[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3652-H3659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2577, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2578, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction on Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 287
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 2, 2015, on page H3652, the following appeared: The Clerk
read the resolution, as follows: H. CON. RES. 287 Resolved, That
(a) at any time after adoption
The online version should be corrected to read: The Clerk read
the resolution, as follows: H. RES. 287 Resolved, That (a) at any
time after adoption
========================= END NOTE =========================
Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
any bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. The first
reading of each such bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of each such bill are waived.
General debate on each such bill shall be confined to that
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate each such
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. Points of order against provisions in each such bill
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
(b) During consideration of each such bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read.
(c) When the committee rises and reports any such bill back
to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on that bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) The bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
(b) The bill (H.R. 2578) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 287 provides for a
modified open rule for separate consideration of H.R. 2578 and H.R.
2577. Under this rule, any Member may offer any amendments to the bills
in question that comply with the rules of the House. It
[[Page H3653]]
also provides for 10 minutes of debate on each amendment considered.
This approach has been what we call a standard rule for appropriations
bills and was established and has been followed for this last year and
the year before, and I believe it has been effective and, really, a
good way for this body to be able to effectively operate, allowing each
and every Member of this body the chance to offer their amendments.
This rule also accomplishes two important goals:
First, it reflects the majority's commitment to an open and
transparent appropriations process. This rule will also allow for all
Members to bring to this body their ideas that they have that they
bring from back home, perhaps ideas from their own individual
constituents about how we can make this appropriations process even
better. I think it is important that Members of Congress be given an
opportunity to do this in the appropriations process, and that is
exactly what we are trying to do today for a robust opportunity for
discussion. If an amendment complies with the rules of the House, it
certainly will be given an up-or-down vote, if that Member chooses to
do so.
Secondly, this rule provides for reasonable time constraints. It is
my belief that if Members' ideas are heard and the process by which we
consider appropriations bills is done on a timely basis, then the House
will benefit, and so will the American people, so that we work
effectively and efficiently at the same time. This rule, I believe,
strikes a good balance, allowing all Members an opportunity to offer
necessary amendments but also allowing the House to get its work done.
{time} 1230
I estimate that we will spend about 18 hours in the process to get
these bills done. Throughout this open process, the House will be able
to make two great bills, I think, even better.
Mr. Speaker, the open process by which these two bills will be
considered, if the rule is adopted, is not only a good thing, but I
think it says something about the work that the Rules Committee is
doing. I am proud to support these two underlying bills because they
make tough decisions, and they prioritize the responsibilities of the
Federal Government. We simply do not have enough money to spread around
to not have to make tough decisions. These are tough decisions that are
made.
Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, both of these bills were equally
addressed on a bipartisan basis, and both the ranking member and the
chairman of the subcommittee said they worked well together.
Obviously, not everybody was happy with how much money they had to
spend, but both of the ranking members--the Democrats who were
present--addressed our committee and said that they were treated
fairly, that they were treated respectfully, and that it was an open
and transparent process to achieve good things for the bills.
That is the hope that I have as we come to the floor today in that
you will see groups of Members who will come to the floor with an open
opportunity as a result of what we did in the Rules Committee, knowing
that the process that took place back in the Appropriations Committee
was well done.
Alarmingly, however, yesterday, we learned that President Obama has
threatened to veto both of these bills because, as I quote him, they
``drastically underfund critical investments.''
Let me see if I can break this down for you. It is our job to
determine what those appropriations levels would be. We heard from the
President of the United States when he presented his budget, and year
after year after year, the President of the United States has failed to
receive more than only several votes on his budget.
I believe that what we have done by working carefully and
meticulously through the budget process and through the appropriations
process gives us a better angle on the needs and the priorities of
these agencies from a congressional and, I believe, a ``back home''
experience.
The people of this country elected their Representatives, and their
Representatives have come to Washington and have had a fair and open
process, notwithstanding that we are not spending as much as people
want us to spend.
I believe that the President is saying that he will veto these bills
because he does not believe that we simply continue to spend more and
more and more. This President has an insatiable appetite that we saw
and have seen year after year after year.
