Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2578, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 287 provides for a modified open rule for separate consideration of H.R. 2578 and H.R. 2577. Under this rule, any Member may offer any amendments to the bills in question that comply with the rules of the House. It also provides for 10 minutes of debate on each amendment considered. This approach has been what we call a standard rule for appropriations bills and was established and has been followed for this last year and the year before, and I believe it has been effective and, really, a good way for this body to be able to effectively operate, allowing each and every Member of this body the chance to offer their amendments.
This rule also accomplishes two important goals:
First, it reflects the majority's commitment to an open and transparent appropriations process. This rule will also allow for all Members to bring to this body their ideas that they have that they bring from back home, perhaps ideas from their own individual constituents about how we can make this appropriations process even better. I think it is important that Members of Congress be given an opportunity to do this in the appropriations process, and that is exactly what we are trying to do today for a robust opportunity for discussion. If an amendment complies with the rules of the House, it certainly will be given an up-or-down vote, if that Member chooses to do so.
Secondly, this rule provides for reasonable time constraints. It is my belief that if Members' ideas are heard and the process by which we consider appropriations bills is done on a timely basis, then the House will benefit, and so will the American people, so that we work effectively and efficiently at the same time. This rule, I believe, strikes a good balance, allowing all Members an opportunity to offer necessary amendments but also allowing the House to get its work done.
I estimate that we will spend about 18 hours in the process to get these bills done. Throughout this open process, the House will be able to make two great bills, I think, even better.
Mr. Speaker, the open process by which these two bills will be considered, if the rule is adopted, is not only a good thing, but I think it says something about the work that the Rules Committee is doing. I am proud to support these two underlying bills because they make tough decisions, and they prioritize the responsibilities of the Federal Government. We simply do not have enough money to spread around to not have to make tough decisions. These are tough decisions that are made.
Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, both of these bills were equally addressed on a bipartisan basis, and both the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee said they worked well together.
Obviously, not everybody was happy with how much money they had to spend, but both of the ranking members--the Democrats who were present--addressed our committee and said that they were treated fairly, that they were treated respectfully, and that it was an open and transparent process to achieve good things for the bills.
That is the hope that I have as we come to the floor today in that you will see groups of Members who will come to the floor with an open opportunity as a result of what we did in the Rules Committee, knowing that the process that took place back in the Appropriations Committee was well done.
Alarmingly, however, yesterday, we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto both of these bills because, as I quote him, they ``drastically underfund critical investments.''
Let me see if I can break this down for you. It is our job to determine what those appropriations levels would be. We heard from the President of the United States when he presented his budget, and year after year after year, the President of the United States has failed to receive more than only several votes on his budget.
I believe that what we have done by working carefully and meticulously through the budget process and through the appropriations process gives us a better angle on the needs and the priorities of these agencies from a congressional and, I believe, a ``back home'' experience.
The people of this country elected their Representatives, and their Representatives have come to Washington and have had a fair and open process, notwithstanding that we are not spending as much as people want us to spend.
I believe that the President is saying that he will veto these bills because he does not believe that we simply continue to spend more and more and more. This President has an insatiable appetite that we saw and have seen year after year after year.
Based upon his words, I would say back to him: Mr. President, please look at the merits of the work that the House of Representatives is doing on a bipartisan basis. We are trying to live within the parameters of a budget that has been established and that was voted on by Members of this body, that has the vast majority of the Members of this body to say, when compared to the President's budget, this is the budget that I believe best represents not only what we can accomplish but what will work in the best interests of the American people, our constituents. Mr. President, they are the same ones that you have across this great Nation. Mr. President, we are asking you to take a second look at how you will listen to us and to watch the process that is going on here. I think it will develop itself into a better way for us to do business, and I would encourage the White House to look at that.
Mr. Speaker, a great nation simply cannot spend money that it does not have and be a great nation for very long. This last month, we crossed over the terrible, terrible threshold of going from $17 trillion to $18 trillion in debt, and we continue to add up this debt and live off that debt and add to the debt with the spending that we do. We believe that what we have got to do is become more responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and the future of this great Nation.
