best, but they can be prohibitively expensive. Expensive. Oregon transit agencies are already doing this work with limited federal resources. Lane Transit District launched Oregon's first bus operator registered apprenticeship program. It is the first registered apprenticeship class adding, uh, their first registered apprenticeship class added 8 new operators and helped bring Lane Transit District to 200 total bus operators.

This is This is exactly the kind of work we should support, and my amendment will keep this program flexible while making sure our workers have the tools and investments they need to succeed. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back. Thank you, Ms. Hoyle. I yield myself, uh, just a minute or two. This amendment significantly broadens the eligible activities for the underlying grant program.

The underlying bill provides some robust assistance for workforce training and associated equipment. For that reason, I do have to, to oppose the amendment. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, questions on the amendment?

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays do have it. Thank you very much, Ms. Hoyle.

Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Yes, Nate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Barrett of Michigan, number 061. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Real quick, I would like to recognize one of the former chairman of the committee who's standing over here in the corner, Mr. Micah. Thanks for stopping by and visiting.

With that, Mr. Barrett, you're recognized for 5 minutes. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the, um, opportunity to speak about my amendment, Amendment 61, the Lowboy Auto Hauler Fairness Act, which I would love to get into the Build America 250 bill that we're considering today. It would create a nationwide standard length limit for auto hauling trailer trucks carrying medium-sized vehicles. 2015, The FAST Act included language creating a federal standard and length limit for stinger-steered auto haulers, which may be familiar to many people, which are the most common type of auto hauling truck on America's highways.

They are 80 feet long with a 4-foot overhang over the front of the cab and a 6-foot overhang off the rear of the trailer, allowing auto haulers to safely accommodate the largest number of vehicles possible in a single load. The current standard, which ensures companies don't have to comply with varying standards in each state differently, does not apply to lowboy trailers. This problem, uh, presents itself for certain types of vehicles like medium-sized trucks that are best hauled by other tractor-trailer combinations. In the case of the medium-sized trucks, the best trailer to haul them is a lowboy trailer. Which has a depressed section between the hitch and the first axle.

Due to the narrow language of the FAST Act, auto haulers that use lowboy trailers as opposed to Stinger-steered tractor-trailer combinations are not covered by the 80-foot federal standard, which means they're subject to a patchwork of unique regulations in each state that they are traveling through. My amendment would include a lowboy tractor-trailer provision when they are hauling vehicles into the FAST Act's 80-foot length standard for auto haulers. I want to be clear, this amendment has nothing to do with any increase in truck weights. That would remain the same, and it doesn't create a novel length standard for trucks of this type. It only adds lowboy auto haulers to the current federal length standard utilized by Stinger Steered auto haulers.

The bottom line is that we're trying to bring consistency to the marketplace and allow for vehicles to get delivered delivered. Obviously, in a state like Michigan, we manufacture a lot of vehicles and we have to get them to market in areas where people are going to use them. And this amendment is an important provision to do that. I understand that we have some more work to do with some of the, with some of the terms in the, in the amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, as a sign of good faith, I'm willing to withdraw this amendment today in hopes of getting it considered down the road and appreciate your consideration in that effort.

Absolutely, Tom. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, Mr. McDowell. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870, Offered by Mr. McDowell of North Carolina, number 045, revision 1, formally circulated as McDowell 043. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Mr. McDowell, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to see that this historic bill restores accountability to Amtrak performance standards, and I think that we can go further to ensure that Amtrak delivers a quality service while reducing reliance on taxpayer dollars. My amendment would update the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program to give Amtrak the ability to modernize revitalize major intercity passenger rail stations by capturing value from nearby development. This amendment authorizes Amtrak to enter into partnerships, joint development, and similar arrangements for station area projects.

By using a similar system to the PILT, Amtrak can receive contractual payments from developers. This allows Amtrak to retain the revenues created from the increased value of the developed property and then pour that money back into capital improvements, maintenance, and related passenger facilities. This amendment does not raise federal taxes. It does not require new mandatory spending, and it does not provide special treatment to a, a single developer. These changes are fiscally responsible.

They leverage private dollars and existing federal credit tools to modernize nationally significant passenger rail stations, all without asking for new appropriations. Right now, federal funding and farebox revenue alone cannot cover the cost of upgrades at inner city rail stations. This financing mechanism for rail stations also has the added benefit of supporting American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Jerry.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not simply modernize station development. It would hand Amtrak and the Trump-Duffy DOT expanded authority over station area real estate financing, taxation, zoning, and private development at the exact moment they are already running Penn Station in New York through a rushed and closed-door RFP process. This amendment is very bad for, for Penn Station and for New York City. Penn Station is the busiest rail hub in the country, and its future should be shaped by riders, New York City, New York State, and the public interest. But this amendment moves in the opposite direction.

It would make it easier for Amtrak to structure private development deals, fast-track favored projects for federal financing, preempt state and local taxes, and override local zoning and building requirements. Given how President Trump and Secretary Duffy have handled Penn Station so far, Congress should be especially wary when billions of dollars in public assets Prime Manhattan real estate and federal financing are being pushed through an opaque process. We should not create more opportunities for favoritism, insider dealing, or politically connected interests to benefit at the public's expense. Penn Station absolutely needs modernization, but it must be a transportation project first, not a Trump vanity project, not a private developer giveaway, and not a backdoor effort to bypass accountability. This amendment would take a flawed process and make it more dangerous for the future of Penn Station and every rider who depends on it.

We should reject it. I yield back. Someone else wish to be heard on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Nadler, just basically explained why this amendment would accelerate development of Penn Station. Now, if there's anyone in America or the world who thinks that Penn Station development is going— Penn Station development is going too slowly, I'd like to meet that person.

This station is overdue for redevelopment by about 6 decades. It's not happened. And the model in the rest of the world that's been so successful is to allow what's called value capture by the railroad that actually increases the value of that real estate by the service that they provide and not have that tax revenue go somewhere else. That's exactly what this amendment makes possible. This amendment makes possible the kind of station development that we've seen everywhere else in the world.

Now, if you could look at New York City and say Penn Station should be the model of the rest of the world for how it exists today. Oh, wouldn't it be great if every station in Paris and London and Beijing looked like Penn Station? Then I would agree with Mr. Nadler. That's what we should do. Keep things the same.

Keep the same process in state— in place that's failed us for decades. What this amendment does is allow New York to catch up with the rest of the world. To allow Amtrak, whose fundamental service provides the value in this property, to take some small benefit from the development on their property. It makes no sense for the, for the development that benefits because of this transit service, because of this train service, because of this basic transportation service, to just go somewhere else, especially to, to a place that's failed to make this happen for decades. So that's the bottom line.

If you think that Penn Station is the way it should be and the model for the rest of the world today, that it has been a model of development, then let's keep this the same. If you think that we should instead have stations, beautiful train stations that we have in the rest of the world. If we should catch up with the rest of the world, then we need to modify the program. This amendment is based on— this amendment is based on procedures that have been proven in the rest of the world. Would the gentleman yield?

Yes, sir. Nobody thinks that, uh, Penn Station is good. I agree. Nobody thinks that. But this amendment would not improve it.

It would hand the decisions over how to deal with it to, to the Trump administration and to, and to selected developers without an RFP process.

This amendment hands the decisions over to Amtrak. It's maybe the first time I've ever heard a Democrat not support Amtrak making these kinds of decisions. It's in Amtrak's interest to produce a station that serves its travelers. And Amtrak has actually done fairly well with— right across the street with Moynihan Station. Moynihan Station is really a good model for this.

That needs to happen for Penn Station as well. Moinihan Station shows and proves the value of having the private sector involved in redeveloping a station property. If you compare Moinihan Station to Washington Union Station, where, where it's just been done by the government, I think you see a dramatic difference. Would the gentleman yield? Yes, I will.

Moinihan Station is indeed a model for development. It's, it's very good. I traveled through it back and forth every week we're in session. But what this bill would do without my amendment is to hand the decisions to, to a Department of Transportation that is now controlled by people who have no interest in property development, who are awarding contracts based on Uh, but just to be clear, just to be clear, sir, what this amendment does is ensures that the additional revenue that comes from this development goes to Amtrak. That's what this amendment does.

It ensures that that revenue goes to Amtrak, and it should. That's the way railroads work all over the world, is that when they provide a service that increases the real estate value around a station, they get to capture that value.

Mr. Chairman, we're out of time. Would the gentleman yield? Time's up. Would the gentleman yield? Time's up.

Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Seeing no one, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this very important issue. I support 14th Amendment. And with that, yield back. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

The ayes do have it. The amendment is— ask for recorded vote. Gentlemen, request a vote on the amendments previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. Ms. Golden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Golden of Michigan, number 109.

That objection, Madam Speaker, would be considered as read. Ms. Colton, you're recognized. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Let me just be honest, as the mother of two school-aged boys, the kindest thing I can do for teachers is help them burn off some energy before class, whether they walk or bike to school.

This amendment, which mirrors my bipartisan Kids on the Go Act, would reduce the non-federal cost share under the Safe Routes to School projects for states states that employ a full-time program coordinator. The Safe Routes to School program has proven to reduce traffic accidents involving children, increase physical activity, and improve neighborhood safety. States with these designated coordinators have the data to back it up too. When states employ a Safe Routes to School coordinator, they are 4 times more likely to offer resources to help these programs thrive. That means more grant money for local communities and more technical assistance to ensure these plans actually yield safety benefits.

States with these coordinators are also 12 times more likely to assist communities in accessing these dollars and tools. This program and these coordinators bring real results to get kids to school safely, a priority for every parent. And that's why countless states employ Safe Routes to School coordinators. My home state of Michigan is in good company. Scan— standing through the list of states represented up on this dais, it's worth noting that North Carolina, Florida, Utah, Georgia, Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois, Alaska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kansas, and California all employ Safe Routes to School coordinators.

And it would save money if my amendment became law. This amendment is critical to support local governments, encourage physical activity, and most importantly, keep our children safe. Out of respect to this Four Corners agreement, Mr. Chair, I will withdraw this amendment, but I ask that the chair and ranking member continue to work with me on this effort. Thank you.

And I yield back. Of course, Hillary. We will. Thanks. Thanks, Sam.

Thank you.

Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Knott of North Carolina, number 016. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Knott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this Congress, a small trucking business owner described how his company's identity was stolen by a technologically advanced criminal network who then used the information to divert and steal multiple cargo loads.

These con artists were able to exploit the current weakness within the FMCSA's registration system, specifically the FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System, to perpetrate their crimes, and they do so with relative ease and and security. According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, cargo theft is now costing the industry, and then by extension consumers, up to $35 billion annually, with a 1,500% increase in incidents since just 2021. Motor carriers, which are often family-owned and generational businesses, spend years building their reputations. But these sophisticated criminals are using gaps in the U.S. DOT's registration process to steal the identities, pose as legitimate businesses, and move freight under false pretenses.

Small businesses are not equipped to fight this kind of large-scale, often state-sponsored, technologically driven fraud on their own. FMCSA systems must be modernized so that the agency is better able to identify suspicious activity right from the onset, automatically flag the potential fraud, review high-risk registrations, and then promptly take action against these chameleon carriers and other bad actors before they do detrimental damage to our economy and to the business owners. My amendment is straightforward. It modernizes fraud detection and strengthens enforcement tools within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's registration system. Specifically, it requires the FMCSA to implement automated systems within 1 year that can flag suspicious commercial vehicle registrations.

There are many reasons why we are here and why this amendment is needed. Sluggish and sticky bureaucracy is certainly a driving force for this need, but how we regulate is just as important as what we regulate, and During my time in Congress and on this committee, I have found that far too often regulatory agencies are burdened with systems and technology that are, simply put, too old and too slow. We see this in aviation. We see it in permitting. And we certainly see it in this space, the commercial vehicle registration system.

Not utilizing the latest technology burdens the good actors and allows the bad actors to slip through the cracks. Utilizing an automated system to flag suspicious registration activity will free up valuable time and manpower at FMCSA to pursue fraudulent activity. Getting these fraudulent carriers off the roads and doing so quickly will ensure the carriers who do business the right way are not competing with those who are cutting corners. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for holding this markup today, and I thank them for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important need. I urge my colleagues to support the common-sense amendment, and I yield back.

Rick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we're going to support this amendment.

I understand it got in a little late to get in the manager's amendment, but there was a desire to do that. So I will not burden the committee with the rest of my statement. We support the amendment and urge its adoption. Yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard?

So, you know, I appreciate the gentleman's work on this. I also support the amendment.

With that, I yield back. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay.

Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes do have it. The amendment is adopted.

Ms. Fauci. Fauci. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Fauci of North Carolina, number 064.

Without objection, the amendment would be considered as As read. Valerie, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe many of my colleagues in this room can agree that we should be fighting for a more affordable and more resilient American transportation system. Part of that fight includes helping American families access electric vehicle charging networks across the nation, whether they live in a major city, a rural community, and anywhere in between.

The purpose of the federal investments we make in these surface transportation bills is to ensure that Americans have the infrastructure they need to get where they want to go. Millions of Americans have chosen to purchase and drive electric vehicles for a myriad of reasons, ranging from personal preference, environmental reasons, or just because they grew tired of paying sky-high sky-high prices at the pump. During this affordability crisis, it is important that Americans have the freedom to choose more affordable transportation options should they wish to. The Trump administration has already turned a corner and provided more than $800 million in funds from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program to states. Federal policy and investment has already secured $426 million in private charger manufacturing investment and nearly 6,000 jobs, while expanded charging access could generate $4 to $5 million annually in public health savings.