Based upon his words, I would say back to him: Mr. President, please
look at the merits of the work that the House of Representatives is
doing on a bipartisan basis. We are trying to live within the
parameters of a budget that has been established and that was voted on
by Members of this body, that has the vast majority of the Members of
this body to say, when compared to the President's budget, this is the
budget that I believe best represents not only what we can accomplish
but what will work in the best interests of the American people, our
constituents. Mr. President, they are the same ones that you have
across this great Nation. Mr. President, we are asking you to take a
second look at how you will listen to us and to watch the process that
is going on here. I think it will develop itself into a better way for
us to do business, and I would encourage the White House to look at
that.
Mr. Speaker, a great nation simply cannot spend money that it does
not have and be a great nation for very long. This last month, we
crossed over the terrible, terrible threshold of going from $17
trillion to $18 trillion in debt, and we continue to add up this debt
and live off that debt and add to the debt with the spending that we
do. We believe that what we have got to do is become more responsible
with the taxpayers' dollars and the future of this great Nation.
The law of the land and the law that the President has signed
requires Congress to act within the requirements of the Budget Control
Act. These were agreements that were made with the President. That is
what we are sticking to, and that is what these bills do; yet the
President, once again, is telling us: Please set aside the agreement
that was made. I don't now like the thing that I agreed to, that I
signed into law.
In some instances, they were some of the President's own ideas.
We need to understand that the American people want and expect us to
see problems and to solve them and to stick to it. That is what this
budget process is about, and that is exactly what this appropriations
process is about.
Look, I disagree with the President. I believe that what we need to
do is to live within the agreement of the Budget Control Act. My party,
the Republicans, have worked to lower discretionary spending from
nearly $1.5 trillion in 2009, where we were, to today in 2015, $1.014
trillion.
That is the difference between 2009 and 2015, years in which
excessive and out-of-control spending could have taken place but for
the discipline of the Republican Party and the discipline of our
Members and, might I say, of the American people, who have heard our
call for having a plan, a plan which carefully moves America into the
future, that lessens the amount of debt the American people have to
take on, and that makes better opportunities for our children and
grandchildren not to have to pay back our excessive spending just
because we are a group of people who thinks it is smarter than the
people back home. We aren't.
They get also, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have a defined goal. We
have to do exactly what they do back home, and that is to be
responsible about a family budget, about a State budget, about a
Federal Government budget.
That means disciplined accountability and a plan that you are willing
to stick to. That is exactly what we have done. We have worked hard to
lower discretionary spending over these years, and the effort has saved
more than $2 trillion over this period of time and, I believe, over
what would have been spent.
I think this is a big win for the American people, and I think it is
a big win for people who want, need, and expect Members of Congress to
come to Washington and stick not only to a plan, but to a disciplined
approach in trying to balance together the needs of this great Nation
and its people and the need for us to look over the horizon at what our
future would be.
[[Page H3654]]
I think that we have lowered spending and that we have had a chance
to shrink the size of government. Certainly, what we are trying to do
is to work at lowering the deficit or the amount of money that would
have been added to that deficit. These are the discussions that people
back home have with their Members of Congress: What lies ahead? And how
are you going to be able to make tough decisions?
I hope that the President of the United States is listening to this
because we are, on a bipartisan basis, having these same discussions in
the House of Representatives and in the committees on which our Members
serve. Now is the time not to go back to liberal, reckless spending
opportunities. They will always abound.
It is always easier to spend somebody else's money. I just don't
think it is right, so the Republican Party is here on the floor today
with two more appropriations bills, and it is going to sell to the
American people the confidence that we have that we can make this
government work more effectively and more efficiently--yes, with fewer
dollars but with greater opportunities for efficiency.
I believe that both of these bills strike what is a balance, a
balance between funding critical projects while making smart financial
decisions. These two can be accomplished, and that is why we are trying
to work together to prioritize it.
H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2016, focuses on the true governmental interest:
fighting crime; making decisions about how we keep terrorists at bay;
keeping the American people safe; and supporting the U.S. economy at
the same time by making critical investments in science, space,
exports, and manufacturing. Certainly, in tough economic times, tough
decisions are required, and that is exactly where we are.
Yesterday, we had a chance to hear from two Members of Congress--
Republicans--one of them, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr.
Culberson), the subcommittee chairman. He talked about the bill
reflecting smart but fair decisions. The decisions that he spoke about
were that the legislation provided $51.4 billion in total
discretionary, which was $661 million below the President's request.
