Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this en bloc amendment, which provides for the consideration of 38 amendments filed by Members and made in order by the Committee on Rules. The amendments contained in this en bloc touch upon various policy areas in the base bill. The surface transportation amendments include: Expressing the sense of Congress on the importance of protecting workers in transition to electric vehicles. Promoting a more diverse transportation workforce and more inclusive work sites for infrastructure projects. Allowing high-performing local public agencies to utilize enhanced project delivery methods when appropriate. Expanding the number of veterans in the transportation sector through the Transportation Workforce Outreach Program. Requiring EV supply equipment projects to be performed by qualified electricians with proper certification. Adding language to increase bridge resiliency for seismic events. Strengthening reporting requirements under the Reconnecting Neighborhoods Program. Allowing private high-speed rail projects access to credit risk premium subsidies for rail financing to develop high-speed rail projects. These are just some of the highlights of the amendments included. I thank my colleagues for their thoughtful amendments to improve the INVEST in America Act. I urge the adoption of the amendment. I will remember to vote properly this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I totally concur in the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a member of the committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, we have heard the same tired arguments: Over 200 amendments in committee from the Republicans. And today, all day, on the floor: Not bipartisan. It is pretty simple, if you deny climate change and you deny the need to do things differently than the failures of the last 30 years in building 35,000 lane miles and making congestion worse in our 100 largest cities; and you don't want to fund transit; and you don't want to fund rail options; and transit includes rural areas and small cities, which is a new emphasis in this program; if you don't want to repair America's 47,000 crumbling bridges and national highway system, you are proposing $20 billion less than we are for repairing bridges and highways. You object to the fact that we want States to fix things first, and also to look at alternatives to paving over the whole country and causing more induced congestion. You deny climate change. You deny fossil fuel pollution. I hope you don't go through what my region just went through. We have had 50 people die in Portland. No one has air-conditioning there; two- thirds of the people don't. It has never been--it was 45 degrees above normal. This is not normal. Climate change is real. Keep up the denial and you are going to destroy this country and the planet. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this totally contradicts the intent of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, a relatively small program in terms of the entire bill, but a very, very important program. As I mentioned earlier, we have been doing the same thing for 30 years. 30,511 new freeway lane-miles in and around our 100 largest urban areas. The cost of delay has gone from $16 billion a year to $166 billion a year, which wastes way more than we are spending to deal with the problem, and delay is up a staggering 144 percent and pollution is worse. So this is an amendment that would say, okay, you can take the money to deal with congestion mitigation and air quality, you can spend it to build an HOV lane, and then after you toll people on that HOV lane-- maybe like in Virginia where you can pay $48 for 10 miles in the Bentley lane during rush hour sometimes--and then they pay back the money, then they convert it to a single-occupancy vehicle lane, voila, we are back at another induced-demand congested road, the same Groundhog Day strategy we have been doing for 30 years that doesn't work. HOV lanes and other operational improvements are eligible under the CMAQ program. They are part of the solution, but not in this form. They allow more people to move more efficiently in the most congested transportation corridors by getting more than one person per car. But this would only do that temporarily and then revert to one person per car. Great idea. So it allows van pools, car pools, and transit in these lanes. They benefit all drivers. So in this case, we would say, well, yeah, for a while, they will benefit car pools, van pools, and transit, but then we are going to go back to putting single-occupancy vehicles in them. That is not a solution to the problem. It is of particular concern, because it allows for HOV restrictions to be repealed without any analysis of the impacts on the traffic in the corridor. Under this proposal, as I said, all of those who have begun to use it, the families, transit riders, car poolers in HOV lanes, they are going to go back into gridlock traffic with everybody else. It is an extraordinarily bad idea whose time has not come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentlewoman has an absolute unique circumstance in her district or her State. But to make this a national policy for a program that is intended to deal with congestion management and air quality would be a huge mistake. I cannot support the amendment, I urge people to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 15, 2021, I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: Yea on Roll Call Vote 159, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass Certain Bills; Yea on Roll Call Vote 160. On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act; Yea on Roll Call Vote 161, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 3325, To award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021; and Yea on Roll Call Vote 162, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, The LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1318) to restrict the imposition by the Secretary of Homeland Security of fines, penalties, duties, or tariffs applicable only to coastwise voyages, or prohibit otherwise qualified non-United States citizens from serving as crew, on specified vessels transporting passengers between the State of Washington and the State of Alaska, to address a Canadian cruise ship ban and the extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Alaskan communities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2021, I was unavoidably detained and missed the day's vote. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call Vote 134, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusively Act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, climate change is an existential threat to all of humanity, and it is essential that we start acting--now--to stop and reverse the destructive effects of climate change. In 2020, my constituent Oregon State University Professor Dr. William Ripple, and colleagues published ``World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency'' which has been endorsed by more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries. They presented six transformative steps we can take to effectively combat climate change. I urge my colleagues to read their report and join me in acting before it is too late. [From Bioscience, Jan. 2020] World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency (By William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R. Moomaw, and 11,092 scientist signatories from 153 countries) Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and `tell it like it is.' Based on this obligation and the data presented below, we herein proclaim, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, a clear and unequivocal declaration that a climate emergency exists on planet Earth. Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference (Geneva, 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it ``urgently necessary'' to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists' explicit warnings of insufficient progress. Yet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth's climate. An immense change of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis. Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament. The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity. Especially worrisome are potential climate tipping points and nature's reinforcing feedbacks that could lead to a catastrophic ``Hothouse Earth'' and cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable. To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion; thus, we need bold and drastic transformations regarding economic and population policies. We suggest six critical and interrelated steps that governments, businesses and the rest of humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change. These are important steps, but are not the only actions needed or possible. 1) Energy. The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices, replace fossil fuels with low carbon renewables and other cleaner sources of energy. We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground, and carefully pursue effective negative emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air, and by enhancing natural systems (Step 3). Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must swiftly eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel corporations and use effective and fair schemes for steadily escalating carbon prices to restrain the use of fossil fuels. 2) Short-lived pollutants. We need to promptly reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Doing this could slow climate feedbacks and potentially reduce the short-term warming trend by >50% over the next few decades while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution. The 2016 Kigali amendment to phase down HFCs is welcomed. 3) Nature. We must protect and restore Earth's ecosystems. Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly to sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Marine and terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms play significant roles in carbon and nutrient cycling and storage. We need to quickly curtail forest and biodiversity loss, protecting the remaining primary and intact forests, while accomplishing reforestation and afforestation where appropriate at enormous scales. Although available land may be limiting in places, up to a third of emissions reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris agreement (<2 deg.C) could be obtained with these natural climate solutions. 4) Food. Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products, especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in step 2). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (step 3). Cropping practices such as minimum tillage that increase soil carbon are vitally important. We need to drastically reduce the enormous amount of food waste around the world. 5) Economy. Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere. We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward supporting ecosystem and human wellbeing by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality. 6) Population. Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year or >200,000 per day, we must stabilize and ideally gradually reduce the world population within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights, while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies involve making family planning services available to all people and achieving full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women Mitigating and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding. As an Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human wellbeing in the long run than does business as usual. We believe that prospects will be greatest if decision makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know Mr. Obernolte is a new member of the committee; he might even be brand new to the House. But he said he couldn't find a single thing in this package that related to COVID? Oh, well there is $110 billion for vaccines, for testing, which has been pathetic under the Trump administration with no help. Oh, and personal protective equipment, but I guess those things don't have anything to do with COVID and the pandemic. Now, let's get real here. The first gentleman spoke and said, We want to help schools, and this bill doesn't help schools. Well, actually, yesterday they tried to cut our funding for schools. We are putting in $170 billion to reopen the schools. It is going to be very expensive, new HVAC systems, a whole bunch of new furniture, all sorts of stuff to get kids safely to school for this and future pandemics, to be ready, to prepare. And they wanted to cut our 170 to $54 billion. But they are for schools and we are not. Oh, by the way, they didn't do anything for childcare assistance which is a huge problem for people during this pandemic. Now, let's talk about a few things that are in here: Cash payments promised by President Biden and the two people who helped us flip the Senate, they are in here. Extended unemployment, if we don't do that--you don't want to do it-- 20 million Americans will have no income and no job on March 14; 100,000 people in my State. Assistance for small businesses. Food, well, I think that is pretty critical stuff on a day-to-day basis. Rental assistance, and that is something else the Trump political hack running OSHA wouldn't do. We are going to have standards for protection of workers. We have had huge outbreaks in meatpacking plants and in transportation--people have died--and everywhere else because there are no Federal standards to protect workers. We are taking care of that in this bill and with some funding. And they say this is unprecedented. You used reconciliation for $3 trillion of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations in the world, to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, and then you used it again to try and take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans and their protection for preexisting conditions and other things. Yeah, unprecedented. Malarkey. Let's talk about the issues and cut the BS.