My amendment would reauthorize what was agreed to in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and would continue to fund the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program for the next 5 years. This is about continuing the good work Congress has done on a bipartisan basis to deliver affordable transportation alternatives to the American people while boosting the domestic supply chain for charging infrastructure across the country. Thank you, and I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself. Um, this bill doesn't continue funding for NEVA or the charging and fueling infrastructure programs. I believe that highway tax dollars are much better spent on roads and bridges that all users need instead of catering to to a very small group of, or category of vehicles. And therefore, I do oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.

With that, are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay.

Opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays do have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Thank you, Val. Mr. Deluzio.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Deluzio of Pennsylvania, number 124.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Deluzio, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will offer and withdraw this amendment in light of the Four Corners agreement and some headwinds here for this amendment. But I do want to bring attention to the fact that I'm all about and all supportive of increasing federal funding for passenger rail, giving riders more flexibility.

But I worry and don't want to see us subsidizing private operators without assurances that every worker performing railroad work is covered by the same labor laws, retirement system, unemployment system, collective bargaining framework. I don't think we should have a two-tiered rail workforce where one sees the benefits of federal law and their protections, another that doesn't. And I worry that is exactly what Section 10106 of this bill would do. This amendment would fix that provision by requiring any new provider to meet those railroad labor standards when they perform railroad craft work. Workers who have earned and secured those benefits have been reaping the benefit of life-saving programs for a long time now.

I don't want to see a patchwork approach that leaves new workers behind. But in light of the withdrawal, I look forward to working with the committee in the future to address this issue. Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. Thanks, Chris. Appreciate it.

Ms. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Ms. Poe of New Jersey, number 039. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the committee for including language from the Rider Safety Act, of which I am a strong supporter. Order. I also want to thank Representative Desenay for co-sponsoring this amendment.

Our amendment would update the definition for transit support specialists, including a more detailed description of the expectations and duties of this very important position. Representing a district relying on public transit, I know how important having more support for passengers and staff is. My amendment would ensure that Transit Support Specialists are given specific duties that go beyond security, including monitoring transit stations, providing assistance to riders, assisting with medical emergency, and responding to mental health crisis, providing public, uh, transit stations with medically trained unarmed personnel would strengthen safety standards, reduce fare evasion, and give passengers a greater peace of mind. In an act of good faith, I will withdraw this amendment to work on a bipartisan basis to advance this policy. I'd like to invite my Republican colleagues to work with me on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Thanks, Nellie, I appreciate it, and we'd be happy to work with you. Ms. Gillin.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. H.R. 8870, Offered by Ms. Gillin of New York, number 081.

Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. Gloria, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will address the rising number of attacks on passenger and commuter rail workers by ensuring these assaults can be charged as a federal offense. In 2025, Amtrak recorded nearly 200 assaults —assaults on conductors, assistant conductors, ticket agents, customer service representatives, and other workers.

In the course of their normal duties, passenger rail employees across the country continue to experience assaults. Under current law, any assault against a rail crew member is subject to the local jurisdiction in which the assault occur. Intercity trains can pass through and service dozens of jurisdictions. Each with its own law enforcement and justice system. As a result, if an assault occurs aboard a moving train, it can be extremely difficult or impossible to prosecute offenders.

For decades, it's been a federal crime to interfere with flight crews. My amendment will provide the same protection to our rail workers so they can do their jobs without fear and focus on running trains safely and efficiently. My district in Nassau County is serviced by the largest commuter railway in the country, industry, the Long Island Railroad. Thousands of our hardworking railway employees— railway workers, excuse me— help move nearly 300,000 New Yorkers daily. They deserve the federal protections that we grant to essential transportation workers across other industries.

I want to thank Congressman Van Drew for cosponsoring this amendment, as well as our state standalone legislation, the Passenger Rail Crew Protection Act, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan effort to protect rail workers, safeguard passengers, and hold assailants accountable. Thank you, and I yield back. Does no one else wish to be heard on the amendment? Fortunately, I understand what you're trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment since it establishes criminal penalties, which is outside our committee's jurisdiction. And so with that, I do have to oppose the amendment.

Are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed signify by saying nay. Opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays do have it.

The amendment is not agreed to.

Thank you, Laura. For what purpose does Ms. McDonald Rivett seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.

Please designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. McDonald Rivett of Michigan, number 061. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment because if we really want to build our roads and fix our infrastructure, we need to cut red tape.

In Michigan, our roads and bridges get beaten up all year round. For many smaller rural towns, the cost of repaving roads or repairing bridges especially is simply too big to take on alone. So projects get delayed for years, they get more expensive, and frankly, often nothing gets fixed. Most people in my district drive long distances to work, and the potholes and traffic from closed bridges actually cost them money. What we're hearing from communities is that they need a system that actually works and a federal partner they can rely on.

The fix is simple: have more funds that go directly to local governments to make critical road and bridge repairs without taking on massive debt. That's why my amendment would add the full Basics Act, a bipartisan push led by myself and Congressman Bresnahan. Our bill would help local communities repair and rebuild crumbling infrastructure, expand funding for bridge repairs, make— make travel safer for our rural communities, and ensure local governments can better access federal funds for their infrastructure projects. I am incredibly proud of the bipartisan support for the Basics Act, with significant parts of our legislation incorporated into the Build America 250 Act. One of the most important would slash through red tape and provide billions per year in new funding to repair bridges nationwide, a quarter of which is set aside specifically for locally owned bridges.

Another provision pulled back— pulled from our Basics Act would boost the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. Block Grant program with flexible funding to benefit our state and counties, and continue the Safe Streets for All program to prevent roadway fatalities. The significant portion of the Basics Act included in the broader legislation will make a world of difference for communities facing the choice between crumbling infrastructure or massive debt. Seeing the broad support included from committee leadership to include key provisions of the Basics Act legislation. I plan to withdraw this amendment as we work together to continue supporting for support for our communities throughout this Congress, including support for rural transportation planning organizations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, Kristen. I appreciate it. Oh, you want to, uh, go ahead. Thank you.

Um, this amendment simply emphasizes the need for one of my top priorities this Congress, the Basics Act. I want to recognize my partner on this bipartisan, common-sense piece of legislation, uh, Representative McDonald Rivett, along with local leaders, uh, mayors, specifically Mayor Mike Lombardo of the city of Pittston, who first brought this to us, emergency responders and community members across northeastern Pennsylvania who helped shape and advocate for this effort. This legislation was driven by the needs of our communities, and the people of northeastern Pennsylvania deserve to see those priorities delivered. When the Anticoke Bridge closed, emergency response time nearly doubled. The closure of the Water Street Bridge connecting Pittston and West Pittston has forced all traffic onto the Fort Jenkins Bridge, despite its own serious structural needs.

These are major bridges, but the same story is playing out on smaller bridges and communities throughout our district. The Basics Act is about getting federal dollars directly to local communities and putting local leaders in control of the infrastructure in their own backyard. And arts. I'm proud to see Build America 250 reflects a lot of those values, especially the local bridge set-aside. Combined with this amendment to ensure fair distribution throughout the states, these investments will finally reach communities that have been waiting in line for years.

That is a real win, and it deserves recognition. But there's still a lot more work ahead. I look forward to continuing to work on this committee to ensure the final passage has strong local control and delivers the biggest wins possible for our communities. I yield.

Salud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in support of Representatives McDonald, Rivett, and Bresnahan's amendment. I think it is a common-sense bipartisan solution to support local governments. The amendment would add additional resources for local communities to repair and build roads and bridges, expand funding for bridge repairs, prioritize safety for local and rural communities, and ensure local governments can better access federal funds for their infrastructure projects that were left out.

This would help communities in my district as well, where people rely on locally owned roads and bridges every day to get to work, school, healthcare, and local businesses. Having come from local government, I can tell you that these local roads, networks, also support freight corridors and supply chains that move goods across communities and states. Our transportation infrastructure is a system where Congress's investments should make sure to invest in the whole system. That's why the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program is the workhorse of the formula programs and why states transfer funding into this program and why locals and regional governments support it. Increasing, like we saw in Representatives McDonald-Rivett and Bresnahan's bill, H.R.

7437, The Basics Act, would go a long way in making sure the whole transportation system is supported. Local governments own 43% of the federal-aid highway network and 50% of bridges, and STBG is how they get funding to keep up with it. Locally owned roads currently 34% of the vehicle miles traveled in the United We should all keep working together to ensure we support our full transportation network and have a better drive for everyone. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and wanted to add my voice in support of their amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Christian, you still want it withdrawn? Mr. Chair, I'd like to withdraw my amendment. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you very much.

Ms. Friedman. I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Ms. Friedman of California, number 043. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Friedman, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My amendment restores formula funding for the PROTECT program, which allows us to make our communities safer from natural disasters like fire. And as you all know, California is no stranger to natural disasters of many forms. I don't need to remind the committee of the devastation we saw out of Los Angeles in the aftermath of the January 2025 wildfires. California will have received $631 million in Protect Formula funds over fiscal years '22 through '26. But every state faces natural disasters, and every community deserves funding to manage that ever-increasing risk.

Natural disasters don't discriminate based on party or congressional borders. We have a responsibility to ensure that every American is equipped to handle major disasters when they arise. I urge my colleagues to be thoughtful in this manner, and I yield back.

Mr. Huffman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud to co-sponsor this amendment with Representative Friedman to restore the formula funding for the PROTECT program. This is the kind —program and we should be strengthening, not gutting.

The reality is that climate resilience is no longer some abstract future challenge for transportation policy. Any serious transportation planner will tell you it is here right now. Communities all over the country are dealing with roads, highways, and critical infrastructure that are literally failing under extreme weather, flooding, erosion, sea level rise, wildfire, landslides, sometimes even a king tide in the middle of a sunny day in low-lying areas. In my district, we're living with it every day. Last Chance Grade in Del Norte County, a critical stretch of Highway 101, is slowly sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

This is not just another road project. It is the only reliable connection for entire communities on the North Coast. And when that corridor fails, people lose access to emergency services, schools, healthcare, jobs, and commerce. Further south, Highway 37 in the North Bay faces chronic flooding and sea level rise that threatens one of the region's most important transportation corridors. Addressing this challenge requires a long-term climate-resilient infrastructure solution, including raising and redesigning portions of the highway, restoring surrounding wetlands to provide natural flood protection, and modernizing the corridor to withstand future sea level rise and extreme weather events.

These are exactly the kind of projects the PROTECT program was designed to help address—large-scale resilience investments that states and local communities simply cannot tackle alone. The formula component of PROTECT is especially important because it gives states predictable funding they can actually plan around. Eliminating that formula funding undermines long-term resilience planning at exactly the moment when we should be accelerating it. So let's be honest, every dollar we fail to invest in resilience now becomes a much larger disaster recovery bill later on. We've already seen the cost of waiting until infrastructure collapses before acting.

The PROTECT program recognizes that resilient infrastructure is not optional anymore. It's a core transportation infrastructure priority. So I strongly support Representative Friedman on this amendment. And I yield back. Ms. Friedman, I understand you may want to withdraw your amendment.

Is that correct?

Yes. I hope that every member of this community is—.

I'm going to yield to Mr. Moulton. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment on this as well. You know, my home state of Massachusetts is is on the front lines of climate change. From Salisbury to Provincetown, storms, surge, flooding regularly put our communities at risk, often making roads impossible for residents and emergency responders.

And I want to just underscore that point. When roads flood, it's not just a nuisance, it's not just a cost, it's a threat to public safety. The science is clear. Climate change is here. And the consequences of inaction are accelerating.

Our local communities are often bearing the brunt of that inaction. The PROTECT program is an example of exactly what Congress should be doing to support our cities and towns back home. This amendment does not— it strengthens the program. It does not reduce the funding needed to keep our roads open. I work hard every year to secure money for Massachusetts to make sure physical and natural infrastructure stronger.

Protect grants are a crucial source of funding that my communities are waiting on, and I urge us to figure out how to deliver that support. Thank you. Any other members seek to be recognized on this amendment? Seeing none, uh, I understand that you want to withdraw the amendment, is that correct? Yeah, it's my hope that every member of this committee is willing to work with us to make sure that we support our communities, and with that, I will withdraw the For what purpose does Mr.

Figures seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr.

Figures of Alabama, number 062. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Figures is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Uh, bridges along the Gulf Coast continue to face repeated stress from hurricanes and flooding and storm surges, and my amendment ensures that the financial assistance made available under the Highway Infrastructure Program can prioritize projects that will strengthen that resilience, improve safety, and most importantly, perhaps enhance evacuation capacity across and along the Gulf Coast corridors. This amendment also clarifies that projects located in or serving coastal communities Involving, uh, projects such as bridge lighting, drainage improvement, storm hardening, and intelligent transportation systems are eligible bridge projects. Because the Build America 250 Act authorizes the largest investment in America's bridges, I want to ensure that practical safety and resilient improvements, including those such projects, are eligible for financial assistance. Coastal communities like Mobile, Alabama continue to face disproportionate infrastructure risks, yet they remain critical to our supply chains, disaster response capabilities, and national security interests. This amendment helps ensure that those coastal communities like mine are not continuing to be left behind and expands eligibility.

With that, I'll yield.

Any other members wish to be recognized on this amendment?

Seeing none, I thank Mr. Figures. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's attention to bridges in his region of the country, this program is about providing all states with the resources necessary to address their bridge needs, and I fear this amendment is overly prescriptive. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Are there any further speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, signify by saying nay.

The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. What?

You're kidding me.

Can we now pick up your amendment? Can we do that? Is it okay now? For what purpose does Mr. Johnson seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk, sir.

The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8870 offered by Mr. Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, number 077. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Johnson is recognized for up to 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It has been 44 years since Congress updated its gross vehicle weight limits. 44 Years. A lot has happened since 1982, and I think it's high time for Congress to revisit that standard. The amendment before you is a pretty simple one. It just allows those gross vehicle weights to be increased to 91,000 pounds, a modest increase if you add a 6th axle.