H.R. 2578 also prioritizes vital programs that are, essentially,
built around law enforcement--Federal law enforcement--and their
ability to aim at the problems that our citizens see and that,
certainly, our law enforcement sees and to put a priority on national
security and public safety and initiatives that also aim for job
creation and economic growth. These are part of the priorities that
have to be taken up, and, in fact, they were.
The second bill, H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, I
believe, similarly had many of the same characteristics.
First of all, they are going to stick to exactly what we talked about
in the budget, and they are going to have to strike a balance--a tough
balance--but one which is based on the priorities of essential programs
and on making responsible reductions to low-priority activities.
This bill provides $55.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is
$9.7 billion below what the President wanted. Once again, the President
does not want to stick to the budget agreement--an agreement which he
signed into law--but that is what this body is going to do.
We are going to live within the law, and living within the law is
what the American people expect as part of the plan. This bill allows
for important investments in national transportation infrastructure,
including investments in our national highways, railways, and airports.
It also provides help to people who are in dire need of affordable
housing options.
Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago, when I became a scoutmaster
for the Boy Scouts of America, that needs always outpace resources.
Needs are always out there, and they are something that you just simply
want to continue to be a part of, but money is not always the answer.
Sometimes, a prioritization of the needs that you have to meet will
then define you to a better process, one which people can then better
understand. That is what we are doing here today.
Like most Members, who will have an opportunity as a result of the
work that we did last night in the Rules Committee, I have ideas that,
I think, can help improve H.R. 2577. One of those ideas, I have brought
to the floor many, many times in a bill; and during the debate on
funding, I think I will have good ideas that will help make our country
stronger--in this case, make transportation stronger.
It became clear to me a number of years ago that government
subsidized rail service on Amtrak does not make economic sense. What we
have looked at is that Amtrak takes money. Years and years and years
ago, they agreed that they would quit taking government subsidies and
would run the railroad as an east and west operation.
Instead, what did they do? They became a cross-country hauler. Every
single long-distance route that Amtrak provides--those of more than 400
miles in length--operate at a loss every single month. There are 11
routes that cost double the amount of revenue that they create. That is
why I have offered two important opportunities, which were amendments,
to eliminate this.
The first would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's long-distance
routes, which have a total direct cost of more than twice the revenue.
That means, if the cost is twice the revenue, then it would be
eliminated.
The second would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's worst performing
line, the Sunset Limited. The Sunset Limited, which is an east-west and
west-east operation is subsidized for every single ticket and for every
single train by over $400 in government subsidies, a loss totalling
$41.9 million last year alone.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the ideas. Mr. Speaker, you will
be hearing about lots of them over the next 18-some hours of debate
that will take place. This is a good thing about this rule. Members
just like myself will have a chance to come and put their ideas as
opportunities on the floor for other Members to consider. I think that
is why we are here today, to work together on a process that will make
our country even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the
chair of the Committee on Rules and my friend, for yielding the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in
opposition to the rule and underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 2578,
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, as well as H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Both, in my
opinion, are woefully inadequate and underfunded pieces of legislation
that serve as a slap in the face to hard-working Americans and a
reminder of my Republican colleagues' shortsighted and irresponsible
attempt at achieving a balanced budget.
Last night, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules on H.R.
2577, Ranking Member David Price made a statement that was not only
profound but incredibly accurate. He responded to Republican sentiments
that slashing domestic appropriations in isolation is a necessary evil
by stating that ``a great nation must invest in its future.''
Indeed, the importance of this investment cannot be overstated. For
too long, we have forced austerity measures upon appropriators that
prevent the funding of programs that create jobs; bolster our economy;
repair and improve our Nation's decrepit highways, transit systems, and
infrastructure; that fund medical research; and provide safe, decent,
and affordable housing for poor and vulnerable families, the elderly,
and disabled.
It both saddens and frustrates me that my Republican friends continue
to go after domestic programs that would unequivocally improve the
lives of so many Americans while at the same time refusing to address
the real drivers of the fiscal crisis, which are tax expenditures and
mandatory spending.
It is unconscionable to me that we, as a nation, cannot come up with
the
[[Page H3655]]
money to fund projects that repair and improve our country's
transportation infrastructure. I pointed out yesterday in the Committee
on Rules that aside from all of the bridges that I talked about from
Florida that are in need of repair, right here in Washington, the
Memorial Bridge that leads from Virginia into this city is in need of
repair.
