Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her for her excellent leadership as the ranking Democratic member on the Appropriations Committee.
As an appropriator myself, I understand the culture. I understand the camaraderie between parties. For that reason, I want to commend our distinguished chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his wonderful service as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I served with him for many years on the committee. I know firsthand his concern for the American people, and I thank him for his service. I know he will continue as an appropriator, but I thank him for his leadership as chairman.
I join in commending one of our Members who is leaving, Sam Farr, for his always looking out for America's children, whether it was their health or education, especially in terms of their access to food security. I thank Mr. Farr for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I come to the floor to express my personal disappointment with this legislation, and I will be voting ``no.'' My colleagues have asked me what I think about it. I am not urging them to do anything, but I am telling you why I think this is a missed opportunity.
While we all recognize that it was a moral challenge for us to do something for the children of Flint, the manner in which it was done, in a bifurcated way, was used to get votes for another bill, which I think was wrong. But not to dwell on process--not to dwell on process-- let's just look at the facts. The facts are these:
This will probably be billed at over $1.5 trillion, over $1.5 trillion. There could have been $170 million appropriated for the children of Flint in this bill. Some would say that is not authorized.
Probably $250 billion to $300 billion in this bill is not authorized, so why should the children of Flint have to step over a higher barrier? And that is just exemplary of the partisan nature of the bill.
We have always worked in a bipartisan way, House and Senate appropriations, and then especially as we come to the end of the year.
But this year it was Republican-Republican, House and Senate.
Again, forget process. But what does that mean in terms of priorities? It means that Families First, an initiative to help foster kids in our country, something that had bipartisan support in the House and Senate, was rejected from consideration. It means, again, that the miners and the families of coal miners who needed--suppose that business that you work for, Mr. Speaker, went bankrupt or declared themselves insolvent and, therefore, your pension and your health care benefits disappeared. How would you feel? Well, that is just what happened to the miners, and what was needed was long-term security for them that Mr. McKinley, a Republican, put forth in his legislation that we hoped could be taken up and be part of this. But it was rejected by our Republican colleagues.
It is interesting, because one of the other things that is not in this bill that we hoped would be is a correction to last year's bill for extenders for renewable energy. I was told by Republicans that we don't want to do that for renewable energy because we are fossil fuel guys. Well, if you are fossil fuel guys, take care of the miners and their families.
The anticipation would be that there could be a 5-year proposal for pension and healthcare benefits. Right now, there is a 4-month provision for health care--4 months, not 5 years--not pensions and benefits, just health care.
Why? Why is that so unimportant when we are talking about people who are part of a culture of coal mining in our country, which is fading, and they need help, and we should be here to help them? So, as we reject any proposals for renewables that might provide many, many jobs for these same people, we are also rejecting their right to their health benefits and their pensions.
The list goes on, but it is really so sad that the Flint issue should have been all in one bill. It was bifurcated for reasons I can't explain, and that is why, if I can't explain it, I am not voting for it. That is why I call upon my colleagues.
Recognizing the many good things in the bill but not meeting the needs of the American people, foster kids had bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but it was rejected--rejected.
Now, there is funding for the opioids in this legislation, and I am pleased about that. I have been told that I should be happy about that because that was one of our requests. I think it was a bipartisan request of everyone, House and Senate, to have funding for opioids.
That is what I thought. That is what I thought, and I am glad it is in the bill.
So, in any event, for the opportunity lost, for the ignoring of some very legitimate proposals to help the American people, for the rejection of Republican suggestions in terms of the miners, for these and other reasons, I will be voting against this, regretfully. We have tried to work in a bipartisan way in the past, but this year, instead of four-poster, it is two; and that has had an impact on the content of what this is, and that content has an impact on the lives of the American people.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that that is why I am not voting for the bill. Members will have to make their own decisions. But we cannot go down the path of missed opportunities and just roll over and not speak out and say this isn't the best that we can do for the American people. We owe them much better than this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source