The law of the land and the law that the President has signed requires Congress to act within the requirements of the Budget Control Act. These were agreements that were made with the President. That is what we are sticking to, and that is what these bills do; yet the President, once again, is telling us: Please set aside the agreement that was made. I don't now like the thing that I agreed to, that I signed into law.
In some instances, they were some of the President's own ideas.
We need to understand that the American people want and expect us to see problems and to solve them and to stick to it. That is what this budget process is about, and that is exactly what this appropriations process is about.
Look, I disagree with the President. I believe that what we need to do is to live within the agreement of the Budget Control Act. My party, the Republicans, have worked to lower discretionary spending from nearly $1.5 trillion in 2009, where we were, to today in 2015, $1.014 trillion.
That is the difference between 2009 and 2015, years in which excessive and out-of-control spending could have taken place but for the discipline of the Republican Party and the discipline of our Members and, might I say, of the American people, who have heard our call for having a plan, a plan which carefully moves America into the future, that lessens the amount of debt the American people have to take on, and that makes better opportunities for our children and grandchildren not to have to pay back our excessive spending just because we are a group of people who thinks it is smarter than the people back home. We aren't.
They get also, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have a defined goal. We have to do exactly what they do back home, and that is to be responsible about a family budget, about a State budget, about a Federal Government budget.
That means disciplined accountability and a plan that you are willing to stick to. That is exactly what we have done. We have worked hard to lower discretionary spending over these years, and the effort has saved more than $2 trillion over this period of time and, I believe, over what would have been spent.
I think this is a big win for the American people, and I think it is a big win for people who want, need, and expect Members of Congress to come to Washington and stick not only to a plan, but to a disciplined approach in trying to balance together the needs of this great Nation and its people and the need for us to look over the horizon at what our future would be.
I think that we have lowered spending and that we have had a chance to shrink the size of government. Certainly, what we are trying to do is to work at lowering the deficit or the amount of money that would have been added to that deficit. These are the discussions that people back home have with their Members of Congress: What lies ahead? And how are you going to be able to make tough decisions?
I hope that the President of the United States is listening to this because we are, on a bipartisan basis,
having these same discussions in the House of Representatives and in the committees on which our Members serve. Now is the time not to go back to liberal, reckless spending opportunities. They will always abound.
It is always easier to spend somebody else's money. I just don't think it is right, so the Republican Party is here on the floor today with two more appropriations bills, and it is going to sell to the American people the confidence that we have that we can make this government work more effectively and more efficiently--yes, with fewer dollars but with greater opportunities for efficiency.
I believe that both of these bills strike what is a balance, a balance between funding critical projects while making smart financial decisions. These two can be accomplished, and that is why we are trying to work together to prioritize it.
H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, focuses on the true governmental interest: fighting crime; making decisions about how we keep terrorists at bay; keeping the American people safe; and supporting the U.S. economy at the same time by making critical investments in science, space, exports, and manufacturing. Certainly, in tough economic times, tough decisions are required, and that is exactly where we are.
Yesterday, we had a chance to hear from two Members of Congress--Republicans--one of them, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson), the subcommittee chairman. He talked about the bill reflecting smart but fair decisions. The decisions that he spoke about were that the legislation provided $51.4 billion in total discretionary, which was $661 million below the President's request.
H.R. 2578 also prioritizes vital programs that are, essentially, built around law enforcement--Federal law enforcement--and their ability to aim at the problems that our citizens see and that, certainly, our law enforcement sees and to put a priority on national security and public safety and initiatives that also aim for job creation and economic growth. These are part of the priorities that have to be taken up, and, in fact, they were.
The second bill, H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, I believe, similarly had many of the same characteristics.
First of all, they are going to stick to exactly what we talked about in the budget, and they are going to have to strike a balance--a tough balance--but one which is based on the priorities of essential programs and on making responsible reductions to low-priority activities.