The initiative that provides grants to local law enforcement and
first responders would also improve in our country. But we provide
ourselves with an unlimited budget to fight foreign wars without a
mechanism to pay for those costs. Enough already, Congress. How about
an authorization for the use of force rather than the methods that are
employed now for ongoing, undetermined, indefinite--it appears--wars?
The solution to our current fiscal circumstances lies not in
withholding of necessary funding for essential domestic programs, but
in comprehensive reform that considers--yes, considers--tax increases
in addition to entitlement and appropriations cuts. That is how we
balanced the budget in 1994 and to a relative degree in 1997, and we
had, at that time, 4 years of balanced budgets. Adherence to these
Republican budget limits self-imposed by sequestration is ineffective,
detrimental to our national progress, and just plain wrong.
The Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations measure before us today
is the instrument used to provide funding for many vital programs and
agencies, such as the Department of Justice, Commerce, NASA, and the
National Science Foundation. Despite the importance of fully funding
these agencies, this bill is a prime example of the mindless austerity
of sequestration and the misguided priorities of my Republican
colleagues.
Time won't permit to add context to how we got to sequestration, and
my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, is
absolutely correct. The President did sign this measure, but that was
at the instance of an awful lot of negotiations and the government
being shut down.
I don't stand here and point fingers at either side in this regard. I
said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and I repeat here, it is the
fault of 435 voting Members of Congress that we allow for this measure
to put us in the position that we are in on these two measures as well
as others to come.
For example, this bill fails to adequately fund several Department of
Justice grant programs and outright eliminates others, programs and
funding that are critical to many State and local law enforcement
activities. Specifically, the bill cuts $180 million from the Community
Oriented Policing Services hiring program. This effectively eliminates
a program that would put an additional 1,300 police officers on the
streets. At a time when the relationship between many of our
communities and law enforcement is strained, why are we decimating a
program dedicated to building trust and mutual respect between the
police and the communities they serve?
In another startling policy decision by the majority, this bill
eliminates, in its entirety, several other important programs,
including the substance abuse program.
I come to the floor today from a meeting this morning dealing with
institutions for mental disease in which the community of persons who
work in substance abuse, addiction, and mental health are pleading for
the changes necessary for them to be able to address the significant
problem that our population faces from veterans, to civilians, to
children, and to the elderly, and yet what we did in this measure is
eliminate the Substance Abuse Treatment program.
We eliminate the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction initiative at a
time when we are witnessing, in our Nation, serious gun violence, and
many of us today are about the business of trying to highlight, at
least on this one day, the epidemic of gun violence in our society and
how it has cost lives and treasure.
This program, as offered, eliminates the National Center for Campus
Public Safety.
Perhaps the most indicative of the misplaced funding priorities by
the majority is the gun policy rider--yep, yep, a rider, not part of
this bill, just kind of tacked on like we tacked on something having to
do with Cuba. We just tack these riders on, and this has been attached
to this legislation.
Not only has the majority completely eviscerated important violence
and gun crime reduction programs, they have attached a policy rider
that cancels out a narrow, targeted reporting requirement on the sale
of certain long guns sold in four border States. The purpose of this
requirement is to discourage straw purchasers from buying weapons for
Mexican drug cartels. This reporting requirement has been proven to be
effective. Courts agreed that it does not restrict Second Amendment
rights, so why is the majority including this irresponsible gun rider
in a bill that largely funds public safety? The irony of this provision
should not be lost on any of us.
Finally, in addition to cutting funding to important public safety
programs, this bill showcases my Republican colleagues' remarkable
ability to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to climate
change, employing their ill-conceived strategy of defunding any program
that might help us understand and address this important issue. This
legislation intentionally underfunds the Geosciences directorate at the
National Science Foundation and the Earth Science Office at NASA, where
scientists are studying the most effective ways to respond to climate
change.
The second bill, H.R. 2577, provides $55.3 billion in discretionary
funding for transportation and housing programs for fiscal year 2016.
While this allocation appears to be an increase from fiscal year 2015,
after inflationary adjustments, including declining Federal Housing
Administration receipts and increasing Section 8 renewal costs, this
bill actually designates $1.5 billion less than last year's enacted
level.
The shortcomings of this piece of legislation are so numerous that I
would far exceed the time allotted to me if I were to attempt to
discuss them all. Instead, I will just graze the surface by addressing
just a few of the most egregious provisions.
