[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 15 (Thursday, January 22, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H1297-H1299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed the part B of House Report 119-462.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of Title I of Division D, insert the following:
Sec. 195. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (49 U.S.C. 30111 note).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1014, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
{time} 1300
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment. This is
cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). I regret that we have to offer this
amendment.
What I am going to describe will probably sound like a bad science
fiction movie, but that is what is written into law. Right now, in law
that is going to be implemented, it says, for 2026 and beyond--now, the
reality is that technology doesn't exist, but that doesn't keep
legislators from imagining things that they would like to do to
infringe on civil liberties. However, there is a law that states that
every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in
it.
The car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that
you are not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself, so the
car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner.
Imagine this: We have a snowstorm coming. A mom takes her kids out to
go to the grocery store. It is snowing, and they are trying to get some
groceries before the big storm hits. She swerves for a pothole. The
neighbor's pet gets in the way, and she swerves for that. A first
responder goes by. She pulls over.
Her car says: You have one more swerve, and then we are going to
ground you. There it is, the next thing she has to avoid, an icy patch
in the road. The car has adjudicated her as unsuitable for driving. It
disables the vehicle, and there she is stranded.
My question is, how do you appeal your sentence once the technology
in your car has judged you to be incapable of driving? Once it has
disabled you and your children at the side of the road, how do you
appeal that? Do you press a button on the dashboard? Do you start
talking to an AI?
What if it really was somebody who was drunk? Are you really going to
send a police car after this disabled vehicle? Do we have the resources
to do that? There are going to be so many false positives.
The technology is unworkable, which is why the DOT is still in the
rulemaking process, asking for feedback on how this thing could even
exist. It is just a bad idea, but it is in law, so our amendment would
defund that.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, the bipartisan infrastructure law requires
drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in
new cars once a rule has been finalized by the Department of
Transportation.
More than 30 people in the United States die every day in drunk
driving crashes, and more than 12,000 people a year suffer these
preventable deaths.
Using the appropriations process to delay or in any way impede the
development of technology to prevent drunk driving is inappropriate and
reckless.
What we have before us today is a bipartisan, conferenced bill. It is
already a compromise from what Members on both sides of the aisle
wanted. Debating and attaching an amendment to this bill risks the
entire package.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to the time when we can debate the
substance of this amendment because I have some thoughts on the data
that I want the administration to be thinking about, but the time for
debate on the individual policies is not now.
This amendment, which could delay the technology that would limit
drunk driving and save lives, is not the amendment to support. This
amendment should not be inserted into this bipartisan bill at this
point in the process.
I strongly oppose it and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious problem, but 31
States already have the technology to keep drunk drivers off the road
with ignition interlock devices that they can mandate. This technology
that is in the law is not going to fix the drunk driving problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Perry), my friend.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his
work on this, and of course the chairman of the full committee for the
hard work on appropriations.
Look, none of us wants to be on the road with drunk drivers. Of
course, this was a solution intended to deal with them. All of us want
them to be dealt with.
I am going to remind everybody, as my friend from Kentucky just said,
there is already legislation in multiple States, dozens of States, that
deals with drunk drivers through the ignition interlock system.
Probably in your family somewhere, someone you know, you have dealt
with this. I know in my family and the people I know, I have dealt with
it.
Here is what I don't want to see in America: Everybody, including the
ones who don't drink and drive, being punished for the people who drink
and drive. I happen not to drink, but I am going to be forced to have
this thing in my car.
I am going to tell you what is next. After what Representative Massie
has said, the car is going to be the judge, jury, and sentencer for
your crime in the car. The next thing is going to be that we need to
hook this thing up to the government so we can dispatch the police.
I am just going to tell you what is going to happen next. They are
going to be shutting your car off when they decide whatever they decide
from wherever they decide it.
I don't know what everyone thinks about due process, the
Constitution, - the Fourth Amendment, and the right to not be imposed
upon by illegal, unlawful search and seizure, but punishing everybody
for this crime, whether they have committed it or not, whether they are
going to commit it or not, should be unconstitutional. This shouldn't
really be a question.
We all want to get to the problem, and we are happy to work with
everybody on all sides to deal with it, but you cannot punish and
convict everybody in the country for the sake of the ones who do things
that they shouldn't do.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong opposition to this
amendment.
In 2023, 12,429 people died in drunk driving crashes nationwide. In
Kentucky alone, 198 people were killed. In
[[Page H1298]]
Pennsylvania, 321 people lost their lives. These deaths were
preventable.
Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology will
prevent impaired drivers from illegally operating vehicles and causing
deaths and injuries. I understand that my Republican colleagues are
concerned about privacy, but the technology being developed does not
track the vehicle's location or collect, use, or store any data that
would compromise the privacy of vehicle occupants.
Privacy is a concern, and my friends should weigh in on the
rulemaking process. NHTSA, the agency involved with this, should work
with government agencies that have expertise in this area to ensure
that consumer data is secure, anonymous, and protected from
unauthorized use. That can and should be addressed as part of the
rulemaking process.
It is not right, though. Preventing impaired drivers from illegally
operating vehicles and causing fatalities should be a nonpartisan
issue, and the work on that needs to continue.
The problem here is that while NHTSA has not finalized the rule, they
would not be able to do any work related to the rule or advanced
alcohol monitoring technology if this amendment passes. That is going
to just cause more deaths from drunk driving.
I would implore everybody: Please, privacy can be addressed, but we
should not stop this work from continuing. We can't have drunk drivers
on the road. It is not just them but everyone else who is killed and
injured as a result of those drunk drivers.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I would inquire whether the gentleman is
prepared to close.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Gillen).
Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Every day, 34 families lose a loved one to a drunk driving crash.
Drunk driving remains the leading cause of death on our highways.
Unfortunately, the problem is getting worse every year, despite
interlock devices.
Far too many Long Island families know the pain of a life cut short.
I know several families who have lost their children to drunk drivers.
Mr. Chair, these tragedies are absolutely preventable, and we know
what a solution is. The bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act, which was
passed more than 4 years ago, would require new vehicles to be equipped
with this new technology, and the change will help save more than
10,000 lives each year.
When Transportation Secretary Duffy testified before the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earlier this year, I asked
him to work with Congress to fully implement this lifesaving law. I am
proud to say that thanks to my questioning, Secretary Duffy publicly
committed to implement this law and help save lives.
Mr. Chair, I am happy to work with the gentlemen on the other side
who are concerned about privacy. Together, we can implement technology
that addresses their privacy concerns.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I would like to take that 15 seconds to thank
those who spoke in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, the last time we offered this amendment, it
had bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It would defund an
unconstitutional and unworkable mandate that has already missed the
deadlines.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
will be postponed.
{time} 1310
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Norman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 119-462.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 1 after ``Act'' insert ``, except Community
Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending as
specified in Division B,''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1014, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to strip out
the earmarks within the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
division from the underlying legislation.
This includes over 900 earmarks totaling nearly $1.4 billion in
spending of money we don't have.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative
Norman for his amendment.
Mr. Chair, my constituents do not send their hard-earned tax dollars
to Washington so that they can be funneled to abortion providers or
hospitals that mutilate children, yet that is exactly what many of
these earmarks do.
A vote for this amendment will remove $3 million for Seattle
Children's Hospital, which proudly offers transgender care to children.
It would strip $1 million to Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago,
which also provides transgender treatment to minors.
It would remove over $2 million to Kittitas Valley Healthcare in
Washington State, a facility that performs chemical and surgical
abortions even after 20 weeks.
I realize some argue these dollars are not directly paying for
abortions or gender surgeries, but when we give taxpayer handouts like
these, we free up resources for these exact practices.
I do not know how any Republican can support keeping these special
handouts in this bill. While I wish my original amendment was
considered to target the most egregious earmarks, I still urge a
``yes'' vote.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chair, before I get into the specifics of this amendment, I will
start with, hopefully, common ground.
In this Chamber, we can all agree that Members know their districts
best. I asked a question. Isn't that right? Isn't that what we always
assert, that we know our districts best?
Further, we often hear, mostly from the other side of the aisle,
about how unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., are making too
many decisions about Federal spending.
I don't subscribe to that view because true career civil servants
work hard to ensure that programs are executed according to the law,
but if my friends on the other side of the aisle want Congress to make
more granular decisions about spending, then that is exactly what is
happening through the community projects funding process, which we have
established.
This is not top down. It is bottom up, and it has been enormously
successful since it has been implemented in the last several years for
both sides of the aisle for communities all over this Nation.
It is not wasteful, porkbarrel spending, and my friends don't get to
have it both ways.
Instead, it is a thoughtful process of House Members and Senators
talking to their communities about their needs, balancing those
priorities, advocating for inclusion in these bills, and delivering for
their constituents in a clear, transparent way.
These community projects have been posted online since last fall and
no opposition has been raised. Yet at the
[[Page H1299]]
eleventh hour, it seems that some Republicans, once again, are
attempting to unravel a compromise by slashing funding for healthcare
services and education programs for children and for the needy.