Now, that 6th axle is sort of the straw that stirs the whole drink. That makes sure we do this in an effective, cost-effective, and safe way. Now, I want to be clear, this would only apply to federal infrastructure, and it would only apply to those states that want to voluntarily opt in. Nobody would be made to do anything. As we have seen time and time again, our supply chains are really, really susceptible to strain and to disruption.

And when they're strained, when they're disrupted, that places real costs on the system. Those are real costs that fall on real families. And so rather than just continuing to optimize these supply chains for efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, We've got an opportunity here to add some resilience and to add some capacity. That way our supply chains are not so vulnerable. When you're looking at a pilot program, this gives us an opportunity to gain more data.

It gives us an opportunity to work with states where this is a good fit. I suspect most of my colleagues know there are already 40 states that allow for more than 80,000 pounds at, at different times on non-federal infrastructure. This gives those in the states an opportunity to voluntarily better sync their network with the federal network. For those of you that care about dairy, as I do, an economic study estimated that modernized truck weights could save cheese, butter, and ice cream manufacturers 105,000 truck trips annually. Just for that one industry.

That's $200 million. For those of you who care about beef, as I do, this policy would enable livestock haulers to move the same number of cattle with 4 trucks instead of 5. That's going to be a real quality of life improvement for those haulers. And again, more efficiency, lower prices for people throughout the supply chain. For those of you who like to see things built in your districts, as I do, building material companies will be able to increase the efficiency of their truck trips by 20%.

That's more crushed stone, cement, ready-mix concrete, hot-mix asphalt, and pipe getting delivered to job sites faster. There are some concerns that have been raised, I think by and large by well-intentioned people, so let's just deal with those a little bit. For those concerned about safety, the vehicles in the pilot program will have a 6th axle. That means more braking power, The USDOT study found that 91,000-pound 6-axle vehicles will brake 1 foot shorter, more quickly, than the standard 80,000 load. For those concerned about road wear and tear, the 6th axle has been proven in studies to reduce road wear and tear.

The Minnesota DOT found that the addition of the 6th axle created a 36% 7% reduction in road wear and an overall reduction in the number of trips. Of course, fewer trips, less wear and tear. For those who are concerned about intermodal shift, USDOT's Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study said there would be only a modest shift of less than 0.5%. And then finally, for those of you who are concerned about energy emissions, this pilot would result in 21,400 fewer metric tons of carbon dioxide per year per truck. Now, if you don't believe any of those studies, or if you think maybe the data is, uh, too aged, boy, do I have good news for you.

This pilot program will give us real-world data to be able to test out whether or not this is the best way to expand capacity, uh, within our supply chain. And so, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank so many members on both sides of the aisle who have worked with us to try to get this wording right. This pilot program allows willing states to be able to better utilize their federal infrastructure and to have an effective and safe way to relieve the very real constraints and the very real strains within our supply chains. And with that, I will yield back. Mr. Carbajal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am speaking out in opposition to the amendment. This would allow for a 91,000-pound truck pilot program. It pushes heavier trucks onto our roads and bridges without ensuring our infrastructure is ready to handle the added stress.

I have heard clearly from safety advocates and law enforcement— law enforcement in my district— that increasingly increasing truck weight limits raises serious concerns. They have shared with me the risks they pose on our roads and other users. From experience, they know the safety hazard. Our local governments already own a significant share of the federal-aid highway system and nearly half of all bridges. Many of these structures are aging and already under strain.

Increasing truck weights only accelerates wear and tear, raises maintenance costs, and shifts the burden onto taxpayers and local communities. And this isn't just about roads and bridges. It's about safety. Heavier trucks mean longer stopping distances, more severe crash impacts, and greater risk for passenger vehicles sharing the road. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments.

Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly thank the, the maker of the amendment, the next governor of South Dakota.

And I agree with him on this issue. My friend Mr. Carbajal said that it's going to make it less safe. But the gentleman from South Dakota just told you how it's going to be more safe. Said that there's going to be more wear and tear on the roads. But the gentleman from South Dakota just told you how there's going to be less wear and tear on the roads.

That other axle, that other set of wheels and tires, that other set of brakes makes a profound difference. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to be in the 21st century. You got trucks that cube out before they wait out. I mean, it's just inefficient. It's just— and it's— and quite honestly, It's completely irrational and unnecessary.

Not to mention the fact that this is simply about freedom of choice. As the gentleman from South Dakota said, if your state doesn't want to do it, well, God bless them. Don't do it. But if you want to get into the 21st century and help the people that are paying the taxes, that are driving on the road, that want this stuff delivered as efficiently, effectively, and with cost respect efficiently as possible, then by all means choose that. And if you don't like that, the states that don't want to recognize your freedom to choose, then move to Mr. Johnson's state, I guess.

But shouldn't it be the federal government's position to allow the states to decide if they want to do this?

I can't imagine a real, actual good reason to vote no on this amendment. I can't. I mean, I know the claims are being made, but let's face it, they're specious, they're fallacious. I get the politics of it, but the facts are irrefutable and indisputable, and I would urge adoption of the amendment. And I yield.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a classic a camel with the nose in the tent situation. You let that nose in, it's going to end up being the whole camel that's in there.

We're in an interstate commerce situation here. You start with one state, allow that state to allow these 91,000-pound missiles onto the highways, and then it will be unstoppable. One missile, uh, from one state to the other. But I rise in opposition to the amendment because of serious safety concerns that have been shown not only from studies but from firsthand real-world experiences from law enforcement and truck drivers. Who knows better than these two groups?

Almost certainly nobody casting a vote today. Let me mention a few facts that make clear why a so-called pilot project, one that waits to count the crashes and fatalities, is the wrong approach. Fact: heavier trucks have higher crash rates. In Washington State, a 91,000-pound truck was 47% more likely to be involved in a crash than an 80,000-pound truck. Fact: Heavier trucks tend to have a higher center of gravity because the additional weight is often, often stacked vertically.

Raising the center of gravity increases the risk of rollovers. Fact: More weight means more strain on critical safety components. A federal study found that trucks over 80,000 pounds had higher out-of-service rates and 18% more brake violations. Fact: A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that trucks with any out-of-service violations are 362% more likely to be involved in a crash. Fact: Supporters of this amendment point to a 1-foot difference in stopping distance.

But crash severity is driven by mass and speed. When the weight goes up, the force of a crash goes up, and so does the likelihood of serious injury or death. If a one-foot stopping difference made these trucks safer, we wouldn't see higher crash rates, higher violation rates, higher rollover rates, or higher crash severity. Mr. Chairman, facts matter. Using the traveling public as test subjects is not how we determine whether heavier trucks are more dangerous.

One death means this experiment is a failure, but it will be too late for that person and his or her family. So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing opposing this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Mr. Burleson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the sponsor of this amendment. Look, folks, we're experiencing high inflation, and there's very few things that we can do about that. This is one of them. This is the one thing that this committee can do to address The rising costs of everything that you and I buy that goes on the shelves, everything has to be trucked in and everything has weight. This is the one thing that we can do to, to have a small impact on reducing the cost of the goods and the services that people are having to buy.

And so, and I've heard some of the arguments against this. One of the most economically ignorant arguments I've heard is when people say, oh, well, this will reduce the need for truckers. Well, let me— Milton Friedman had a famous story. The famous economist, he was traveling in Asia, and he's traveling in— I think it was reported that it was in China at the time. And at that time, that he was traveling, they wanted to show him a job, a works project, a construction project where they were building roads.

And they took him out there, and all he saw was workers laboring with shovels to work on the roads. And he asked them, aren't you aware of any kind of modern machinery like tractors or bulldozers or earth movers? And they responded by saying, well, this is a jobs program, and using machines would put people out of work and reduce employment. To which Milton Friedman replied, "Oh, if that's your goal, why don't you take away the shovels and give them spoons?" And see, there is the rub. Are we really gonna be that ignorant to just say, let's keep ourselves limited so that we can pay the extra cost just so we can say that we're gonna make people work?

If anything, Let's try to do something that reduces the burden on every American, reduces the cost of the goods that every American buys. A vote for this is a vote to reduce inflationary costs. And I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I greatly will support it. I yield back. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask to be recognized to enter into the record by way of unanimous consent a letter from DeKalb County, Georgia, in opposition to this amendment. Without objection. Mr. Bolton, you're recognized. I appreciate the citation of Milton Friedman.

You know, Milton Friedman was an economist. Economists believe not just in costs, but in benefits. They do believe a cost-benefit analysis, right? Well, let's talk about the costs here. 5,340 Americans killed by large trucks in 2024.

5,340 Americans who can't come home to see their kids, or kids who can't come home to see their parents, all thanks to large trucks. We're not going to solve that by stopping a large truck a foot shorter. What it points out is that the fundamental problem here is truck safety across America. We said this big debate about rail safety, zero deaths over 10 years from hazmat on rail. And yet every year over 5,000 Americans get killed.

We should be doing something to reduce that cost before we just raise truck weights. And what are raised truck weights going to cost? Yes, they are more likely to flip over, as my colleague pointed out, because of a higher center of gravity.

More wear and tear to our bridges. In fact, the bill increases the bridge formula project funding from $5.5 to $9 billion per year, including a 25% set aside for locally owned bridges. Like, why are we even bothering with that? I know if we're just going to eliminate it with increasing truck weights.

My colleague Mr. Perry talked about why this— why this bill is so important. Why on earth should this be a federal— why on earth should this be a federal standard if it's adequately managed by the states? I mean, that's like saying that we shouldn't have had an interstate highway system. Just have the states figure it out. This is interstate commerce, so it matters to have standards.

And the point is that the current standards are inadequate. We don't improve safety for Americans. We don't improve the dismal state of our roads and bridges by increasing truck weights. It's the exact opposite of what we should be doing. And if we were serious about cost-benefit analyses, we were serious about listening to people like Milton Friedman, then that's what we'd be doing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd, uh, I'd like to address a couple of the issues that we're talking about here. Number one, on stopping distance.

I don't know if anybody realizes or not, but we have ABS now. That's anti-lock brake systems out there. And we also have disc brakes, which significantly reduce the stopping distance of large trucks. And as someone who has those trucks out there, I can attest that that is a true fact. It is.

A significant difference in the stopping distance. Also, when you, uh, when you raise the truck limits and you talk about all these trucks being out there, you reduce the number of trucks on the road. It doesn't take any less distance to stop one at 91 as it does at 80, but what you did is you removed at least one truck for every 8 loads or 10 loads that are being carried out there. So there's less trucks on the road to begin with when you go to this. And the third thing is, I would say that for those that are talking about being top-heavy and tipping over and stuff like that, you know, as somebody that has been running Road Stability, the anti-roll-over devices, they've been out there for 15 years now.

You don't see any jackknifes and you don't hardly see any rollovers anymore because of the technology that is out there with this equipment that stops individual brakes one at a time to keep the truck straight and keep it upright. So, you know, we, we are advancing in technology. Trucks are safe. The majority of the accidents that are caused out there are not by the tractor-trailers. It is caused by the four-wheelers out there.

So with that, Mr. and Mrs. Chairman, I encourage a yes vote, and I yield back. Any other members wish to speak on the amendment?

Seeing none, I recognize myself for up to 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. I'd like to thank the gentleman, Mr. Johnson, for offering this amendment. The amendment would establish a pilot program to allow states to increase the weight limit on federal interstates within their state up to 91,000 pounds for 6-axle vehicles. This slight weight variance would improve freight efficiency and support the supply chain. This is something I know the agriculture industry and others have sought for a long time.

I encourage you to support the amendment. Are there any further speakers on the amendment one last time? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying nay. Nay. The ayes have it. Mr.

Chair, ask for a record of vote.

The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment. As previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

As a notice to committee members, after this next amendment, we will go into our first round of votes on all those amendments that had been— all those votes that that, that have been suspended. For what purpose does Mr. Owens seek recognition?

The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, number 047. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Owens is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to first of all thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson for all the hard work they put into leading up to this day's markup. It's been a real pleasure working aside both of you through this process. This amendment is especially important to fast-growing states like Utah and communities across the West that are building transportation systems for the future, not just for today.

Current CIG evaluation metrics rely heavily on existing population density and current ridership levels. That is a disadvantage. This, this can disadvantage rapidly growing regions like Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front, where population growth is accelerating and major transit investments are being planned years ahead. In Utah, we already have seen the impact of this growth. Projects like the Frontrunner expansion are critical not only for today's mobility, but also as we prepare to host the 2034 Winter Olympics.

We cannot wait until congestion becomes unmanageable before investing in the infrastructure. This amendment simply gives project managers and sponsors FTA additional flexibility to consider population growth trends and transit-oriented development planning alongside traditional ridership metrics when evaluating, evaluating projects. This does not disadvantage long-established transit systems. Systems. It simply ensures that the fast-growing regions across the country, especially in the West, are evaluated more fairly and can better compete for federal transit investments.

I also appreciate the bipartisan collaboration on this issue. I'd especially like to thank my colleagues from Utah, my colleague from Utah, Congressman Mike Kennedy, and across the aisle, my fellow Westerners, Congresswoman Titus Congressman Stanton for co-sponsoring this amendment. It's been a pleasure working with the members on both sides of the aisle who understand the unique transportation challenges and growth pressures facing our communities. I appreciate the committee staff working with our office on this language and urge support for this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.

Any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. Larson. Yeah, I think, Mr. Chair, I support this amendment that Representative Owens introduced. The amendment amends the CIG program to allow for different ridership forecasting methods, allowing for forecasts that account for population density, growth rate, and development planning activities.

The underlying bill itself as well makes a number of reforms to expedite the CIG review process and break ground on transit projects more quickly. This amendment is a complement to those policies, and I urge its adoption. With that, yield back. Gentleman yields back. Anybody else wish to speak on the amendment?

