Investing in A New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2 because we need to put an end to the highway robbery before us.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a long history of bipartisan cooperation, rising above the political games to strengthen the backbone of our country. However, after the Democrats' power grab in this year's highway funding bill, that is sadly no longer the case.

When drafting this legislation, my colleagues across the aisle neither asked for nor accepted input from me or any of my Republican colleagues. They steamrolled a bill through the committee with so many irredeemable qualities, you would think they wanted it to fail. After it passed committee, the bill was gutted of bipartisan amendments solely because they were introduced by our party.

And it is expensive. At the outset, this legislation cost nearly $500 billion over 5 years, and then they tacked on another trillion in the last week. It cuts money from where we need it and throws taxpayer dollars at problems that don't exist.

Our roads and bridges are failing, and projects, many like Corridor H in West Virginia, are underfunded. This bill hamstrings our State government and adds red tape instead of flexibility. Rather than bridging America's urban-rural divide, my Democrat colleagues want to put the big cities first and ignore our rural communities but still stick us with the bill.

We need all of America to thrive, from Appalachia to the heartland, the Rockies to the Rust Belt. We need to build up our entire country to create a modern economy that offers success to everyone. But here we are, debating a bill that gives $2 of every $5 to the Green New Deal.

This is partisan messaging, not meaningful policy.

I am disheartened. I am disappointed. And I am disgusted that politics continue to take precedence over the needs of our country. Our people want and need better roads. For these reasons and many more my time will not allow, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio for yielding.

I rise in opposition to amendment No. 124 on both the merits and the process that bring us to the people's House today.

I came to Congress to fix issues in southern West Virginia, like our need for strong and stable infrastructure and to bring new opportunity to our State.

During the markup on H.R. 2, I introduced a commonsense amendment to solve a problem that has been plaguing rural America for years: the Appalachian Development Highway System. The ADHS is an essential part of America's highway system and has been since 1965. Its goal is to connect rural communities with high-quality roadways, allowing us to transport our goods and people across the country. This system is instrumental in guaranteeing economic success for all of America.

Unfortunately, outdated funding mechanisms are bogging down progress by holding taxpayer money hostage in projects that are already completed while other underfunded projects stay unfinished.

My legislation would fix this problem by freeing up the States to collaborate on these projects and deliver money in a targeted approach. There is no additional cost to taxpayers, and it would not cut funding for any State.

It is good policy that was adopted in the Senate and passed in our committee without objection by one single member. Bipartisan and bicameral, what a rare sight for Washington these days.

However, once again, at the eleventh hour, my colleagues across the aisle added this new language that contradicts my amendment and threatens the entire livelihood of the ADHS.

Passage of this amendment kills the one I offered. It would cut rural support for more big-city interests, holding back hardworking people from the benefits of quality roadways and the job opportunities that come with it.

It is misplaced priorities like these that lead to Congress' low approval rating.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose amendment No. 124 so that we can give Appalachia the respect and service it deserves.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source