This bill reduces funding for Amtrak by 18 percent from last year's
level and $1.3 billion below the President's request. This reduction
eliminates funding for positive train control, a technology that the
Transportation Safety Board has stated publicly may have prevented last
month's tragic Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia, and provides no
funding for intercity passenger rail or the installation of additional
safety mechanisms.
It also slashes funding for the Federal Transit Administration's
Capital Investment Grant program, cuts TIGER funding by $400 million--
it does have a placeholder for something that may take place in the
future--and it reduces the Federal Aviation Administration's capital
program, which impedes the FAA's ability to implement its NextGen
program as well as maintain and improve aging facilities.
In addition to its funding inadequacies, as has become custom under
Republican leadership, this bill offers up legislative handouts to the
trucking industry and other powerful interests at the expense of the
safety of our constituents. Specifically, it is going to allow trucks
to carry longer trailers across the country, make it harder for the
Department of Transportation to mandate that drivers get more rest
before they hit the road, and forbid the Department from raising the
minimum insurance it requires trucks and buses to carry.
I wonder if we ever really talk to truckers and really ask them do
they want to carry trains on roads--that is what it amounts to--and do
they need the rest that they have requested for years. None of us are
against the trucking industry, but these measures allow for something
that should not occur. The latest data which is available shows that
nearly 4,000 people died in accidents involving large trucks.
{time} 1300
Last week, there were no less than three in the constituency I serve,
including a 17-year-old extremely bright young girl who lost her life
at the instance of a trucking incident.
Most of these 4,000 people were riding in another vehicle or were
pedestrians. That is a 17 percent increase from the year 2009.
These provisions will make our highways less safe and do not belong
in an appropriations bill. Trucking regulations should be openly
debated as part
[[Page H3656]]
of a comprehensive surface transportation bill, which, incidentally, we
have been assured is on the horizon.
Currently, one out of every nine bridges in our country is
structurally deficient, and congestion has never been worse. At the
same time, our population is expected to grow by 70 million over the
next 30 years. Knowing this, we must not continue to wait for our
bridges to collapse, our public transit systems to malfunction, and our
highways to deteriorate before we agree to provide adequate funding.
Just as it does for transportation and infrastructure initiatives,
H.R. 2577 makes dramatic cuts to funding for housing support programs
for poor and vulnerable individuals and families. One of the most
striking of these reductions is the one levied against the public
housing capital fund, making it only slightly higher than the monetary
amount allocated in 1989, without accounting for inflation.
I held a housing forum on Saturday in the congressional district that
I am privileged to serve, and I saw the pain that was expressed by the
people in long waiting lines for section 8 housing and in the
deteriorating public housing that is in that 30-year at-risk period. It
just pains me even to talk about it and then to come up here and in
this very week do more, if we follow our Republican friends, to cut
these programs.
This bill also reduces funding for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Choice Neighborhoods initiative. It slashes funding
for Healthy Homes and lead hazard control grants, exposing the most
underprivileged children to toxic lead poisoning.
It transfers money from the housing trust fund to fund the HOME
program, taking funding away from a program which is reserved for the
most economically disadvantaged and in the most need of assistance, and
does nothing to increase access to safe and affordable housing for the
elderly or disabled.
In short, this legislation undermines the continued viability of our
Nation's infrastructure and threatens our country's economic
competitiveness.
I fear that without these necessary investments in transportation,
housing, science, commerce, and justice programs, the negative
implication of Representative Price's statement will become a reality.
We will fail to remain a great Nation because we will fail to
accommodate the demands of the future.
For these very important reasons, and many more that I could express,
I oppose both the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I know that I see one of our colleagues from the Rules Committee who
wants to come speak, but I want to take just a second and respond in
kind for my party, and that is that my party does recognize that there
is much that does get accomplished because of the efforts of this
government and the efforts of this Congress that fund good ideas and do
things.
A number of years ago, we became faced with, however, a circumstance
where what lies in our immediate future is too much spending, which
means that this country has to borrow money. It is money that needs to
be paid back.
But in the process of taking money, setting priorities, and spending
money, there also is something called interest on the debt. And that
is, if money were free and you could just borrow money but not pay
interest for it, I am sure we would not mind how much we borrowed.
But the bottom line is that is not the reality. The reality is that
we have to pay for money that we borrow. And that debt which we have to
pay money back for means that every single year the amount of money
that we pay and that comes out of the pot of money gets larger and
larger and larger. And paying back debt competes against money that we
can spend on behalf of people.