Seeing none, I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. The chairman supports the amendment and encourages his colleagues on the committee to support it as well. Are there any further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

All those opposed, signify by saying nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Okay, so the committee will briefly— let me underscore briefly— recess to allow members to return, or to get here in this particular case, uh, for our first vote series.

We want everyone here. Yeah, we got— so there's some people on the floor.

We're going to call the committee back to order instead of recessing while we wait for members. We're going to try to roll through another amendment or two. Next amendment, Mr. Webster. I'm right here. You got an amendment?

Thank you, Chairman. So the amendment at the desk designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida, number 039. Without objection, the amendment would be considered as read. Mr. Webster, you recognize.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would strike Section 2004 and replace it with language establishing a privately capitalized federal infrastructure bank. That means none of the money would come from the federal government or from state government or from the local government. It's all privately financed. The goal would be to provide a framework that enhances financing program for major infrastructure projects while ensuring working— oh, Oversight and safeguards are against any foreign adversary we have.

Other than that, it provides money that we won't have unless we establish this. So that means if we have $500 trillion, there's not going to be any more unless somebody is going to raise taxes. And that's probably not going to happen. Or we get the, our own $500 trillion payable to individuals, not the government, not the state government, not the federal government, not the local government. So I yield back my time.

Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I just want to clarify. I know we called you all back for votes.

We're just waiting for a few folks to come back from the floor so there's a full complement here, and that's just kind of what we're kind of stuck in that place. So with regards to Webster and as well the Carbajal amendment, certainly it'd be great to be able to support these, but given the terms of the Big Four agreement, I will have to oppose it. But the bipartisan collaboration between Mr. Webster and Mr. Carbajal is very important. They brought this legislation to the fore here, and I know getting more opportunities to finance surface transportation projects has been a priority for both members. And I share their support for ensuring there's many tools as possible for transportation investment, as I know members, other members do.

This support helps explain why there's— we have the popularity of the DOT financing programs like TIFIA, RIF, and WIFIA. And I do understand as well there's some jurisdictional concerns Committee on Financial Services with this provision. So for that reason, I'll oppose the amendment at this time. I yield back. Mr. Carbajal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Larson for your vision in putting together today's Build America 2050 Surface Reauthorization. This bill is an important step towards rebuilding our roads and bridges to get a to a state of good repair. The amendment that Representative Webster and I are proposing, this bipartisan amendment today, would further those investments authorized in today's bill by enacting an infrastructure bank. Mr. Chairman, an infrastructure bank is a common-sense bipartisan solution to help leverage private dollars, not taxpayer dollars, private dollars, and provide local governments with another financing tool for needed infrastructure projects at little to no cost to the federal government.

This can be a win-win for the American people and taxpayers alike. As the demand for infrastructure investments continues to grow faster than our ability to meet it through our current investments, we need tools that expand our capacity. I unders— I understand you have concerns, including this legislation in today's markup. I hope that we can continue to work through this proposal to get something across finish line. I want to thank Representative Webster for his leadership and hard work on this.

Thank you, and I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Seeing none, I'm going to have to oppose it, but I want to work with you. So I will withdraw it if I get some, uh, absolutely commitments that you're going to work with me on it. Absolutely.

Work with Representative Carvajal. We'll, uh, we'll go from there. You can count on it, Daniel. Okay, thank you. You'll back and, uh, withdraw the— without objection.

So ordered.

Jerry. Mr. Nadler. Jerry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment to this. Does it— an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Nadler of New New York, number 043. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Jerry, you got 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores and strengthens the Low or No Emission Bus Grant Program so transit agencies can replace aging diesel buses with cleaner, more reliable vehicles while supporting American manufacturing. Federal investments in low and zero emission buses have already generated more than $380 million in bus manufacturing investment and supported at least 2,000 jobs. But demand far exceeds available funding, with transit agencies requesting roughly 6 times more than current federal programs can provide. For New York City, this is urgent.

The MTA operates a 5,800-bus fleet, the largest in North America, and plans to transition the entire fleet to zero-emission buses by by 2040. It also expects all new bus deliveries to be zero emission beginning in 2029. That transition will require sustained federal support. New York's buses serve every borough and are especially critical in communities where subway access is limited and residents rely on buses to reach work, school, healthcare, and essential services. But this is not just about New York.

Communities across the country are trying to modernize their bus fleets, reduce diesel pollution, lower operating costs, and provide more reliable service. Whether in a dense urban system, a small city, or a rural transit network, cleaner buses mean cleaner air, stronger domestic manufacturing, and better transportation options for riders, and better health for for residents. This amendment would help accelerate clean bus deployment, deployment in New York City and nationwide, especially in communities that have endured decades of diesel pollution, traffic congestion, and poor air quality. This is a straightforward investment in riders, environmental justice, American jobs, and the transit systems millions of people rely on every day. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and restore this vital program.

I yield back.

I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. The amendment establishes a new competitive grant program solely for green buses, and in doing that, it diverts money away from other formula programs. And for that reason, I have to I have to oppose. Rick. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So we had a low-no program as part of the bill. It was very successful. I just would note for members, during negotiations, we weren't able to keep it. However, we kept the eligibility for transit agencies to use their funds for low and no emission bus grants.

So the program doesn't exist in this bill. The function and the eligibility continues to exist. That's the best we can get to date. And I just wanted to remind members of that without a yieldback. Question?

On the amendment. Good. Go ahead. I don't understand the opposition here. I don't get it.

We got a problem with low emission buses and we don't want to have a program. Is that it? The biggest thing is just it diverts money away from— Oh, it takes money away from what? From the contract authority. Diesel buses?

There are companies in California that are manufacturing battery-powered buses, hydrogen-powered buses, and we don't want to go that way? We want diesel? Is that the question? What I'm understanding here. I don't get it.

Yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay. Nay.

Opinion of the chair, the nays have it.

The nays do have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Thanks, Chair.

Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania, number 223.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit recipients of federal transit funding from instituting a universal fare-free policy that would allow all users of public transportation service provided by or on behalf of such recipient from using such service without paying a fare. Transit is by far the most subsidized form of transportation. More than 80% of expenditures are paid by subsidies.

So it's absolutely critical to ensure that transit agencies seek to recover additional farebox revenue rather than eliminate the farebox altogether. Transit agencies claim universal fare-free policies are necessary to attract additional ridership, but there's actually little evidence to support these claims. In fact, it likely has the opposite effect. Surveys show that transit riders place a much higher value on service, including on-time performance performance, service frequency, speed, etc., than on price. This is true of transit-dependent riders as it is of choice riders.

Instead of eliminating fares, reducing operating revenues that leads to less effective and reliable service, reducing the appeal of transit to these choice riders. Additionally, real-world examples of universal fare-free policies have been associated with spikes in vandalism, vagrancy, and crime aboard the transit vehicles themselves, increasing security costs and further deterring ridership. Because no one wants to get on a transit vehicle where the criminals are hanging out and sleeping and waiting to prey on you because it doesn't cost them anything to be there. With the mayor overseeing the nation's largest transit— largest transit system demanding free buses, this is a vital taxpayer protection tool that we must implement now. Everything can't be free.

I urge adoption and I yield the balance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I oppose the Perry Amendment. I do not focus on what the mayor of the largest city in the country is doing.

I focus on what Island County Transit is doing. Island County Transit— Island County Transit, my district, a very small rural transit agency, has been operating universal free fare-free transit service since its inception in the 1980s. It doesn't have a security problem. It doesn't have a vacancy problem. Island Transit receives approximately 70% of its operating revenue from a voter-approved, locally collected sales tax.

That's how they do it. Under that provision, Island Transit and other transit agencies will be forced to assume the cost of collecting fares, which they have already looked like— looked at in the past and found it is It's just the cost of doing it in their model doesn't justify doing it. It upends its operations for no good reason. So let's not dictate this from Congress about what Island Transit should do or any other transit agency. There are other problems that transit agencies have.

We should resolve those. This isn't the one. So I oppose this amendment and ask others to oppose it. Mr. Chairman. Jerry.

Mr. Chairman. This amendment would punish cities like New York for even considering bold policies to make transit more affordable, accessible, and efficient. New York City depends on the largest transit system in the United States, which serves as essential infrastructure for millions of residents each day. For many riders, the cost of a fare is not a small inconvenience. It's a real barrier.

Instead of helping transit agencies meet the affordability crisis, facing working families, this amendment would impose a blanket federal prohibition on universal fare-free transit policies. That is the wrong approach. Decisions about fare policy should be made by state and local leaders who understand their riders, their budgets, and their transportation systems, not dictated from Washington through a one-size-fits-all restriction. This amendment is especially harmful for New York City. The MTA receives federal transit funding, and this language could block future efforts to make buses or other services fare-free, even if New York identifies a sustainable funding source to replace fare revenue.

It could also chill innovation and prevent the expansion of successful pilot programs designed to speed up service, reduce boarding delays, and make transit easier to use. Let's be clear. No one is saying transit agencies should eliminate fares without a responsible funding plan. Local governments already have to balance their budgets and make difficult decisions about operations, service, and revenue. What this amendment does is take a policy tool off the table entirely.

At a time when Americans are facing rising costs, Congress should be expanding access to public transportation, not restricting it. It would It reduces congestion, connects people to opportunity, supports the regional economy, and gives working families a more affordable alternative to driving. This amendment would make it harder for cities to lower costs for riders and improve mobility. It is anti-transit, anti-rider, and deeply harmful to New York City. And as the ranking member said, deeply harmful to other areas.

I urge my colleagues To oppose it.

Anyone else wish to be heard?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm opposed to this amendment, but I want to specifically speak on a claim that Mr. Perry made suggesting that transit is the most subsidized form of transportation. That's if you just look at fares. But of course, there are a lot of other costs to transportation. The Highway Trust Fund alone has received half a trillion dollars— between a quarter and half a trillion dollars of general fund transfers just to keep it solvent since 2008. There's a tremendous cost to congestion on our highways that's reduced by transit.

There's an enormous cost to accidents because tens of thousands of Americans are killed on our highways every year. A mere handful in transit accidents in the last two decades. There's a cost to emergency response. We never think about the cost of highway travel in terms of the police, the fire service, the emergency response services that have to be paid for by taxpayers because so many people get killed on our highways. I know Republicans are immune to the costs of pollution.

But the people that you represent are not. That's another cost as well. There are costs to congestion, to simply the economic cost of being stuck in traffic. Even Milton Friedman would agree with that. There are land use costs because so much more land is taken up by highways.

One track has the capacity of between 6 and 10 highway lanes. Downtown development taken up by parking spaces instead of being productively used. These are all costs of having a society unique in America that is so dependent on cars. And why is it so dependent on cars? Because we subsidize the hell out of them.

So irrespective of the virtues of having fair, free transit, it's just simply false, the idea that transit takes more subsidies than the alternatives. And that's why the rest of the world, which is making economic decisions on how to invest tech, fair money, and transportation, invests in a lot of transit, invests in a lot of rail, invests in high-speed rail, which we're still struggling to build here in America, the only developed country in the world that doesn't have or isn't building high-speed rail. There's not some vast railroad conspiracy that has infected every other country. But thanks to Make America Healthy Again, it just hasn't come here yet. No, it just makes economic sense, and that's why, why the rest of the world does it.

Unfortunately, too often it's the auto lobby, the oil lobby, the automobile lobby, the airline lobbies that reduce investment in rail here in America. Take these decisions out of an economic analysis and make them political. So let's just set that rumor to bed. There's a reason why it's more efficient to take trains, why it costs less, and it takes less taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?

Seeing no one, or any— Are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay.

The chair— the nays have it. Gentleman requests a vote on the amendment. As previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

Mr. Scaramendi. Is this on the voting amendment?

79. Thank you. 79. It's been a lot of— I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Mr. Garamendi of California, number 079, revision 1. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's been a great deal of discussion throughout this day about bridges.

And yep, they're a problem, no doubt about it. This amendment is pretty simple, and that is to see if we can find a way to keep our bridges in good repair. We know that many of these bridges are corroding for various reasons. Some steel, sometimes there's problems with the concrete. But this is specifically an amendment to develop a more robust effort across the nation to prevent our bridges from corroding.

So it's a corrosion prevention and repair bill. Rather simple. We can go into all the details if you like, but considering that we got a whole lot of work out ahead. If you like your bridges to continue to be sturdy, if you want your bridges to fall down, then vote no. If you want your bridges to be properly maintained, you'll vote yes on this.

I ask for an aye vote.

Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? Seeing no one, I'm— Oh, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it does something simple and long overdue. It cuts out wastes. Right now, too many transportation projects are forced to run the same environmental review twice—once by the state and once by the federal government—even when both reviews look at the same impacts the same data and the same outcomes. That is duplication and it slows down projects without improving environmental protection. This amendment fixes that.

It takes the old pilot program and turns it into a permanent, fully functioning tool that lets qualified states carry out one high-quality review instead of two. It also expands the program so airports and ports can benefit from from the same streamlined process. That means faster timelines, fewer bureaucratic delays, and no loss of environmental safeguards. We are not weakening standards. We are eliminating paperwork that does nothing but burn time and taxpayer dollars.

When a state can meet the same requirements with one review, there's no reason to force them to do it twice. This amendment is about efficiency, accountability, and common sense. It helps states deliver projects faster. It keeps environmental protections intact, and it frees up time and resources for the work that actually matters. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.

Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Seeing no one, I do support the intent of your amendment, John, but I have to oppose it. I believe there'd be significant unintended consequences for every bridge project. You know, bridge corrosion is— bridge corrosion prevention is very, very important. Specifically, applications of paints and coatings and other materials are not the only way to prevent, um, corrosion. And I think this amendment would make it difficult for those, uh, for other methods to be utilized.

