Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to thank the chairman, our members, colleagues, and the leadership for being so understanding.
Tomorrow, I will be heading back to south Florida to be there in case this horrible storm does head our way. Again, everyone has been incredibly supportive and shown great solidarity. I am exceedingly grateful for that.
I rise today to express the strongest possible support for this bill.
I applaud the leadership of Chairman Frelinghuysen for making it possible to consider it on the floor today.
I would like to highlight some of the vital issues in this bill.
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies division provides $56.5 billion in discretionary budget authority. That is $1.1 billion below the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, but it is $8.6 billion above the budget request.
We have targeted transportation and housing funding to essential investments in safety, infrastructure, and assistance for our most vulnerable citizens: the elderly; the disabled; and, yes, America's heroes, our veterans.
We also had to prioritize by reducing or eliminating nonessential programs and scaling back administrative accounts.
For the Department of Transportation, the bill includes $17.8 billion in discretionary appropriations and $76.7 billion in total resources.
That includes support for the FAST Act obligation limitations. The Federal Aviation Administration is funded at $16.6 billion, Mr. Chairman. We provide this increase to keep advancing NextGen programs with over $1 billion and to continue to operate the safest, most complex, most advanced air traffic control system in the world.
The bill reflects FAST Act priorities for highways, rail, and transit. It includes $45 billion in road and bridge funding from the highway trust fund, which is almost $1 billion above fiscal year 2017 levels. This funding will provide much-needed improvements to America's highways and bridges.
The bill provides $2.2 billion to the Federal Railroad Administration to continue our commitment to rail safety and to make critical infrastructure investments. This includes FAST Act rail infrastructure investments to address the state of good repair backlog, which we really need to address.
As a reflection of tough choices, Mr. Chairman, our funding level for transit Capital Investment Grants is $600 million below the 2017 level. But we have, and this is important, included funding and direction to
keep upcoming projects in the pipeline.
For housing programs, we work to ensure that we continue assistance to our most vulnerable population. The bill includes $38.3 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Development. The bill also includes significant increases to keep pace with inflation, almost $1 billion above last year, for direct rental assistance to maintain, again, housing for those who are currently served.
Homeless assistance remains a top priority in this bill. We included funding at the enacted level and well above the budget request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the bill restores a number of programs that Members, frankly, from both sides of the aisle made sure that we were aware of.
The bill restores a number of community development programs that were proposed for elimination in the budget request, including CDBG and HOME. Again, we listened to Members from both sides of the aisle, and we made sure that that was a priority in this bill. These programs, again, support decisionmaking at the local level where it should be.
Before I close, I want to thank the hardworking and talented staff who helped put this together, the subcommittee staff. I was going to read their names, and again, I know I am running out of time, but I think this is the best staff anywhere in Congress. I also want to thank my personal staff, my chief of staff, Miguel Mendoza, who is the deputy chief of staff as well, and from the minority staff, Joe Carlile and Angela, and so many others who have worked hand-in-hand with my committee staff. And I would be remiss if I did not, in particular, thank Mr. Price, the ranking member. He has been great to work with, work cooperatively. I ask for your favorable support of this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman for bringing up this amendment. He has worked awfully hard, and I am a huge admirer of his.
Here is the problem: in the committee, we have actually gone line by line to identify cuts in salaries and expenses at HUD and DOT, and as a result, most administrative accounts are at or below the 2017 levels.
By the way, that is one of the ways that we achieved $1.1 billion in savings, again, below the 2017 budget.
When you do it across the board, it could affect safety programs, it could actually have unintended consequences. So while I am grateful for the chairman's hard work, I would urge a ``no'' vote at this time, and I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to make sure that his concerns are addressed in this bill and in future bills. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This Essential Air Service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. The program is vital to small businesses and farming communities and rural communities and rural entrepreneurs.
So the amendment would cut off air service to many rural communities and would put economies of many of our small towns potentially at risk.
I thank the gentleman for his passion, but I would urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this up. This is something that I have got to give a lot of credit to the ranking member as well. This is a program that we are very familiar with. I look forward to working with the Member from Michigan on a program that I think a lot of us support, clearly I support, and the ranking member supports. I want to thank him for bringing it up.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this up. This is something he has done a lot of work on and he knows this issue very, very well. I think this is a well-done amendment. I welcome the amendment, and I wholeheartedly support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, let's first get one thing straight: This is a cut in infrastructure investment, authorized by the FAST Act, which was passed by this body by a vote of 359-65. It is an authorized program in the FAST Act. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an earmark.
This amendment proposes a cut of $474 million from the Federal Railroad Administration State of Good Repair program. This program was created to address the state of good repair backlog in our intercity rail transportation system. That backlog, by itself, is estimated to be at a whopping $38 billion.