And so, at some point, if you just buy off on that we have got to
spend more and more and more, that means that we have to take more as
debt and pay more of interest. And that competes in a marketplace, in a
budget, against projects that we would like to do and that do actually
help people and that do focus on the most needy and the most vulnerable
in our society.
But we are spending, Mr. Speaker, an incredible amount of money. And
we are trying to learn over time how to become more efficient, how to
make our cities even better, how to create jobs, and how to educate
people and to bring them forth in a mature way. That is what every
great nation really will be ultimately charged with: how can you make
your country better not just today, but for the future.
And so Republicans do stand for not spending more than what we make
so that we have more that we can make in a balanced budget today and
spend in a way that creates a better future for our children and
grandchildren.
The bottom line is, over the last 6 years, we have gone from a debt
of $9 trillion to $18 trillion. Some could say that was while we slept,
but that is not true. It happened while we were trying to offer better
opportunities and resolve.
So, for the last 5 years, Republicans have said we are going to quit
this runaway spending, we are going to make tough decisions, and we are
going to protect this great Nation at the same time. But we are asking
for the American people to also recognize what we are doing, Mr.
Speaker. And just as I speak to you today, I speak to people back home,
as other Members of Congress do to their constituents, and say we are
trying to balance what we do over time with the efficiencies that keep
this great Nation great.
I will be honest with you. We live in the greatest Nation in the
world. And thank God we are Americans. We trust in God, but we also
trust in discipline to make this great Nation even better. And that is
what appropriations bills are about: priority, making this great Nation
still great tomorrow with discipline. And discipline has a lot to do
with our ability to be a great Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before making my remarks, I just want to say in a challenging way to
the chairman of the Rules Committee that if we were to fix a bridge, it
takes people to fix that bridge. And the people who fix that bridge
spend their money in the local areas and pay taxes, which brings
revenue back in. And that is why we need to fix bridges, in my
judgment.
I am pleased at this time to yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend with whom
it is a pleasure to serve with on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I
want to associate myself with his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which
provides for consideration of the Transportation-HUD and CJS
appropriations bills.
First, let me express my astonishment at the big giveaways to the
trucking industry in this Transportation-HUD bill. This bill is loaded
up with pet projects of the trucking industry that threaten the health
and safety of the traveling public.
The lack of regard for the safety and well-being of those on the
roads and bridges is stunning. It is hard to believe that some of the
provisions that are contained as policy riders in these appropriations
bills are actually there.
This bill should focus on strengthening America's infrastructure,
repairing crumbling bridges, investing in public transportation, and
making our roads safer, but instead puts the trucking industry in the
driving seat, leaving the average American left behind.
The bill would, one, increase truck weights in Idaho and Kansas; two,
allow twin 33-foot trailers on interstates; three, delay full
implementation of DOT's hours of service rule, which requires minimum
rest periods for truckers; and, four, prohibit the Department of
Transportation from increasing minimum insurance requirements for big
trucks and motor coaches.
Mr. Speaker, with all that we know, it is simply outrageous that we
would allow bigger and heavier trucks on our highways.
[[Page H3657]]
Today's bill is intended specifically to appropriate funds, not
authorize new policy. Yet this is exactly what these policy riders are
doing. They don't belong on this bill.
Furthermore, there was not a single hearing on these trucking riders:
not one subcommittee hearing, not one full committee hearing. These
issues are important enough where they should be openly debated as part
of a comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill, not
tacked on to an appropriations bill. They don't belong here. But this
process has become so corrupted that anything goes. Committees of
jurisdiction are routinely disregarded and disrespected.
Making these controversial policy changes before the Department of
Transportation finishes their comprehensive truck size and weight study
that was required by MAP-21 would be irresponsible. We should allow the
Department of Transportation the time it needs to get their study
right.
Simply put, these trucking industry riders will make our highways
less safe at a time when our infrastructure funding is woefully
inadequate and our roads and bridges are crumbling.
In just the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic 17 percent increase
in the number of truck crash deaths and an alarming 28 percent increase
in injuries. Instead of advancing safety measures to make our roads
safer, Congress is about to roll back significant safety laws and
regulations that will result in more deaths and more injuries on our
roads and highways. In fatal truck and car crashes, 96 percent of the
fatalities are occupants of the passenger car.