So with that, I yield back. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

All opposed signify by saying nay.

Opinion of the chair, the nays have it.

The nays do have it. The amendment is not agreed to. All right, we'll allow it. The gentleman requested a roll call vote. As previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

So, Boss just finished closing on the floor, so he should be back any minute. So we'll start, we'll run through one more, and Mike— When are you starting? Let's keep it up. We'll go ahead and start. He should be on his way.

He was managing a bill on the floor. We're going to start voting right now. All right, we'll go ahead and start voting.

He should be here any minute. So first, Amendment Number 78 offered by Mr. Garamendi, which a recorded vote was ordered. Which was recorded, which was not agreed to by voice vote, is a recorded vote still ordered? John?

I really don't understand the opposition. I really don't. Apparently some discussions have taken place long before we began this process of amendments, and I don't have all the details on that. But apparently it is not wise to proceed with this amendment. Don't know why.

Don't know who's making these decisions, nor do I know why they're making these decisions, but they are. It's all so strange. I'm going to withdraw the amendment. Thanks, John. Next amendment, 224, which is offered by Mr. Perry, in which a recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice vote.

Is a recorded vote still ordered? Recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking will vote no.

All members been recorded and wish to be recorded. Does anyone wish to change their vote? Hearing none, close the board and announce the total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 16 yeas and 49 nays. I voted 16 yeas, 49 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.

Next amendment, number 62, offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia, in which a recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? It is not.

Thank you very much.

Next amendment, 294, offered by Miss Titus, which a recorded vote was recorded, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? Yes, a recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system, and Chairman intends to vote no.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. We have an agreement on this one as part of a big two agreement, so I'll be voting, voting no on this, but only me.

Open to board. May— question, please. Mr. Larson, I have a question.

Has everyone been recorded?

Has everyone been recorded who wishes to be recorded?

Does anyone wish to change your vote?

See no one. Close the board. Announce total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 35 yeas and 31 nays. I voted 35 yeas and 31 nays. The amendment is agreed to.

Next amendment, number 154, offered by Mr. Mass, which recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice voters. Recorded vote still requested. Recorded vote is still requested. Members who are recorded to vote by electronic device, the chairman intends to vote no. Ranking vote now.

Open the board.

Hey, what are you going to do? Nothing. Collins fucking just flipped on the cops. Do what? Over what?

I know. Did they know what it was? Nothing we can do about it.

Brad, where's— not— are you voting?

Has everyone voted that wishes to be recorded? Does anyone wish to change their vote?

Seeing none, close the board. Announce total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 22 yeas and 44 nays. I voted 22 yeas, 44 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.

Next, Amendment 148 offered by Mr. Burchett, in which a recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice vote, is Recorded vote still requested. Recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking vote no.

Open the board.

Has anyone been recorded that wishes to be recorded? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, close the board and announce total. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 29 yeas and 37 nays. I voted 29 yeas and 37 nays.

The amendment is not agreed to.

Next amendment, number 94, offered by Mr. Mills, which recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? Yes, sir. Recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their vote using electronic voting system.

The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking vote yes. Ranking vote yes.

Has everyone been recorded who wishes to be recorded?

Does anyone wish to change your vote?

See no one. Close the board and announce the total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote there are 54 yeas and 11 nays. A vote of 54 yeas, 11 nays. The agreement— or the amendment is agreed to.

Next amendment, 23, offered by Mr. Collins, in which recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by a voice vote. Is recorded vote still requested? Yes, sir. Recorded vote is still requested. Members, recorded vote using electronic system.

Chairman intends to vote no. Ranking will vote no. Open to board.

Who else voted for it?

Has everyone been recorded or wishes to be recorded? Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, close the board and announce the total. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 27 yeas and 39 nays. By a vote of 27 yeas, 39 nays, the amendment is not agreed to.

Next, Amendment 79, offered by Mr. Strickland, in which a recorded vote was ordered, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested?

A recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Chairman intends to vote no. Ranking will vote no due to a Big Four agreement.

Open the board.

Has everyone been recorded who wishes to be recorded? Does anyone wish to change their vote?

Seeing none, close the board and report the total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yeas and 36 nays. I voted 30 yeas, 36 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.

Next amendment, 41, revision 1, offered by Mr. Fong, on which a recorded vote was ordered, which was agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? Yes. A recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system.

The Chairman intends to vote aye. Rankin will vote no. Open the board.

Everyone— has everyone been recorded who wishes to be recorded?

Does anyone wish to change their vote?

Seeing no one, close the board. Announce total. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 35 yeas and 30 nays. I voted 35 yeas and 30 nays. The amendment is agreed to.

Next, Amendment 45, Revision 1, offered by Mr. McDowell, on which a recorded vote was ordered and which was agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested?

Yes, a recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Chairman intends to vote aye. Ranking vote aye. Open the door, or board.

Which one was it? This is the one that is real.

Has everyone been recorded who wishes to be recorded? Does anyone wish to change your vote?

Seeing no one, close the board. Announce the total.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 64 yeas and 1 nay. I voted 64 yeas and 1 nay. The amendment is agreed to.

Next amendment, 77, offered by Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, in which a recorded vote is ordered, which was agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? Yes. A recorded vote is still requested. Members will record their votes.

Using electronic device, the chairman intends to vote aye. Ranking vote, no. Open the board.

Shree's phone.

Has everyone voted who wishes to be recorded? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, close the board and announce the total.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, on that vote there are 35 yeas and 29 nays.

Did you vote at all? Did it record at all?

Um, to see if we can solve a technical issue. I'd ask unanimous consent to solve a technical issue. No problem on this side. Mr. Burchett reflected as a yes in the vote tally.

Okay, so we'll have Mr. Burchett, um, reflected as a yes in the vote tally. No objection. Make sure you push the right buttons, folks.

Um, so what's it— what's the total?

There are 35 yeas and 29 nays. I voted 39— or 35, 35 yeas, 29 nays. The amendment is agreed to.

This concludes our first vote series. So we're going to resume debate, amendment debate, and then we will announce the next vote series as it comes up, and we'll continue with amendments as we— once we close out, trying to get everybody back. The House, when do we intend to vote on the floor?

Couple hours. We will be voting on the floor or in an hour or so. In an hour we'll be voting on the floor. So we're going to continue debate.

Staubert, you got an amendment?

Mr. Stauber, I have an amendment at the desk. Designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota, number 049. Without objection, the amendment would be considered as read. Mr. Stauber, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to briefly discuss last week's Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Courebeil, which has fundamentally reshaped the logistics industry. In the absence of a clear federal or legal standard for carrier selection, brokers and shippers will now have to individually establish criteria for the selection selection of safe motor carriers. The Supreme Court opinion noted that brokers may not always be in a good position to objectively assess carrier safety and that there was an absence of— I need some order in the hearing room.

And then we'll give Mr. Stauber his time back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. There was an absence in meaningful safety-related regulation of brokers at the federal level.

This ruling shifts a nationally consistent system towards a patchwork of liability standards that will drive up costs and hit small trucking companies and the small businesses that rely on them the hardest. And this ruling will shift loads away from small carriers to larger fleets with the resources to navigate compliance requirements. Insurance. Costs in the supply chain should be of concern to every member of this committee. If operating costs increase, insurance costs for brokers and carriers increase, and the need to defend against litigation increases.

The cost of moving household goods and food will increase as well. Without clear federal guardrails like my Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard Act, we are leaving the market exposed. I have long sought greater safety on our nation's road by requiring freight brokers and shippers to rigorously verify that a motor carrier is properly registered, adequately insured, and fully compliant with federal safety standards before entrusting them with a shipment. I am concerned about the ramifications of this decision for small carriers, small businesses that engage in trucking companies directly, and freight brokers. Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to hold a hearing on the impacts of the Montgomery decision on cost, truckload capacity and the risks of fraud and false claims in the industry.

I also encourage this committee to prioritize working with, with FMSCA to ensure the agency continues to finalize regulations targeting fraudulent actors in the trucking space and promoting compliance. With an agreement that we will continue to work together on this, Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing the amendment at this time. And I yield back.

Without objection, so ordered.

No one tells me what to do. Mr. Johnson. I think I have an amendment at the desk. Designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia, number 063. Without objection, the amendment would be considered as read. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the last decade, assaults on transit operators have increased by more than 232%, a staggering trend that puts the people who keep our transit systems running at real and great risks.

These are frontline workers who show up early, stay late, and keep our communities moving. They should not have to fear for their safety just for doing their job and serving the public. And when the risks keep rising, Congress has a responsibility to make sure agencies have the resources they need to protect their workers and their riders. My amendment fixes that by allowing transit agencies to use their existing federal formula funds for security and crime prevention operating expenses. No new spending, no new programs, just clear authority to use the tools they already have to keep riders and workers safe.

It helps them install cameras, emergency call boxes, and better lighting. It helps them deploy mobile safety apps and modernize faregate technology, and it ensures they can respond quickly when safety concerns arise. Because a transit system cannot be reliable if it is not safe, and it cannot be safe if agencies are unsure whether they can use their own federal funds to protect the people they serve. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.

Any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment?

Seeing none, I recognize myself. I, I do oppose the amendment. Apart from a technical, technical issue with this amendment, the manager's amendment doubled the amount in the underlying section that may be used to address crime on public transportation. So I oppose efforts to further increase federal operating assistance for agencies that have not meaningfully addressed crime on their systems. And therefore, I do have to oppose this and I urge my colleagues to, to vote no.

Are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, signify by saying nay. In opinion of the chair, the nays have it.

The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced, pursuant to Committee Rule 6, for the proceedings are postponed.

Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Does it need an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Burchett of Tennessee, number 149?

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Burchett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For many Class 2 and Class 3 railroad projects, Holding company structures are used for routine legal and administrative purposes, and allowing those entities to apply directly can provide a clearer and more efficient path for grant administration. Congress recognizes these holding companies within appropriation language.

Codifying holding companies as potential recipients of grant reduces red tape and paperwork for the Federal Railroad Administration, for the railroads. And I can't understand why anybody would not support this. And I ask my colleagues to support this in reducing unnecessary paperwork. And I yield back. And I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

We'll get there.

Sure. You want to speak on— Thank you, Chairman. The ranking member opposes the amendment from Representative Burchett. This amendment would make the holding companies of shortline railroads eligible for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants, or CRISI grants. Shortline railroads are already eligible for these grants regardless of their ownership infrastructure.

CRISI allows shortlines to make safety and environmental upgrades that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Shortline railroads provide critical services, and this is why they're eligible to receive grants. This amendment would expand eligibility to railroad holding companies, some of whom are held by investment firms whose net income can exceed $1 billion. We'll even have a far smaller pot of funds available for rail grants after Advance appropriations expire at the end of fiscal year 2026. As a result, the ranking member does not support expanding eligibility for private holding companies that are able to raise funds in the private markets for their companies.

The benefits of supplanting private capital with public funds would go to dividends for private shareholders, not for public benefit. The ranking member urges colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, could I say something at this point, or do I need to wait? Yeah, you can go ahead.

I'll yield to you. Okay. I realize what's going on here, and I realize that, you know, when you're not sitting at the table, that you don't— you're not heard. And I realize the deal has already been cut, but I want to warn us, warn our party, you know, we're in the majority and we're not acting like it. We'll be in the minority once again because of this kind of activity.

And I'm disgusted that both sides of the aisle— that we're not allowed to— deals have been cut, and I think that's wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?

Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay.

In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. All right.

Ready? Mr. Carson? Sir? The clerk will designate the amendment. Yes, sir.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Carson of Indiana, number 058. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Carson is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment supports workforces at American rail maintenance facilities. I'm proud to represent one of the finest rail maintenance facilities in the country, Beech Grove, Indiana. Too many times Over the years, there have been short-sighted attempts to shrink the workforce and outsource critical rail safety and repair work performed by highly skilled workers. If the U.S. wants the best and most reliable rail systems, we have to invest in our rail workforce and support them as they advance their skills with new technologies and exciting new equipment that improves safety and efficiency. My amendment provides the provisions in the Rail Equipment Pool subtitle of the bill, Section 103.01, from reducing the work product or the workforce at U.S. rail maintenance facilities.

The underlying bill provision to allow rail equipment pooling can provide flexible— flexibility to keep our trains running efficiently, smoothly, and safely. But these provisions should not be used to reduce the workforce or the quality work performed at American rail maintenance facilities, including the Premier facility in Beech Grove, Indiana. The amendment is endorsed by the International Association of Machinists, IBEW, SMART Union, and the Transportation Workers United. I urge my colleagues to support this great amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields. Any other members want to be recognized on the amendment?

I oppose the amendment. The passenger rail equipment pools established in the underlying bill will be managed and operated by state compacts for the purpose of acquiring railroad equipment for use by pool participants. The amendment is unnecessary as the purpose of these pools is to spur growth and competition. I'm concerned that the amendment will have unintended consequences that could constrain the equipment pool's ability to function as Congress intends. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back.

Are there any other speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is, are there any other amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment is, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay.

My opinion, the nays have it.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like a recorded vote. Gentleman wants a recorded vote.

The gentleman requests a recorded vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6A. The chair recognizes Mr. Nails of Texas. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.

What purpose does Mr. Nails seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Nails of Texas, number 087.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Nails is recognized for 5 minutes. 5 Minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, sir. This amendment would address a serious problem that is affecting the truck trailer manufacturers and could jeopardize thousands— yes, sir— thousands of jobs.

Here is the problem that involves rear bumpers that are on truck trailers. That's it, the rear bumpers. Federal experts at DOT and NHTSA set federal standards that all truck trailer manufacturers must meet and comply with. The standards set the right balance to protect people when there happens to be an accident involving a vehicle that hits the back of the truck trailer. But some lawyers, the scum, have figured out how to sue under state law, claiming that jurors should ignore the federal safety standards set by DOT and should hit companies with punitive damages even when they meet those federal standards.

