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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I have always found this debate interesting, but we know what this is all about. This is all about the negotiations on border security.

What I found interesting is to listen to everybody talk about the President not being willing to negotiate, not being willing to compromise. Yet, he has offered many of the things that the Democrats say that they want in any border security bill.

A negotiation ends when both parties can say they got something that they want. Yet, the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate continue to say ``no'' to anything the President wants. He wants a border wall for a part of border security, and they continue to say ``no.'' That is no kind of negotiation, and we know that is what has led us here today.

Every one of us wants government reopened, but we know the games that are being played here. I will tell you, the problem with what is on the floor today is that we are bringing up the Senate bills that completely ignore the priorities of House Republicans and House Democrats in the appropriations process.

Most of these bills have been conferenced. Why bring up just the Senate bill and not the conference report that was done that recognizes both Senate and House priorities?

Let me give you one example. The House T-HUD bill carried a bipartisan provision that raises the length limit for specific vehicles used to transport sugar beets, and only on specific routes used to ship sugar beets between Oregon and Idaho for processing. It is a provision that is supported by the Oregon Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the State of Idaho. It is very limited--only sugar beets on non-interstate highways--and everybody agrees with it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from two Senators, one from Idaho and one from Oregon, who support this provision, and I will include it in the Record. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 11, 2018. Hon. Richard Shelby, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Hon. Susan Collins, Chairwoman, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Hon. Jack Reed, Ranking Member, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Leahy, Subcommittee Chairwoman Collins, and Ranking Subcommittee Chairman Reed: We are writing to support a provision in H.R 6072, reported by the House Appropriations Committee, which would increase the allowable length of uniquely configured trucks hauling sugar beets by 14'; 8", but only on less than 55 miles of specifically identified, on non-Interstate roads in rural Malheur County, Oregon.

These trucks use limited non-Interstate routes as they drive from Oregon sugar beet receiving stations to Idaho beet processing facilities. In Idaho, trucks hauling sugar beets have been safely using this configuration since 2003. Extending this to Oregon sugar beet growers across the border means 1,830 fewer truck trips on our roads.

This provision has bi-partisan support. The four undersigned, representing Oregon and Idaho, introduced this provision as an amendment when the THUD bill was considered by the Senate, although it was not voted upon.

The proposed language has been extensively reviewed by technical experts at the Federal Highways Administration as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Division as well, both of which assisted with its drafting.

We encourage you to help Oregon sugar beet farmers and their families by including the narrow provision for trucks hauling Oregon sugar beets on defined Malheur County routes in the final legislation. Sincerely, Ron Wyden, United States Senator; James E. Risch, United States Senator; Mike Crapo, United States Senator; Jeffrey A. Merkley, United States Senator.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this provision is noncontroversial. It is in the House bill. Guess what? It is not in the Senate bill. That means, if you adopt the Senate bill, you have dropped out this provision and you have dropped out many other provisions that are a priority for both House Republicans and House Democrats.

Why would we turn over everything to the Senate and their priorities?

You all know how this works. When we write a bill, we emphasize House priorities and we downplay Senate priorities. They do the same thing on their side, emphasizing Senate priorities and downplaying House priorities. Then we go to conference, and we work it out and find a compromise. But we are not doing that with this bill.

I will tell you, if you bring up the conferenced bills, the bills that have been conferenced last year between the House and the Senate, you will have my support. I will vote for them, but not for a bill that just emphasizes the Senate priorities and ignores the work of the House and the House Appropriations Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source