Mr. Speaker, public opinion is clear: Americans do not want bigger
trucks or tired truck drivers on the road. Seventy-six percent of
Americans opposed longer and heavier trucks, and 80 percent were
opposed to increasing truck driver working and driving hours.
Yet here we are with authorizing language on an appropriations bill
to make our roads less safe. Why are my friends doing this? It might be
good policy for fundraising purposes, but it is lousy policy for the
American people.
These dangerous riders don't belong here. They threaten the safety of
everyday Americans on the road, and we ought to insist that they be
removed.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to express my concern about the dangerous
and backward-thinking riders that are included in both the CJS and
Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills regarding Cuba.
Obviously, there are several Members here in this House who are
nostalgic for the cold war, who are still living in the past. I just
want to say, thanks to the leadership of President Obama and this
administration, we are making real progress in normalizing relations
with Cuba and connecting them with a 21st century economy. We are
ending an embarrassing, dumb, and counterproductive policy that by all
accounts has been a miserable failure for the last five decades.
In 2011, after President Obama reinstated the rules allowing Cuban
Americans to visit their relatives on the island and permitting all
Americans to send remittances to Cuba, hard-liners used the
appropriations process to prevent the policies from being implemented.
Thankfully, Senate Democrats kept the hard-liners' provisions out of
the omnibus bill, and legislation reversing the modest but hopeful
travel and remittance reforms never reached the President's desk.
{time} 1315
As a result, hundreds of thousands of trips between the U.S. and Cuba
have taken place every year since, reuniting families and increasing
the number of Cubans receiving the economic support they need to run
their own businesses and lead more independent lives.
Instead of celebrating the progress, hard-liners are once again
trying to shut down the new openings for greater citizen diplomacy
created by this administration. This is the wrong thing to do for
America; this is the wrong thing to do for American companies, and it
is the wrong thing to do for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in six decades, the United States
Government is encouraging citizen diplomacy, greater travel and trade,
and telecommunications and other industries to build relationships and
stronger ties with counterparts among the Cuban people and new
entrepreneurs.
American businesses are already seeing the potential for economic
growth. That is why JetBlue and other airlines are expanding charter
services and planning commercial routes, why ferry companies are
planning to set sail for Havana, why Airbnb and Netflix are hoping to
build real businesses in the Cuban market, why Governors in red and
blue States alike are trying to position companies in their States to
succeed.
The provisions in these bills are antibusiness. Airlines and maritime
businesses have already taken steps to initiate travel service to and
from Cuba based on the administration's December 17, 2014,
announcement, and these provisions in these bills will block them.
Even the United States Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes these
provisions, and they have sent a letter to Congress basically making
the case why we ought to have better and more open travel and trade
with Cuba.
It is why Americans across the country and Cuban Americans in
communities where they live are so deeply committed to a policy that
puts the cold war behind us and puts our country on a path to creating
a new and brighter future with Cuba.
Simply put, these provisions in these appropriations bills are trying
to pull the plug on new efforts by U.S. citizens and U.S. companies to
expand their presence in Cuba. As the policy moves forward, they keep
trying to pull us back into the cold war and a policy that has failed
for over 50 years.
Let's be clear. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill would
ground new commercial or charter flights that came into being after
March 15, 2015. JetBlue and Tampa International Airport are just two
beneficiaries of the President's new policy who would be adversely
affected.
With new ferries leaving port, as much as $340 million would be
pumped into Florida's economy. These provisions would hold back that
economic growth, hurting American businesses in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa,
Orlando, and Miami.
Mr. Speaker, the CJS bill would shut down U.S. exports to Cuba in
ways that will affect telecommunications firms now in negotiations to
open up phone and Internet connections on the island.
Do we want Cubans to be better connected to the outside world? I
thought the answer was a huge bipartisan yes, but apparently not. The
ugly truth is that these provisions in these bills are hiding their
real intent, and that is to shut down the growing connections between
Cuba and the United States and our citizens and U.S. companies.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that these provisions,
first of all, do not belong in appropriations bills. They are
authorizing language. They don't belong even in this debate.
I would suggest to them that these appropriations bills aren't going
to see the light of day as long as these provisions are in this bill. I
would urge my colleagues to put the cold war behind them and to get rid
of these provisions, and let's move on to a better and more productive
relationship.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about these last two
speakers is that the rule allows them to come to the floor and to
present an amendment to strike or to add anything that they would like
to add into this bill. That is the beauty of what we are trying to do
here today, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I would just respond to the chairman by saying the
thing about this rule that is so frustrating is that important
amendments are only given 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side.