In one case called the Wabash case, the jury ignored the federal standards for rear guard bumpers, ignored that the company had actually met the federal standard when it made the trailer, and instead awarded the plaintiff $450 million in punitive damages. First, it makes no sense to punish companies with punitive damages when they have actually complied with and met the federal standards for those rear guard bumpers. Second, the juries are in essence substituting their judgment for that of the NHTSA experts and awarding huge punitive damages against the companies even though they have complied— they complied with the federal standard. Third, the experts at DOT and NHTSA spent a lot of time doing tests, analyzing multiple scenarios, that fit the right balance and set the appropriate federal standard. The current standards are set.

They were done in 2022. And fourth, the insurance costs. The insurance costs for the companies are increasing. It's in a big way. And that gets passed along to the customer.

It does. At the end of the day, this proposal only explicitly addresses the rear bumpers of truck trailers, and it would only prevent punitive damages from being imposed when and only when the manufacturer meets federal standards for those rear bumpers. Punitive damages are supposed to be reversed for malicious and willful misconduct and to punish companies for intentionally causing harm. It still allows people— this legislation, this bill, it still allows people to file lawsuits and also recover damages for injuries and lost income called compensatory damages. It still allows people to even get punitive damages if the company does not meet the federal standard when the trailer is manufactured and does not preclude lawsuits.

The current situation is unattainable. If this trend continues, we could have juries in different states that are in essence creating different benchmarks or standards for punitive damages. We should not be punishing companies that are following the law and meeting the standards that we have asked expert at DOT and NHTSA to set for the industry. This is about fairness and preserving standards that preserve safety. With that, I thank you and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, Ms. Davis, recognize.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, the ranking member opposes Nell's Amendment 87. This amendment aims to limit punitive damages to victims of fatal crashes. This amendment presumes compliance with federal safety standards. However, manufacturers are able to self-certify their compliance.

If this amendment were adopted, it would limit compensation to victims, including in situations of defective equipment. Limiting recovery would do nothing to ensure manufacturers actually comply with federal safety standards and will leave crash victims and their families with with little recourse. The ranking member urges all members to oppose this amendment. I yield back. Mr. Collins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support this amendment. This amendment would bring back common sense to a key issue affecting the trucking industry and the companies that make truck trailers. The companies that make these truck trailers are facing unfair litigation that could put their businesses at risk. These companies spend a lot of time testing and retesting the trailers to make sure they create a product that meets all the federal standards.

These companies and thousands of people they employ all want safe trailers. They drive on the highways too. Congress empowered the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set federal standards for rear guard bumpers. Many companies comply with all federal and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards that apply to rear guard bumpers. Yet they have recently faced unreasonable litigation in the form of punitive damages at the state level.

As was mentioned in the Wabash case, the jury was convinced to ignore the federal standard and instead they punished the company with a $450 million in punitive damages, even though the company had complied with the federal standards when the trailer was manufactured, all because the jury apparently thought the company should have done something different than the federal standard. The threat of huge verdicts at the state level against these manufacturers, even when the trailers comply with all applicable federal rear impact guard standards, is putting truck trailer manufacturers at serious risk. I know from experience that most of these companies are small to medium-sized businesses and they make the trailers that haul all the goods that are crucial to our cargo transportation systems across the country. I am told that these companies are seeing their insurance costs increase substantially. One company told me that their insurance costs have gone up by 40 to 50% in the last few years.

The mere threat and possibility of these types of lawsuits is having a serious negative impact. These costs are being passed down to the consumers, making everything more expensive to Americans. To be clear, this amendment addresses the rear guard bumpers of truck trailers. It would only prevent punitive damages from being imposed when and only when the manufacturer meets the federal standards of these rear guard bumpers. The trailer manufacturers face conflicting situations in different states, which goes against the whole notion of having federal standards.

If we continue to have conflicting standards in various states, This may put Americans across the nation at risk. This provision does allow for the Secretary of the DOT to add additional regulations, but only after careful consideration and after NHTSA has balanced various safety factors. Companies need the certainty of the federal standard, and that is why I am proud to support this amendment. I urge all my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Are there any other speakers on the amendment? Seeing none. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none.

The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those signify by saying nay.

Nay. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Request a recorded vote, sir. Gentleman requests a recorded vote.

All right.

As previously announced, pursuant to committee rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

For what purpose does Ms. Titus seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Titus of Nevada, number 299.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Titus is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is so simple and so common sense sense. I, I can't believe it wasn't in the original bill.

It would ensure that nonprofits that represent workers, including unions, would be eligible for the Rail Technology and Asset Pilot Program. This is a new program that has to do with safety and technology that's being created by the bill. Under the bill, those eligible include private industry, states, tribes, Transit agencies, virtually everybody except the workers who are going to be actually doing the things that are studied in this pilot program. Now, workers can apply for other kind of grants under existing law, like CRISI grants, but not this new one that's being created. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

This new program will help develop the next generation of technology and including what's known as telematics. This technology has great potential to help with problems like cargo theft. We've heard a lot about that in this committee, and it cost railroads more than $100 million just last year. Technological advancement, however, means nothing without a robust workforce development— the people who can carry it out. After all, it's the railroad workers who will be entrusted with implementing these technologies into our rail safety ecosystems.

They should be eligible to receive training on telematics and other technology that may be eligible under this program, like the positive train control and wayside defect detectors. So as I said, it makes no sense to let everybody apply for this except the people who are going to be implementing it. They're the ones who need the training because they're the ones who are on the front line. So I would encourage my colleagues to correct this little minor error in the bill and add these workers to the eligibility list for the grant program. This pilot program newly created by this bill.

I yield back. Gentlelady yields. Do any other members want to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you, Miss Titus. I recognize my sister.

This— the amendment expands the intended purpose of the Rail Technology and Asset Pilot Program beyond its intended use. Given the resources needed to get the pilot program underway, I cannot support adding additional burdensome requirements. I yield back. Are there any other speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the Question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed by saying nay. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Record it, bud. Nope. Okay. Mr. Owens, you're recognized. Thank you so much.

I want, um, I want to first of all thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this important surface transportation reauthorization. Today I offer a simple— hold up just a sec, pause just for a sec. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, number 045.

Correct. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Owens, you are now recognized. Mr. Hines, for 5 minutes to speak on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Appreciate it. Again, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their work on this important surface transportation reauthorization. Today I offer a simple but impactful amendment, the Bridge Act Digital Bond Pilot Program. Mr. Chairman, this— in rural America and small communities, municipal bonds are now how local governments pay for roads, bridges, and transit. But for too many small issuers, The high fixed costs of traditional bond deals make these projects too expensive, often they delay or cancel needed infrastructure.

My amendment creates a modest time limit palette at the Build America Bureau. It gives targeted grants to help small, rural, and disadvantaged communities cover the one-time cost of switching and of using a qualified digital bond platform to federally assisted transportation projects. These platforms have already proven they can— they can cut issuance costs, speed up settlements, and increase transparency, all while fully complying with existing security laws and SMSRB rules. The pilot is completely voluntary. It gives priority to smallest— smallest insurers, thus— thus doing $10 million or less per year.

As well as rural and disadvantaged communities. It also favors models that can help multiple jurisdictions at once. The bill includes strong protections, bondholder continuity plans, coordination with the Depository Trust Company, and technology-neutral standards set by the SEC, MSRB, and the DTC, a 5-year sunset, annual reports, and a GAO review. Importantly, this amendment does not mandate anything. It does not change security laws or tax laws.

It does not tie any federal transportation funding to its use. Mr. Chairman, in small rural communities with high costs and limited staff, this program will deliver lasting savings for every future bond. It stretches taxpayer dollars further and helps more projects get built. Smart, low-cost modernization that belongs in the innovative finance title of this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

I yield back. The gentleman yields. Ms. David, you are recognized. Thank you, Chairman. The ranking member opposes the Owens Amendment 45.

The amendment seeks to establish a pilot program to help small, rural, tribal, and disadvantaged communities better access digital municipal bonds. While the ranking member applauds the intent, it is a complex issue that needs more vetting than the time allowed by the amendment process and may also require input from various committees beyond T&I. Given that, the ranking member must oppose the amendment. I yield back. Are there any other speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. Owens, you'd like to get a vote, recorded vote? Yes.

Gentlemen request a recorded vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6 If further proceedings on the question are postponed.

What purpose does Mr. Collins seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I got an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia, number 025.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Collins is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would expand an existing existing exemption from certain sales tax to also apply to the trucking industry. Airlines and bus companies already receive this exemption.

Giving the same protection to truckers will help lower cost. Gross receipts taxes are a terrible fit for the transportation industry. These taxes are sometimes called commercial activity taxes or franchise taxes. They act as tolls when goods originate in a state and terminate in another state, or simply drive through a state. Excessive taxes on trucking raises costs for every one of our constituents.

In the trucking industry, we say, "If you bought it, a truck brought it." Congress knows that these taxes are a terrible fit for the transportation industry. In the 1970s, we exempted airlines from paying these taxes. In the 1990s, we exempted bus companies from paying these taxes. This amendment would simply level the playing field by expanding this exemption to also include trucks. We should be doing everything we can to fight inflation and bring down costs.

This is one more small thing we can do to help. Urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields. Ms. Davis, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. The ranking member opposes Collins Amendment Number 25. This amendment would preempt state and local taxes, fees, or levies on the transportation of interstate commerce by motor carriers. If enacted, this would limit state and local governments from collecting any revenue on motor carriers engaged in interstate transportation. This preemption provision and related motor carrier preemption provisions have been the subject of extensive litigation by trucking companies.

States are already prohibited from regulating the price, route, or service of a motor water carrier. Congress should not intervene to further limit this authority without thorough discussion and understanding of the impacts. The ranking member urges members to oppose this amendment. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields. Any other members want to be recognized on this amendment? Are there any other speakers on the amendment?

And so now we are going to switch.

Mr. Collins.

Hold on.

Lack of sleep will do that to you. We try to make it— you got somewhere to be? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

All those opposed say nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote, please. Gentleman requests a recorded vote.

The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.

For what purpose does Mr. Kiley seek recognition? Uh, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Khaylee of California, number 049— 047, I'm sorry.

Okay, without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Khaylee is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Mr. Chair, all across the country Americans are struggling with the cost of gas right now, but nowhere is this more the case than in my state of California. California, uh, where our drivers are paying well above even what the second highest state is paying.

Uh, we're paying about $6.15 a gallon. We're paying more than Hawaii, which is an island state. Uh, and there are several reasons for it, but, uh, the leading reason, uh, is that our state taxes gas far more, uh, than any other state. Uh, at 61 cents a gallon, uh, it's the highest gas tax, uh, in the country. It's a cost that many of our drivers simply cannot afford.

Many are having to make trade-offs between, uh, driving and, uh, putting food on the table. Uh, many have said they've had to reduce their, uh, driving and to cut back on activities or, uh, other engagements, um, or find alternative modes, uh, of transport. Uh, so it has become a major major burden for Californians. It's one of the reasons that we have the highest cost of living of any state in the country. So I have encouraged our leaders in the state to provide Californians immediate relief by suspending the gas tax of 61 cents per gallon, at least temporarily, while prices are so high.

Several other states have done this, but unfortunately Unfortunately, California's state government has refused to do so. The good news is we do have the ability here to impose some common sense limits on the tax that can be charged for gas in states like California. And that is through the same mechanism that is used to achieve uniformity, or at least harmony in, uh, issues like, uh, alcohol purchases, minimum drinking age, uh, truck weights, uh, and that sort of thing. And that is by making it a condition for receiving, uh, federal highway grants. And so my bill, which this amendment would incorporate, uh, into this larger surface transportation bill, is the Gas Tax Reduction Act.

And it simply places a cap of 50 cents on how much a state can tax gasoline, uh, per gallon. This would provide some much-needed immediate relief to my state and a few others for our drivers, uh, and, uh, would, uh, at the same time, uh, be of important interest to the federal government. 'Cause the fact is that, uh, the federal government has significant operations, uh, in California, military bases, Forest Service, you name it. And many of these operations involve transport. And so states that have unreasonably high state gas taxes unduly burden federal operations within their jurisdiction.

So it makes perfect sense for us here to address the issue of the cost of living that people are, are struggling with mightily, in states like California, and to assure that these states, through irresponsible policies, don't, uh, unreasonably, uh, burden, uh, federal operations. I should also note that California's very high gas tax is justified in the name of, uh, road maintenance and repair, uh, but California roads rank among the 3 worst in the entire country. So the problem, uh, for our, uh, political leaders in the state It's clearly not a lack of revenue. It's a lack of prioritization. And so I think this is a way to incentivize states to— in particular, a state like California— to take a more performance-based approach to transportation funding and to have it be a higher priority in their own spending decisions.

So for those reasons, I would strongly urge I vote, which will provide immediate relief to drivers in my state as well as a few high-tax states throughout the country. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Yes. For what member— for what purpose does the member seek recognition?

To strike last word.

Okay. Granted. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment.

If the gentleman had offered an amendment saying that federal gas taxes are too high, that's for us to decide. Uh, but to offer an amendment to say that California taxes are too high, well, they may well be, but that's for Californians to decide. We have no business here dictating to the states, uh, and deciding that California is okay and New York is not okay and Wyoming is fine. It's up to the states. That's what federalism is all about.

State governments ought to make their own decisions. If the voters don't like that decision, they can vote their state officials out. That's what democracy is all about. It may very well be that the— I'm sure it is true, I should say, that the cost of gasoline is terribly high in California, as it is in New York. But it may be a good idea to suspend that gas tax, or it may not be, depending on other things in the California budget.