This program replaces or, frankly, rehabilitates any publicly owned or Amtrak-owned infrastructure and will ensure intercity rail service is safe, reliable, and ready to support economic and population growth.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an earmark. It is an authorized program. Now, let me address the funding shift. Again, I respect the gentleman, but I respectfully oppose what the gentleman is proposing.
We have already allocated significant resources to the new search program, which I support, consistent, again, with the President's request. We have chosen to allocate funding for other projects, consistent with the wills of Congress of this House with the FAST Act that benefit both commuter and passenger rail and make significant returns on investment for our country, particularly, by the way, for our economy.
So we are funding transit infrastructure to get our economy moving, literally. And, as a nation, we have to address our critical infrastructure assets, which is why this was authorized by Congress in the FAST Act--I repeat.
This amendment would undermine that effort, so I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment would shut down, as we have heard, all 15 of Amtrak's long-distance routes and all 28 State- supported routes.
Now, let me tell you, the gentleman from Alabama is absolutely very consistent, he is sincere about trying to reduce the Federal deficit, and I commend him for that.
Now, here is the problem. This amendment results not in savings but in increased costs of $423 million. I want to repeat that. This amendment would have the effect of increasing costs by $423 million. It would stop all revenues associated with the national network immediately, but costs would continue to accrue for years, and in addition, some costs that were paid for from the national network account would now simply be shifted to the Northeast corridor account.
So, for instance, assets that are shared by both long distance and Northeast corridor, like stations or tracks, are funded under each account proportionally. These costs that were formerly paid by the national network would still need to be paid. So, again, this amendment actually costs more money.
I know that, obviously, is not the intent, because I know the gentleman from Alabama, and I can say that, is absolutely sincere.
This is something that we have to realize. This bill is not just arbitrary decisions. We held hearings, and we carefully scrubbed each account to make sure that the reductions that we made were responsible and that they were actually going to result in reductions.
So, again, this is not the right way to do it. This would actually increase costs. It is not prudent to eliminate an entire transportation option.
By the way, furthermore in this case, as I mentioned before, it would actually cost even more so to do so. So I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, let me first reassure the gentlewoman that I support the mission of Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. As a matter of fact, this bill that we are on provides $140 million, the same amount that was provided in 2017. We are not rolling that back at all.
The reduction from FY16, however, reflects the elimination of the National Foreclosure and Mitigation Counseling program. Now, this program was to be a 1-year program when it began in 2007 in response to, obviously, the foreclosure crisis at the time. Again, this 1-year program then continued on for 9 years.
Now, recognizing that the economy improved, obviously, significantly,
and foreclosure numbers continued to decline, Congress discontinued the NFMC program, again, in fiscal year 2017. In fact, the prior administration proposed elimination of the NFMC in its budget request for the very same reason.
So in 2016--let's put this in perspective. Foreclosure filings were at a 10-year low and declined to 14 percent below the 2015 level. The foreclosure rate has stayed within a historically normal range for 3 years. So, further, the NRC has integrated foreclosure mitigation counseling into its other counseling programs, eliminating the need for a separate program. So, again, you know, we scrubbed these accounts. For those reasons, I respectfully would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, we have scrubbed this bill for savings in overhead and administration, and I want to thank the gentleman for always bringing up these important issues. We have funded vouchers at a level that meets HUD's commitment to those currently receiving assistance, many of whom are elderly and disabled. I know obviously that is not what the gentleman is going after, or both. But again, we scrubbed this bill, and we think that the funding is where it needs to be at this stage. I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut funding as was explained to what I believe is a vital HUD program that houses 1.2 million low- and very low-income households across the country. Now, a majority of those households include folks with either disabilities or, frankly, folks who are elderly. The average household income is less than $12,000.
This funding level would not allow HUD to renew all expiring housing contracts with private owners. It also would cause some other issues of instability in that program, that platform, and it could cause housing providers to leave the program.
The gentleman has, I think, some very valid points about some of his concerns with all of these government programs. I just don't think this is the right way to do it. Mr. Chair, again, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, we have taken a responsible and thorough approach to HUD's funding. We have actually reduced HUD's budget by $487 million below last year. We have done so while keeping as a priority, for example, housing assistance to the most needy among us: the elderly, the disabled, our veterans. This amendment would potentially hurt some of these vulnerable citizens. Again, the across-the-board approach goes against, frankly, what I think we have to be doing in government, which is do the tough work and go line by line and identify lower priority or functioning programs for reductions so that we can then target resources to where they are actually most needed.
Let me just give you a few examples, Mr. Chairman, of where we have targeted resources: CDBG, veterans' voucher renewals, vouchers for the disabled. I cannot agree to an amendment that would, again, cut those programs across the board.
Also, another issue, which I know is not the Honorable Member's intent, but I understand CBO has scored this amendment at zero savings.
If we had a lot of time, we could talk about why. So, again, it is actually not even achieving what the gentleman is trying to achieve.
I do thank him for his passion in looking out for the taxpayers. I think that is a very needed thing here in Congress. But I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source