Let me give you some examples.
The amendment would eliminate funding to Seattle Children's Hospital
for a behavioral health crisis stabilization unit. The underlying
funding would enable Seattle Children's Hospital to create a dedicated
space for children needing immediate, short-term psychiatric care.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the amendment would also eliminate funding to the Ann &
Robert Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago for a violence recovery and
intervention program. The underlying funding would serve pediatric
victims of violence with trauma-informed mental health and recovery
services.
Should we not be doing that? Should that not happen for that
community?
The amendment would eliminate funding to Rady Children's Hospital in
San Diego for pediatric mental health services. We have a mental health
crisis in this Nation. It is particularly poignant for children. It is
not under the radar any longer. It is out front. The underlying funding
is intended to support mental health clinicians in pediatric primary
care to improve care for pediatric patients.
This amendment would eliminate funding for the Eastern Maine
Healthcare Systems for maternal delivery and new infant projects to
replace and modernize equipment across hospitals with labor and
delivery units.
This amendment would eliminate funding for Dartmouth Health to
construct a perinatal substance stabilization unit.
Let me repeat: Seattle Children's Hospital, the Ann & Robert Lurie
Children's Hospital, Rady's Children's Hospital, maternity delivery
units, and a perinatal substance use stabilization unit are all at
risk.
I will be clear that this amendment is not limited to children's
hospitals. It would eliminate funding to hospitals and healthcare
services that serve young adults and adults, as well.
It will eliminate funding to the Denver Health and Hospital Authority
for infrastructure to allow the hospital to continue to function as a
medical safety net for the Denver community.
It will eliminate funding to Temple University Hospital in
Philadelphia to purchase modern, diagnostic X-ray technology equipment
to strengthen outpatient care.
The list goes on and on and on.
It would also eliminate funding for K-12 education programs, higher
education programs, and job training programs.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1320
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I agree with Ms. DeLauro. If the communities
want these, that is fine. They ought to pay for them. I don't know
whether my colleague realizes it or not, but we are $39 trillion in
debt and counting. Let me just give my friend examples of some of the
things she may have not thought about.
We have $1,599,000 for Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems. It operates
a pediatric gender clinic that provides sex-rejecting hormones for
gender-diverse and transgender children.
We have $4,008,000 for ChristianaCare Health Services. It provides
late-term abortions through 23 weeks.
The Stroger Hospital in Illinois performs abortions through 13 weeks.
The Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago provides
transgender treatments.
Temple University Hospital in Pennsylvania provides transgender care
for adults.
Any of the communities that want this should put their money up to
pay for it. The taxpayers cannot afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Representative
Norman's amendment, which would prevent my constituents' hard-earned
taxpayer dollars from funding woke earmarks and handouts to leftist
NGOs that undermine President Trump's agenda and, alarmingly, support
taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for children.
Buried in the minibus package is $14.3 million in earmarks for
special interest projects across the country. At a time when our
national debt is skyrocketing well past $38 trillion, Members of
Congress should be focused on reining in wasteful spending and funding
the essential functions of our government, not divisive handouts to
NGOs.
Particularly concerning are the millions of dollars in earmarks going
to so-called gender clinics and hospitals that push puberty blockers,
cross-sex hormones, and even perform life-altering surgeries on
vulnerable children.
This is not healthcare funding. This is not healthcare. It is
promoting an ideology that harms children, sidelines parents, ignores
common sense, and contradicts President Trump's executive order to
restore biological truth and prevent the mutilation of our Nation's
children. Plain and simple: Americans' taxpayer dollars should not be
funding child mutilation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to adopt
Representative Norman's amendment to stop this woke and weaponized
funding.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how as to much time is
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, this is a prime example of government gone
wild and government programs that are using our money that I think the
majority of Americans would reject. If now is not the time, I don't
know when is. It will be too late when the investors stop buying our
bonds and everything comes to a dead halt in America. We can't let that
happen.
Mr. Chair, these earmarks are against every conservative value that
is known. The intent of these is wrong. The expenditure of these is
wrong. Now is the time we face it and put a stop to these. This is just
the first step in a long stairway to get this country back on a firm
financial footing.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, community projects have been successful. It
is Senators and Members of the House talking to their communities about
their needs, balancing priorities, advocating for the inclusion of
these bills, and delivering for their constituents in a clear and in a
transparent way.
That is what we ought to be doing, is delivering for our constituents
about the needs that they identify for all of us. I urge a ``no'' vote
on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Fulcher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walberg, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7148)
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________