That's for California to decide. Californians elect their officials. If they don't like what their officials do, they can vote them out. So I very much oppose this amendment because it would substitute the opinions of our opinions on state government for state officials, and that's no way to run a democracy. I yield back.

Does any other member wish to be recognized on the amendment? I would like to be recognized. The chair recognizes Ms. Davids. Thank you, Chairman. The ranking member opposes the Kiley Amendment number 47.

This amendment would withhold 8% of a state's funding apportionment for the NHPP and STBG programs if the state has a gas tax above $0.50. States rely heavily on gas taxes to fund the maintenance and construction of their roads, including in the state of Washington, where the ranking member is from. This amendment would have disastrous consequences. In effect, it would punish states for investing in their transportation system and would fly in the face of user pays principles. Fuel prices have risen due to the current administration's war in Iran, and we're all looking for ways to provide relief to our consumers.

Constituents back home. However, encouraging states to disinvest from their roads is not the path to affordability or safe travel. The ranking member urges colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back.

The chair thanks the gentlelady. Are there any further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in in favor signify by saying aye.

And all those opposed signify by saying nay.

In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

The gentleman has requested a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to Committee Rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. Owned.

For what purpose does Ms. Brownlee seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an Amendment 69 at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Ms. Brownlee of California, number 069.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Brownlee is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the next few years, the United States will host several major international sporting events, including the World Cup and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The underlying bill includes $50 million annually for transportation needs associated with these international sporting events. This funding level is simply not sufficient to meet the needs of communities across the United States that will host these events. My amendment would remove this limitation to ensure the House Appropriations Committee has the flexibility to provide adequate funding. As you may know, in prior U.S.-hosted Olympic and Paralympic Games, the federal government has played played a critical role supporting the security and transportation needs of host communities. The last time the U.S. hosted the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002, more than $2.1 billion in federal transportation assistance was provided.

The 2028 Games will host 6 times the number of athletes and 5 times as many sports compared to the 2002 Games, with events taking place across a significantly larger geographic footprint, including Oklahoma City, Nashville, St. Louis, Columbus, and New York. The 2028 Games will truly be a nationwide event that requires significant large-scale transportation coordination, and the investments we make today will benefit the American people long after the Games conclude. The 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be among the largest and most historic sporting events ever held, providing our nation with an extraordinary opportunity to showcase the very best of America to the, to the world. Ensuring transportation systems operate smoothly and efficiently will help guarantee that these events highlight American excellence and innovation, not traffic congestion and delays. I urge members to support my amendment to ensure Congress continues its longstanding commitment to supporting US-hosted international sporting events.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The chair thanks the gentlelady. Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment?

Thank you, Ms. Brownlee. I recognize myself. Oh, please. Does the gentlelady wish to be recognized further? Well, Uh, no, go ahead.

All right, uh, I'll start from the top. Thank you, Miss Brownlee. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. And as the chair, I oppose this amendment because it would provide for an indefinite authorization. For that reason, I must oppose this amendment.

I appreciate the time and I yield back. Are there any further speakers on this amendment? Nope. Seeing none, are there any Amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor— Mr. Chairman, I understand the committee has concerns about the amendment, and I hope we can continue working together to address this important issue moving forward. So at this time, I will respectfully withdraw the amendment. Thank you, ma'am. Without any objection.

For what purpose does Mr. Desaulniers seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Desaulniers of California, number 039. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Mr. Desaulniers is recognized for 5 minutes to to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would protect funding for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, uh, NEVI program, and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure, CFI program, both of which were established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These programs are critical to building a reliable national charging network and ensuring the United States remains competitive in the global transition to cleaner trans— transportation. Electrical vehicle adoption is growing rapidly, both here at home in the United States and around the world.

Last year, more than 1.5 million electric vehicles were sold in the United States, including in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1 in 4, and in California, just about that total number, 1 in accounting for roughly— nationally accounting roughly 1 in 10 new vehicle sales. Globally, EV sales exceeded 17 million vehicles in 2024. China allow— alone now accounts for more than half of all global EV sales, and their largest auto manufacturer is about to surpass Toyota as the largest auto manufacturing car company in the world. As this continues to— as China continues to aggressively invest in charging infrastructure and EVs, the advanced vehicle technology becomes more and more important to the global competitiveness for the United States. We should be leading this transition.

These investments are also critical to addressing climate change. Transportation remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly 30% of total emissions. Expanding EV infrastructure helps reduce emissions, improve air quality, and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, as well as make us globally competitive and give consumers choice. In our last reauthorization, we made the right choice by laying the groundwork for national strategy to deploy electric vehicle charging stations along major transportation corridors. My amendment simply ensures that funds already authorized and appropriated by Congress cannot be frozen, delayed, or withheld without congressional approval by the administration.

If we are serious about modernizing our transportation system, strengthening American competitiveness, and combating the threat of climate change, climate change, we must follow through on the investment Congress already made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you— we will continue to work together on this important issue. I yield back. Thank you, sir.

Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Desaulniers. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. Speaking on behalf of the chair, I oppose this amendment. Which would hamstring the DOT from administering and reviewing programs that have largely failed to deliver on their promises by billions of dollars spent.

Thank you. I yield back. Are there any further speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.

All those in favor? Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment with the provision, and I look forward to working with you and the committee leadership on this issue. Without objection.

Thank you. For what purpose does Mr. Carbajal seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Mr. Carbajal of California, number 072. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Carbajal is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would create a targeted carve-out for individuals earning under $75,000 when it comes to new federal EV taxes and road user fees.

This is consistent with the income cap for other clean energy tax credits and targets families making a modest income who make up a large part of our middle class. For many families in this range, they are some of the most financially burdened by increasing housing costs, higher transportation expenses, and everyday cost of living. And now, with global instability, including the war in Iran driving up oil prices, families are seeing even more pressure at the pump. This amendment ensures we are not layering another financial burden to many middle-class families that are already struggling to make ends meet. I understand we need to shore up the Highway Trust Fund and the user fees are a fair way to ensure everyone pays into the system.

Let us be honest about the broader context. The Highway Trust Fund has been unsustainable for decades, long before EVs made up a meaningful share of vehicles on the road. Since 2008, it has required repeated general fund bailouts, and spending has exceeded gas tax revenues every year this century. That's not because of electric vehicles. It is because of a long-term structural imbalance, an outdated gas tax that has not been updated since 1993, inflation, rising construction costs, and more efficient vehicles.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that nearly $330 billion will be needed over the next decade just to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. So if Congress is going to pursue long-term fiscal stability, we should do it in a way that is fair and consistent, treating all drivers equally regardless of what kind of vehicle they drive, while protecting lower and middle class households from new cost burdens. This amendment strikes that balance— fiscal responsibility without punishing affordability or limiting consumer choice. I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield back.

Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Carbajal. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. On behalf of the, uh, the chairman, I oppose this amendment. The registration fee on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids ensures preservation of the user pays principle. I'm a strong believer that if you use the system, you ought to pay into it.

Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Are there any further speakers on this amendment?

Seeing none. Are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying nay. Nay.

The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

For what purpose does Mr. Ezel seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8870 offered by Mr. Mr. Rizell of Mississippi, number 061. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Rizell is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to offer an amendment addressing a serious issue affecting competition and economic growth at our nation's ports. Business in my district, including local leaders, port officials, economic development organizations, and major employers have raised concerns that rail access constraints are creating an uncertainty and threatening investment, jobs, and future growth. At the Port of Pascagoula, there is no independent terminal railroad, meaning the port is directly served by a single Class I railroad. For years, a local short line railroad with connections to multiple Class I carriers access the port through reciprocal switching arrangements, creating competition and helping prevent shippers from becoming captive customers. However, that access is now being restricted, limiting competition options and creating uncertainty for businesses that rely on the port.

This amendment would address that issue by requiring reciprocal switching access when a If a port is served by only one Class I railroad and lacks a terminal railroad, it also establishes a process through the Surface Transportation Board to ensure fair rates and resolve disputes. At its core, this amendment is about restoring fairness and competition so our ports and the businesses that depend on them can continue to grow and succeed. While I strongly believe this issue needs to be addressed, I also recognize the importance of working diligently to make sure we get it right. I look forward to working with committee and continuing conversation with the administration to address this issue. With that said, I'm going to withdraw my amendment today with the understanding that we will work with Chairman Graves and the committee leadership on a bipartisan path forward.

Thank you, and I yield back. Without objection. For what purpose does Mr. Knott seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Knott of North Carolina, number 018, revision 1, formerly denoted as not 018 17. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Knott is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Freight fraud is a very serious issue that hurts consumers in every part of the country, the trucking industry, and the American economy. As I mentioned earlier, according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, cargo theft is estimated to cost the industry directly up to $35 billion every year. Another source, the American Transportation Research Institute, puts it another way, estimating that the cargo theft costs the trucking industry more than $18 million a day in direct costs. The average victims of these crimes are small businesses that make in aggregate less than $5 million per year.

Cargo theft is becoming more prevalent, more organized, and certainly more high-tech. And too often these schemes begin with fraudulent registrations or stolen carrier identities. Fraudulent certifications, especially when obtained explicitly for the purpose of committing further crimes, should not be met with a mere slap on the wrist. While I plan on withdrawing my amendment, I believe it exemplifies the kind of real consequences that are needed to stop the rising tide of fraud. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of this dais in the coming days to find a path forward on how we can ensure registration fraud carries meaningful consequences.

I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts, and I withdraw the amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Without objection. For what purpose does Ms. David seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8870 offered by Miss Davids of Kansas, number 066.

Mr. Chair— oh, I'm sorry. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Davids is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Chairman.

I offer this amendment because I do believe our our existing user pay models to fund our infrastructure is a good thing. I think it's reasonable that if you're driving on the roads, bridges, and highways, you should be expected to contribute to maintaining that system. What I don't think is reasonable is assigning a fee to consumers on an unfounded basis. It's punitive to arbitrarily charge consumers who've decided to save money and avoid uncertain and climbing gas prices. This new arbitrary fee limits consumer choice at a time when domestic EV markets— when the domestic EV market is desperately trying to keep pace with international automakers.

So while the underlying bill assesses a new arbitrary fee, my amendment uses a simple methodology to at least base this process in logic and provide some parity with the federal gas tax. The federal EV fee created in this bill would now be based on the previous year's annual estimate of miles traveled per light-duty vehicle as reported by the FHWA, which is the Federal Highway Administration, divided by the most recent estimate of average light-duty fuel economy as reported by the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, multiplied by the federal gas tax. That means the average EV driver would be paying today about what the average American driver pays in gas tax, which is just under $100 per year. This amendment offers parity to a new system encouraging the growth of a domestic manufacturing market and expands consumer choice. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment but would ask the committee for continued engagement on this issue.

I yield back. Without objection, the committee will stand in recess to allow members to go to the floor and vote.

Be careful. If it's only this, that's, uh, if it's only this, this is like a 13% for them, so don't touch it. But like, they can make those. Uh, no, I mean, I think at this point we just got to make sure they have all the stuff they need. Thank you so much.

The committee will reconvene. For what purpose does Mr. Patronus seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on the desk. Clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Patronus of Florida, number 047. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

Mr. Patronus is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, contrary to my staff's belief, I, I do think I have the ability to convince my colleagues of the value of this amendment and how positive it is for our surface transportation bill. My amendment is simple. It's a narrow fix.

It only allows specialized stinger-steered coal haulers to operate up to 88,000 pounds. And it's only for a limited window. When the first car is dropped off, it's no longer at 88,000 pounds anymore. The weight is already built where these trailers are safely, uh, engineered to handle this. This is not about creating bigger trucks or bigger trailers.

It's about allowing these existing trucks to carry the heavier new vehicles that our market is now demanding— hybrids and EVs. Consumers want it. The government now requires, requires this type of fuel economy. Now, because these vehicles are heavier than ever, the haulers have lost up to 28% of their capacity. Now, that's roughly 1 to 1.5 times fewer trips because of this.

So we want to— that forces more trips, more trucks on the road, more fuel to be burned in the same number of cars. Some of the critics point out, 'Well, I don't want these heavy trucks going through my communities.' The problem you've got is, is with my language, we will create fewer trucks through these communities. Now, the amendment solves the problem by a proven efficiency. These are not long-haul routes. Stingers make very short trips from factories, ports, rail yards, and dealerships, almost right off the interstate and major highways.

The weight drops quickly. Even when the load starts, it drops below the current legal limit as soon as the first vehicle is delivered, usually after a short distance. I want to give you some examples. A GMC EV Hummer weighs 9,000 pounds. A new Toyota hybrid Sequoia weighs 7,500 pounds.

Now, say on that same trailer you have a Chevy Suburban with an internal combustion engine that weighs 7,700 pounds. So just delivering one of these vehicles drops the total to the current law standard. So this is just common sense and a way to save money and ultimately pass on savings to the consumer. Fewer trucks on the roads means fewer loads, fewer trips overall, which saves fuel, reduces congestion, lowers delivery costs. Lower costs for new cars also creates costs that are— lower costs are eventually passed on to the consumers.

Better efficiency helps keep auto prices down. These specialized Stingers are already in operation. This is not something new. Most were manufactured to safely haul these weights already, so they meet the federal bridge rules as well or better than older trucks. Drivers are highly trained, they're well paid, and the carriers are experienced leaders in safety and in maintenance.

No new axles are needed on these trucks. No bigger trucks are needed. This is practical. This is safe. This is a targeted solution focused on efficiency and fuel savings without long-haul impacts or added infrastructure strain.

I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.

