Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, first, I would like to assure my colleague that I am not opposed to the project she is trying to fund. I am aware of the project and its importance to Puerto Rico. In a different context, I could support it.

In fact, as the previous chairman of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide funding for ecosystem restoration projects well above the annual budget request.

What I am opposed to is funding the ecosystem restoration projects in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill. A disaster supplemental is not simply a chance to clear the Army Corps of Engineers' construction backlog. That is what the annual appropriations process is for.

A disaster supplemental is intended to protect storm-ravaged areas against future storms and to reduce Federal liabilities from future storms. That is why the underlying bill is consistent with previous disaster bills and limits funding to projects that provide real benefits for that type, namely, flood and storm damage reduction projects.

Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the particular project of interest would not even be eligible for funding under this amendment.

The underlying bill restricts construction funding to areas impacted by various storms, none of which impacted Puerto Rico. We should not raise hopes knowing the project isn't even eligible.

While I am happy to offer to work with my colleague and try to support the project through the regular appropriations process, which I am sure the new chairwoman, Chairwoman Kaptur, is willing to do also, I must oppose funding in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill for ecosystem restoration projects.

Madam Chair, therefore, I oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would just say, again, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for this amendment or not. It doesn't really do anything because the project is not eligible. What we are doing by adopting this amendment is raising false hopes, knowing that the project isn't even eligible.

I encourage the gentlewoman to withdraw the amendment and work with us to see if we can fund this through the regular appropriations process.

Madam Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, first of all, there are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities.

There are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities.

But let me get this straight, see if I have got it straight. We don't want to enhance border security to stop people from coming across the border illegally. We have got immigration courts being overrun. And we don't want to have the necessary facilities to keep those people because they can't get into the immigration courts right away.

What exactly do you want us to do?

Just because Congress says, Hey, I am only giving you funding for 40,000 people. What if 100,000 people come across the border illegally? What do you expect us to do?

You have no answers, except: No, no, don't detain them.

Just let them go?

I know how we can reduce the cost of prisons in this country. Let's only appropriate enough money to house 100,000 prisoners. Regardless of the crimes they have committed or anything else, I am only going to fund 100,000. Above that, just let them go.

I don't get it. I don't know where the heck we are coming from on this. All this does is put another poison pill in this bill that will make it much more difficult to pass and will ensure that the Senate will never take it up, which I doubt they will anyway.

To me, I just don't understand what the heck is going on here. We all know what the answer to this shutdown is. Every one of us, in our heart, knows what the answer is. It is a compromise. And a compromise means both sides give some and get some. That is the nature of a compromise.

That means there are going to be parts in it that I don't like, but I am going to end up voting for it. That means there are going to be parts in it you don't like, but you need to end up voting for it.

Anyway, we need to get back to opening this government and quit putting these poison pills and this nonsense in this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would just say that the argument I just heard is kind of ridiculous. If what we are going to do is list everything this bill, these funds, can't be spent on, I don't think we should be able to give any of this money to NASA to put a man on the moon.

We could list everything that the Federal Government does except these things and say we have to specify it in the bill.

No. This is a poison pill.

Again, I didn't hear an answer. What do you expect to do when these people come across the border illegally? What if they are waiting for hearings and stuff and the courts are just being flooded?

There are no answers. You have no answers. This is a bad amendment. Just trying to make a statement.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source