Some of these issues are important and deserve more than 5 minutes of
debate.
We are not going to have debates. We are going to offer amendments
and then, essentially, vote. I am not so excited about the way this
rule has been constructed, especially given the fact that very little
time is being allotted to discuss some of these important issues.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you ask my good friend,
the chairman of the Rules Committee, if he
[[Page H3658]]
is ready to close. I have no additional speakers at this time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking. I have
no further speakers and, in fact, would, as we have done many times,
allow the gentleman to offer his close, and then I would also.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
These bills exemplify the recklessness and the foolishness of the
majority's almost exclusive focus on domestic appropriations for
deficit reduction, while leaving the main drivers of the deficit
unaddressed. We cannot continue on this path if we intend to maintain
our country's economic competitiveness.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and underlying bills,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues who
serve on the Rules Committee, the gentleman Mr. McGovern and the
gentleman Mr. Hastings.
They are both not only extremely committed men to their constituency,
but also to bettering this House of Representatives. Their voice and
their words and their opportunities of which they stand up for, I have
great respect for, and want to thank them for the character in which
they have come after today's not only debate, but yesterday's debate
that took a number of hours as we heard from four Members of this body
about their ideas about how we should pursue these two appropriations
bills today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my comments to a perspective, and that
is satisfaction that I have for the way in which this process is
working today. I understand, as acknowledged in the very beginning, we
have an issue with how much money we are going to spend.
I recognize we are back at 2008 levels in 2015 in most of these
bills. I do acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that we are asking--
requiring--on government a chance to run their agencies--spend money
back at 2008 spending levels.
I think that the process that we are going through will also be an
advantage ultimately, sure, in the short-term, but ultimately, where we
will look at this as a prioritization basis, where we will empower the
government, if they work with us and if we work with them, to
understand how we can keep this country great--even spending less
money--how we can continue to prioritize the decisionmaking to where we
can pick and choose what needs to be done.
Look, it doesn't make me happy. It makes no Member of this body
happy. Certainly, the Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, would
recognize--you have needs in your district. I do, from Dallas, Texas,
have needs in my immediate district and districts that are around.
The overwhelming need is all of us--and that is not to spend more
than we can say and justify for our future because the dollars that we
spend are borrowed. The dollars that we borrow and spend show up on our
bottom-line debt, and it impacts everybody.
The bottom line is we have to pay back interest on that money, just
like any family that takes out money on a home loan or a credit card or
something else. They have to be able to understand that takes away
because they are paying for that, their ability to spend money in a
different way.
Our Republican majority is well aware of the demand that is placed on
us, that we cannot go and do all the things that we would wish to do,
but we have accepted and taken a pledge that we have given to the
American people that they do get an understanding--that is we are not
going to keep in the circumstance of spending money based upon taking
out a loan because it is not good for our children, our grandchildren.
It is not good for our future.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have had a chance to debate these two bills in
this one rule. I think, once again, as I stated earlier, it is a
commitment to transparency and openness that this body has and every
Member retains here on the floor. You saw part of it today.
Through this open modified rule, each Member will have the
opportunity to submit their ideas to two underlying bills, H.R. 2578
and H.R. 2577. Through this rule, the House will be able to work its
way through majority rule floor votes and to make sure that the vital
appropriations process is vigorous, is timely, and reflects the will of
this body.
When this rule is adopted, a robust debate will take place in a way
that will allow us to fund these important measures, over $100 billion.
I think that, as we talk about this, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that
this body is getting its work done. It is getting its work done. We
passed a budget. We will pass the appropriations bills.
We go home every weekend; we look our constituents in the eye, and we
have to justify what we are doing. We are following a process that we
said we would do. It is for the betterment of this country, to keep
this country strong.
I am proud of the Members of this body; and, as a Republican member
of our leadership team, I can tell you that we intend to follow through
with the process, the promise that we make to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the underlying bills, for this rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jolly). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of this resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 180, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 268]
YEAS--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carney
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
[[Page H3659]]
NAYS--180
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Adams
Clyburn
Delaney
Fitzpatrick
Hudson
Jackson Lee
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Neugebauer
Roe (TN)
Yoho
{time} 1353
Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________