I respectfully oppose Mr. Patronus' Amendment 47. This amendment would force states to allow heavier trucks with a gross weight of 88,000 pounds on not just their interstates, but the broader network of federal-aid primary highways within their borders. Increasing truck weight has a lot of impacts on the safety and longevity of our infrastructure and will require Carefully crafted legislation, this amendment is not an allowance, it's a mandate on states.

Mr. Speaker—. Mr. Nadler—. Chairman, rather. I want to promote you.

Mr. Chairman, I must also speak in opposition to this amendment, essentially for the same reasons as Mr. Carson.

Despite the rhetoric about it's only ads for one, one at the beginning of the trip or something. This is heavier trucks. This would allow 88,000 pounds, and that tears up our highways and increases the cost to the taxpayers for no good reason. And I therefore— I therefore oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Nadler. Anyone else? Mr. Mast.

Thank you, Chairman. I think this is a great amendment. I want to speak in favor of it. I'd be curious from my colleagues if there's any amount that they would see raising the truck limit. This is a raise of 10% from $80,000 to $88,000.

Would you raise it 0.1%? Would the gentleman yield? I absolutely would. I would not raise it by a pound. Not by a pound.

And I'm going to regain my time here. That's really outdated thinking, in my opinion. When you examine trucks as an example, the last time that this was updated was 1974, 1975. I was not born then. The best-selling vehicle was a two-door Ford Pinto that weighed about 2,000 pounds.

So we're talking about a pretty big difference in technology. The vehicles that were hauling these things, the brakes were significantly different. They relied exclusively on air drum brakes, manual brakes, compressed air, minimal skid protection, didn't have the computer technology. List goes on and on. To say that you wouldn't raise it one pound, I think, really shows the extreme nature of the opposition to doing something that's common sense.

I'm glad that I yielded. I think that shows exactly how extreme the thinking is on this. I wouldn't raise—. I wouldn't raise 88,000— 80,000 pounds to 80,001. I think the American people are probably owed a better deliberation about lawmaking than saying you wouldn't raise it.

That'd be like saying, uh, a horse isn't allowed to run with a fly on its back. That's the kind of comparison that we're making here. Absolutely ridiculous. And to go on to say something else, this committee has been looking at amendments about raising truck weights year after year, year after year, year after year for different reasons. Always comes up with an excuse to not look at it for 1 pound, 100 pounds, 1,000 pounds.

Not really examining the changes that have gone on in technology and braking systems and computers in the the braking systems that are automated on vehicles, on trucks. You know, it certainly— it warrants a better examination than what's being given by members that are willing to so naively say, I would not raise the weight limit on a truck even 1 pound. Truly a disgrace to have thought like that. So anyways, I'm here to speak in support of Mr. Patronus's amendment. Which is common sense, says let's raise the weight limit for these auto hauling vehicles 10%.

Let's take it from 80,000 to 88,000 pounds. Vehicles weigh a lot more. It's dumb to have empty trucks that haul trucks going down the road. Let's do something that makes sense for the American people. Have less trucks on the road.

To the gentleman's argument about wear and tear on the roads, well, you would have less trucks if you can put more on one of the trucks. Let's examine that as well. And in that, I don't know, Mr. Patronis, you need any more time on this? No?

Okay. Anybody else want to argue?

Going once. This is for debate. That's the purpose of this. I still got a buck 35 on the clock.

Nobody wants to debate, but I'll get— well, I bet we'll get a lot of nos. I yield back. Anyone else wish to be recognized?

Seeing none, I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment on behalf of the chairman. Certainly, I echo these comments. This amendment would provide Stinger-steered auto haulers a weight tolerance on the interstate system up to 88,000 pounds. Today's vehicles are heavier than ever, reducing the average number of vehicles auto haulers can carry per trip to roughly 1.5 over the last 2 decades. This change is needed to keep pace with the modern vehicle fleet, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Thank you, and I yield back. Are there any further speakers on this amendment?

Seeing none, are there any amendments to this amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay.

The ayes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to— or is agreed to, pardon me. Oh, sorry. Megan, what's going on?

A roll call vote has been requested.

Yes, sir. You requested—. I will request a recorded vote.

Sorry, we're just getting back into it. It's going to take a minute. Sorry. The gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced. Pursuant to Committee Rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are postponed.

For what purpose does Mr. Garcia seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Garcia of Illinois, number 044.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Garcia is recognized. For 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair.

Uh, this amendment, uh, seeks to preserve the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program, which was created, uh, under the Inflation Reduction Act. The NAE program is all about ensuring that working-class people have the ability to get to work on time and have access to basic needs. In Chicago, NAE funding was awarded to to the Chicago Transit Authority to replace thousands of feet of Blue Line track on the West Side. Tracks along the Blue Line branch are beyond their useful life, and as a result, the CTA, our transit authority, has been forced to implement slow zones in certain sections, causing service delays for riders. Now, the bill before us seeks to eliminate the program once and for all, While I recognize that there are other funding programs in the bill that can fund safety improvements on our streets, I don't believe that we should be retreating in our efforts to improve safety.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment on behalf of Chairman Graves. I oppose this amendment. This amendment would restore a controversial grant program that was defunded in the reconciliation. Are there any further speakers on this amendment?

Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

For what purpose does Mr. Pappas seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent to consider my amendments 117 and 121 en bloc. Without objection, clerk will designate the amendments. An en bloc amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Pappas of New Hampshire, consisting of numbers 117 and 121.

Without objection, the en bloc will be considered as read. Mr. Pappas is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These two amendments support the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program, or ATIP. Which was first authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

This first amendment reauthorizes the program through 2031, and a second amendment provides a technical fix. It ensures that ATIP programs that this bill intended to make eligible under the STAG urban grant program are in fact actually eligible. Supporting active transportation and providing robust funding for it is critical to meet the growing demands of all types of communities in New Hampshire and across the country for for convenient, accessible, well-maintained biking and walking routes. Trails, sidewalks, and bikeways make connections that are essential. These networks knit together communities, support outdoor recreation, strengthen local economies, and enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors alike.

They also make it safer and easier to navigate communities of all sizes and enhance entire transportation systems by lowering costs of travel, reducing congestion, and supporting housing and economic development. One study from the Institute for Transportation Research and Education found that for every dollar invested in trails, $1.72 is generated. That's an estimated $344 million generated in local economies every year that ATIP is funded. In ATIP's last round of funding, the program was also oversubscribed 40 to 1, with 350 communities requesting $1.8 billion in funding. ATIP is the only program dedicated to completing the gaps in these active transportation networks and investing in larger multi-segment projects.

Over 260 organizations from across the nation, from nearly every state, support ATIP. They sent us a letter, and we have an opportunity to continue to invest in the connectivity of active transportation systems, just as we are in this bill, in the underlying bill for roads and bridges and everything else we care about. So I'm calling for a technical fix, um, and, uh, reauthorization. It's also why I've worked with Congressman Huffman to introduce legislation earlier last month to reauthorize the program and improve it so that communities can continue to expand their active transportation networks and experience the benefits that come with it. So I think this is just smart infrastructure policy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to work with us on these good ideas about how we can invest in the future of our communities and knit them together. I understand that there's a four-quarter agreement with respect to amendments here, uh, in terms of what's going to be included in the final version. So in the meantime, I'll withdraw these amendments And I yield back my time.

Without objection.

We're now considering the bill for amendments. For what purpose does Ms. Strickland seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Ms. Strickland of Washington, number 078. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Strickland is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment will allow states and local communities to invest in cooling infrastructure along transit corridors under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants program.

Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. A 2025 study from the Yale School of Public Health found found that deaths linked to heat exposure in the U.S. increased by over 50% between 2010 and 2020. In Washington State and across the country, we are seeing the effects of extreme heat on daily life, including how people interact with the transportation system. A 2024 study by researchers from the University of Washington, the University of Texas at Austin, and Arizona State University found a 50% reduction in public transit ridership during extreme heat days. Excessive temperatures impact individual mobility and safety, especially for people who have no other means of transportation.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, extreme heat contributed to at least 40 deaths at bus stops between 2020 and 2022. If we are serious about making our transportation safer, we must treat extreme heat as a safety issue. Cooling infrastructure and natural solutions are cost— cost-effective, and tree cover can make a major difference in reducing heat exposure and preventing heat-related fatalities in our transportation system. Not only do they provide protection to pedestrians and road users exposed to excessive heat, but they've been proven to lower surrounding surface temperatures by several degrees. What does this mean?

It means these science-based investments help protect roadways from heat-related degradation. When pavement absorbs direct sunlight and heat, it's more likely to crack and require repairs. These investments increase the lifespan of asphalt and reduce maintenance costs. As extreme heat events become more frequent and more severe, we must ensure that our communities are equipped to deliver infrastructure solutions that keep people safe. And just to put a finer point on it, in October of 2020, President Trump furthered his leadership on the One Trillion Trees initiative by signing Executive Order establishing the One Trillion Trees Interagency Council.

This EO actually promotes healthy and resilient forests and rangelands, but we could easily fold this into the the initiative. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment to make our transportation system safer. And at this time, I'm going to make the offer. I'm going to withdraw it, and I'm going to ask our full committee in a bipartisan manner to look at this. This benefits every region, every neighborhood, and I hope we're able to do this at another time.

I yield back. Without objection.

We're now considering the bill for amendments. For what purpose does Mr. Ryan seek recognition? Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will designate the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8870 Offered by Mr. Ryan of New York, number 072. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Ryan is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My bipartisan amendment, the Crossings Act, would codify the FRA's current signal and grade crossing inspection requirements. It doesn't create new mandates. It doesn't impose any additional costs on railroads. It emphasizes the work that is already being performed today to an exceptional degree that ensures the safe operation and oversight of technology across America's entire rail network.

But right now, large rail companies are fighting to roll back longstanding FRA regulations that require in-person inspections of highway-grade rail crossings and signal systems. These companies want to replace proven in-person visual inspections by highly trained signalmen instead with remote cameras, and they also want to extend the timeframe between these inspections from the current 30 days to 90 days. For communities like mine that have, in my case, over 100, uh, at-grade crossings, this is a safety disaster and it is an absolute deal breaker. My district in the Hudson Valley of New York, uh, has a significant amount of railroad traffic, thousands of miles of both freight and passenger rail across the district, including both Amtrak, uh, for passengers and CSX, which operates freight trains through one of the more densely populated urban areas of my district, including Cornwall, Newburgh, Kingston, Saugerties. In our average cities, about 35 trains run through the heart of each of those cities every day, often carrying hazardous materials, waste, petroleum, and industrial chemicals.

Of the more than 100 rail crossings in my district, a significant number desperately need redesign and safety enhancements. We should be making these crossings safer, not cutting back on the potentially life-saving in-person inspections our rail systems need to operate smoothly and safely through our communities. I think all of us here in a bipartisan manner are aware of the essential importance of safety to keep our entire economy running when it comes to our rail system. I want to thank my colleague and co-sponsor of this, Mr. Van Drew, for co-sponsoring this and supporting the amendment. I also want to acknowledge 8 of my Republican colleagues across the House who have been raising these concerns since February with the administration, with Secretary Duffy.

I think this is one of those important bipartisan safety measures that's also great for our economy. So I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, if any of those colleagues are here yet and want to speak, but I yield back to you on that. Thank you, Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you.

I rise in support of this safety amendment. The Crossings Act protects the inspection and testing standards that are already in place and working to keep trains moving safely and efficiently. These proven safeguards help prevent failures before they come— become accidents by ensuring that gates, lights, bells, and signal systems are physically inspected and tested by trained professionals in the field. These standards provide critical oversight and accountability for the safety systems that protect railroad workers, communities, and the traveling public. While technology and remote monitoring can support safety, they cannot replace the expertise of a well-trained human inspector.

The Crossings Act ensures these proven working safeguards cannot be watered down. I yield.

Do any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment?

Recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment on behalf of Chairman Graves. I oppose this amendment. Current inspection requirements are prescriptive and dictate the manner and methods of safety. The previous administration regularly blocked applications and sought reasonable variances. This amendment continues rulemaking that is inconsistent with President Trump's deregulatory agenda and urge my colleagues to vote no.

Are there further speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay.

The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

For what purpose does Ms. Hoyle seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

8870 Offered by Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, number 054. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Ms. Hoyle is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would ensure that covered bridge projects receive full and fair consideration when states award competitive bridge funding.

In Oregon, covered bridges were built to meet the needs of rural communities. Lane County, where I live and home of the University of Oregon, once had more than 400 of them. Built readily available wood to cross our rivers and creeks. The roof and sidings help protect the bridges from rain and decay, which made these bridges especially useful in Oregon's wet climate. Today, 20 covered bridges remain in Lane County, the most of any county in Oregon and more than any county west of the Mississippi River.

Because these bridges are expensive to repair, owned by counties, and don't carry high volumes of traffic, they're often deprioritized for federal funding. But ignoring them does not make the costs go away. Counties still need to stabilize and repair them before they become a safety risk. The Curran Bridge and the Stewart Bridge near Cottage Grove are now structurally unstable, with repair estimates of up to $5 million. Now, $5 million is budget dust upon budget dust in this building, but it's a hell of a lot for a rural community.

For years, there was a dedicated federal program to help preserve historic covered bridges, but it no longer exists. Now, I'm not asking to recreate that program today. I'm just asking that as states implement this bill, covered bridges are not overlooked just because they don't carry the same traffic as a modern highway bridge. The, the communities responsible for keeping our roads safe deserve a fair chance to compete for for the bridge funding available under this bill. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back.

Thank you. Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment on behalf of Chairman Graves. I oppose this amendment.

The bridge formula program authorized in this bill provides states with the resources and flexibility they need to invest in their bridge needs. Are there any further speakers on this amendment?

Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment?

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay.

The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Oh, sorry. For what purpose does Ms. Fauci seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you. The clerk will designate the amendment.