Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. My objections are numerous. Again, there are a lot of reasons why I am objecting to this bill in this form today.

One of the things that I think is important to note, because I have heard throughout the debate in all these bills how passing these bills will reopen the Federal Government: Mr. Speaker, I heard that last week on the floor of this House, on the same appropriations bills.

I want to mention that again. Last week, on this floor, Members came up and said, if those bills pass the House, the Federal Government would reopen.

Mr. Speaker, those bills passed the House. They didn't reopen the Federal Government, just like these bills, which are identical to the bills that were passed last week--identical--unfortunately, also will not reopen the government.

Now, I have other objections as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill is, frankly, absurd because it takes a Senate product, ignoring all--all-- of the House Members' priorities. It is jamming it through this body without a single opportunity to amend or improve or change this bill in any way.

Not one House Member has had one priority put in this bill because there are no amendments allowed in this process.

Again, this ploy will not work. The Senate has no plans of taking up this legislation. And, again, this is deja vu all over again.

I heard folks last week talk about, if the House passed those bills last week, like we are hearing now, the government would reopen. Mr. Speaker, those statements were not true last week, and they are not true this week, unfortunately.

Now, not only did the bills last week not reopen the government. In fact, everyone on this House floor knows that this bill passing, unfortunately, will not reopen the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, all the members of the press up there know that passing this bill, unfortunately, will not reopen the government.

Heck, anybody who has been paying any attention knows that this is a sham; that, just like last week, those bills passing didn't reopen the government, and unfortunately, passing this bill, or these appropriations bills, in this manner will not reopen the government either.

So by introducing these Senate bills without any changes to reflect the priorities of this body and without any opportunity for amendments, we are engaging in a sad, sad charade.

I want to take some time, opportunity to discuss the real-world consequences of this stunt. Again, our majority is asking us, all of us here in this Chamber, to reject all of the hard work and all of the priorities of every House Member, Republican or Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, in our House bill, I am proud that we decided to make a historic investment, for example, in ports: port infrastructure, the ports, seaports, including larger seaports that are critical to our country's commerce. In the House bill, we provided $250 million for this program.

Well, the Senate didn't make this investment. They didn't think that that was as high of a priority. They missed that opportunity to build infrastructure that we need to create jobs and increase our ability to export American goods made by Americans.

We also placed a higher priority on roads and on bridges than the Senate did and with an emphasis on funds that go directly and immediately to the States and the territories through the highway formula program. The Senate didn't have that priority.

The Senate provides far less for this purpose, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you what that number is, far less: $1.4 billion less for that direct spending in infrastructure, bridges, and roads that goes straight to the States.

The Senate, instead, put a high priority on administrative accounts and programs with, frankly, higher overhead. This bill means less funding for your State Department of Transportations and fewer jobs rebuilding the highways and the bridges around our country.

Mr. Speaker, we also included a provision that provided regulatory relief to, for example, sugar and beet haulers in Idaho and in Oregon. This narrow provision--and this is a bipartisan provision--simply made truck length requirements uniform between those two States--common sense.

Again, this provision has support on both sides of the aisle, and it will help truckers and farmers in those States. But, you see, the Democratic proposal before you does not include even that commonsense provision, commonsense bipartisan provision.

Mr. Speaker, we also included a provision in the House bill that allows for small increases in the allowable weight for trucks that run on electric batteries, an innovation to help the environment. This is another commonsense, bipartisan provision that this bill does not have, and it was not included in the Senate mark.

This bill eliminates House and Senate report language--I want to repeat, both House and Senate report language.

Now, what does that mean? That every single item we put in the report for Members, at the request of Members from both parties, is gone, is irrelevant in this bill.

You see, the direction that we provide in our reports every year helps hold the bureaucracy accountable and ensure that our constituents have a voice in their government. Mr. Speaker, that language is gone.

For example, we put directives in our report that require that the FAA take specific action, specific action to address airport noise, airport noise in our communities. Now, this is specifically important-- I should say especially important--to our Democratic colleagues in the subcommittee and the committee on this floor, and we accommodated all of their requests on this issue with new stringent requirements on the FAA, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes those requirements null and void.

So let me now turn to housing programs. When we looked at the HUD budget, we made sure, in the House, in the House bill, the House mark-- and, by the way, this is done in a bipartisan way. We made sure that we scrubbed the administrative and overhead accounts and, instead, put funds towards programs that serve our neediest, our neediest citizens. This bill, unfortunately, falls far short on our charge to do the best that we can with the revenue, the taxpayer money.