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for their work, which spans five decades, to implement positive train control, also known as PTC. December 31, 2020, was a significant day for railroad safety as all 41 freight and passenger railroads required to meet the deadline set by Congress to implement PTC met the mandate. This life-saving technology will prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. The path to full implementation of PTC was long and challenging, and had it not been for the NTSB's persistence and partnership with Congress, in particular the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, PTC may never have happened. The NTSB's work on PTC began on August 20, 1969, when two Penn Central commuter trains collided head-on near Darien, Connecticut, killing three crewmembers and a passenger and injuring roughly 43 others. After conducting an extensive investigation, the NTSB issued its first PTC-related recommendation. Over the next five decades, the NTSB investigated 154 more PTC- preventable accidents that tragically took the lives of 305 people and injured 6,885 others. Several of those tragedies gained the public's attention and changed the conversation around PTC, including collisions in Chase, Maryland, in 1987, Boston, Massachusetts, in 1990, Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1996, Placentia, California, in 2002, Macdona, Texas, in 2005, Graniteville, South Carolina, in 2005, and Chatsworth, California, in 2008. In 2007 and 2008, the House and Senate were negotiating legislation that would require PTC implementation, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). The tragedy in Chatsworth pushed Congress to act and brought about final passage of RSIA. But as railroads worked to implement PTC after the mandate, the NTSB continued to investigate accidents that could have been prevented had the technology been in place. These include the derailment of Amtrak 188 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2015, which killed 8 passengers and injured 185 others, and the overspeed derailment in DuPont, Washington, in 2017, which killed 3 passengers and injured 57 passengers and crewmembers. Throughout these tragedies, the NTSB pressed on for PTC. The agency believed PTC was so important that it included the issue on its very first Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements in 1990, and it has remained a key focus in their advocacy efforts. On December 18, 2020--12 years after PTC was mandated--the last railroad required to implement PTC, New Jersey Transit, announced that it had fully implemented the safety technology, which meant that all 41 railroads had fully implemented PTC two weeks short of the deadline: a tremendous accomplishment. Without the tireless advocacy of the NTSB over the last 50 years, we may not have seen the day PTC was fully implemented. I commend all those from the NTSB who fought tirelessly to finally achieve fully implemented positive train control. Their work will save lives.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on January 21, I voted in support of H.R. 335, legislation to provide a waiver for former General Lloyd J. Austin III to serve as President Biden's Secretary of Defense. The Senate confirmed Austin as Secretary of Defense on January 22. Civilian control of the military is a foundational tenet of our constitutional democracy, and I fully support all efforts to maintain and reinforce this essential principle. Federal law requires that any Secretary of Defense nominee who has served in the military must be retired from the military for at least seven years, unless Congress grants a waiver. Until Congress granted a waiver for President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, former General Jim Mattis, in 2017, a waiver of this kind had only occurred one other time: for former General George Marshall in 1950. I believe this seven-year ``cooling off'' period for former military officials is an important mechanism to ensure continued civilian control of the U.S. military, and I believe Congress should not make a habit of granting these waivers. However, I am confident that Secretary Austin is committed to upholding civilian control of the military. As he indicated in his Senate confirmation testimony on January 19, Austin believes that ``the safety and security of our democracy demands competent civilian control of our Armed Forces, the subordination of military power to the civil. I know that being a member of the president's Cabinet--a political appointee--requires a different perspective and unique duties from a career in uniform.'' I am also encouraged by Secretary Austin's statements of belief in military restraint, rather than interventionism, as well as aspects of his service under the Obama administration, including overseeing the withdrawal of 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq, his opposition to a U.S. war and regime change in Syria, his dedication to diplomacy, and his support for avoiding civilian casualties. Austin is also the first Black Secretary of Defense in U.S. history. While there is still a significant lack of diversity in the top ranks of the military, Austin's appointment is an important step in the right direction. It is also notable that Austin will lead the Pentagon during a time when white supremacy and ideological extremism are on the rise among military ranks. In his January 19 Senate confirmation hearing, Austin pledged to ``fight hard to stamp out sexual assault, to rid our ranks of racists and extremists, and to create a climate where everyone fit and willing has the opportunity to serve this country with dignity.'' Civilian control of the military is not only achieved via the Secretary of Defense. Unlike President Trump, who appointed former generals to serve in numerous civilian and national security roles in the White House, President Biden has demonstrated a clear commitment to civilian control of the military by appointing non-military civilians in key national security posts. While I support Congress's waiver for Secretary Austin, I strongly encourage the Biden administration and future administrations to avoid appointing additional former military officials as Secretary of Defense if they have not completed their seven-year cooling off period. I also will not hesitate to criticize Secretary Austin and the Biden administration--as I have done with previous Republican and Democratic administrations--when I disagree with their policies and actions. It is essential we rein in our bloated and wasteful defense spending, tackle the massive waste, fraud, and abuse within the Pentagon, and that Congress reassert its Constitutional war powers and put an end to our endless wars.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this was not a one-off. It was a long time coming. It was a part of a plan to perpetuate Trump in office. Trump's campaign strategy was: The election, the only way we can we lose is if it is stolen. It is stolen; it is fake. ``It is stolen,'' repeated by many of his fellow travelers on that side, more than 150 times by Trump over the summer. Then, they litigated to disqualify voters. That didn't work. Then, they litigated to throw out ballots. Well, that didn't work. Then, they attempted to delay the count with State legislatures. Well, that didn't work. Last ditch, the President called down to Georgia and said: Can't you find me more votes? And then, one last desperate plea: Stop the January 6 certification. And the President talked about that on September 26. He said: You know, if it goes to Congress, there is one vote per State, and we have an advantage. So, I think this was part of a plan to disrupt the electoral college of the United States. Giuliani: ``Trial by combat.'' Trump: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on December 8, 2020, I was unavoidably detained due to traffic congestion and missed the following vote: on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 8354, the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act of 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.