And, again, to make sure that the bureaucracy is held accountable, this bill falls short. Let me give you a few examples.

In our bill last year, we included $50 million in new funding for a program that we call mobility vouchers. These vouchers are targeted at families with children, to enable them to move to neighborhoods with greater economic opportunity, and this initiative has strong bipartisan support from the authorizers and strong support from the advocates for the poor. The Senate bill does not include any funds, zero funds, for this program.

The House also included significantly more funding for new vouchers for people with disabilities. This program helps families across the country that struggle to take care of severely disabled relatives, and it also serves, by the way, so many veterans with disabilities. We provided $390 million for this program.

For tens of thousands of new vouchers, this bill before us, frankly, falls short there as well, by $236 million, and adds no new vouchers.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that every year, when I was chairman, I also worked to ensure that there was adequate funding for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA. This program has a record of saving lives, reducing disease transmissions, and protecting communities. I am so proud of that. We provided $393 million in our bill to ensure that there was no reduction, no cut to housing services for this vulnerable population.

The Senate, unfortunately, again, falls severely short, $375 million. This will result in 1,700 people losing their housing, which will put communities at risk.

This, by the way, is a severe hit, particularly for cities likes Miami, New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, and many others. This is an area the Senate was counting on the House to fix, to fix their low funding levels. But, you see, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the opportunity because of this stunt that we are witnessing here today.

Finally, we included $150 million for Choice Neighborhoods, which is a program that provides much-needed neighborhood rehabilitation-- revitalization grants, I should say. This has such strong bipartisan support in the House. The Senate did not prioritize it as much as we did, and they only provided $100 million.

So I look forward to advancing a bill that protects this, all of these issues, and other important priorities for our House Members. I look forward to working to do that.

But before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank somebody who has become a personal friend, Chairman Price. I will tell you, it has been an honor, Mr. Speaker, to work beside him for the past 4 years developing bills that truly meet the needs of our people, of our country, of our communities. These past 2 years, I think, have been particularly energizing as we worked on T-HUD bills that made substantial new investments in our Nation's infrastructure.

Chairman Price and I have always been able to work together to find common ground, to find solutions, and that is the spirit of cooperation and good will that will get us, I am sure, to a breakthrough to end this impasse and to reopen the government once again. So, again, I do not have anybody in this Chamber that I am more pleased to work with than the chairman of this subcommittee.

Now, today, on this bill, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, mark my words, the passage of these bills in this form will not open the Federal Government. Everyone in here knows that; just like last year, last week, we knew that they would not open the government, and we heard on this floor that they would.

This bill, unfortunately, will not reopen the government. It falls short on our priorities. It does not include any of the House priorities; so, therefore, I respectfully would urge a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Granger), a titanium Texan, the ranking member of the full committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire how much time I have left.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, having no more speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, in its current form.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit restores a House priority that had overwhelming support when we put together the FY 2019 T-HUD bill during the last Congress.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, our House bill last year placed a high priority on increasing housing opportunities for people living with disabilities. We heard from members of humanitarian groups, nonprofits, and religious organizations, frankly, just from our communities, on the importance of ensuring that the disabled have humane housing options.

Our bill, therefore, last year included $390 million for this program, to provide over 20,000 additional housing vouchers for people with disabilities. These vouchers help some of the neediest among us live, frankly, with dignity.

The program provides a critical lifeline to families who struggle to care for the severely disabled. And it prevents, frankly, worst-case scenarios where severely disabled individuals would otherwise face homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a reasonable, partial restoration of funding for this program. This modest motion partially restores the disability voucher cuts that my colleagues are offering today, and, instead, provides an additional $71 million for this valuable program.

The motion would provide 7,200 vouchers, and would correct a significant blemish in the Senate-originated bill that is before us today.

Every single dollar of this funding goes directly to serve those in need. This is an account without bureaucratic overhead. Every single dollar goes to serve those who need it. It is a program with, again, a strong record of accountability and of performance.

Not one dollar of this program goes to the Federal bureaucracy. These funds directly serve the disabled and their families, often, Mr. Speaker, through faith-based and community- based organizations. This program also serves a large number of veterans, some of whom, Mr. Speaker, became disabled in service to our country.

This motion is offset by a reduction to HUD's Information Technology Fund, leaving the account at a very reasonable level of $209 million. Again, this is a manageable level for HUD IT, and it is a modest adjustment to bring dignity, relief, and help to individuals and families with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source