This bill provides $55.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $9.7 billion below what the President wanted. Once again, the President does not want to stick to the budget agreement--an agreement which he signed into law--but that is what this body is going to do.
We are going to live within the law, and living within the law is what the American people expect as part of the plan. This bill allows for important investments in national transportation infrastructure, including investments in our national highways, railways, and airports. It also provides help to people who are in dire need of affordable housing options.
Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago, when I became a scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts of America, that needs always outpace resources. Needs are always out there, and they are something that you just simply want to continue to be a part of, but money is not always the answer.
Sometimes, a prioritization of the needs that you have to meet will then define you to a better process, one which people can then better understand. That is what we are doing here today.
Like most Members, who will have an opportunity as a result of the work that we did last night in the Rules Committee, I have ideas that, I think, can help improve H.R. 2577. One of those ideas, I have brought to the floor many, many times in a bill; and during the debate on funding, I think I will have good ideas that will help make our country stronger--in this case, make transportation stronger.
It became clear to me a number of years ago that government subsidized rail service on Amtrak does not make economic sense. What we have looked at is that Amtrak takes money. Years and years and years ago, they agreed that they would quit taking government subsidies and would run the railroad as an east and west operation.
Instead, what did they do? They became a cross-country hauler. Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides--those of more than 400 miles in length--operate at a loss every single month. There are 11 routes that cost double the amount of revenue that they create. That is why I have offered two important opportunities, which were amendments, to eliminate this.
The first would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's long-distance routes, which have a total direct cost of more than twice the revenue. That means, if the cost is twice the revenue, then it would be eliminated.
The second would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's worst performing line, the Sunset Limited. The Sunset Limited, which is an east-west and west-east operation is subsidized for every single ticket and for every single train by over $400 in government subsidies, a loss totalling $41.9 million last year alone.
Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the ideas. Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing about lots of them over the next 18-some hours of debate that will take place. This is a good thing about this rule. Members just like myself will have a chance to come and put their ideas as opportunities on the floor for other Members to consider. I think that is why we are here today, to work together on a process that will make our country even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I know that I see one of our colleagues from the Rules Committee who wants to come speak, but I want to take just a second and respond in kind for my party, and that is that my party does recognize that there is much that does get accomplished because of the efforts of this government and the efforts of this Congress that fund good ideas and do things.
A number of years ago, we became faced with, however, a circumstance where what lies in our immediate future is too much spending, which means that this country has to borrow money. It is money that needs to be paid back.
But in the process of taking money, setting priorities, and spending money, there also is something called interest on the debt. And that is, if money were free and you could just borrow money but not pay interest for it, I am sure we would not mind how much we borrowed.
But the bottom line is that is not the reality. The reality is that we have to pay for money that we borrow. And that debt which we have to pay money back for means that every single year the amount of money that we pay and that comes out of the pot of money gets larger and larger and larger. And paying back debt competes against money that we can spend on behalf of people.
And so, at some point, if you just buy off on that we have got to spend more and more and more, that means that we have to take more as debt and pay more of interest. And that competes in a marketplace, in a budget, against projects that we would like to do and that do actually help people and that do focus on the most needy and the most vulnerable in our society.
But we are spending, Mr. Speaker, an incredible amount of money. And we are trying to learn over time how to become more efficient, how to make our cities even better, how to create jobs, and how to educate people and to bring them forth in a mature way. That is what every great nation really will be ultimately charged with: how can you make your country better not just today, but for the future.
And so Republicans do stand for not spending more than what we make so that we have more that we can make in a balanced budget today and spend in a way that creates a better future for our children and grandchildren.
The bottom line is, over the last 6 years, we have gone from a debt of $9 trillion to $18 trillion. Some could say that was while we slept, but that is not true. It happened while we were trying to offer better opportunities and resolve.
So, for the last 5 years, Republicans have said we are going to quit this runaway spending, we are going to make tough decisions, and we are going to protect this great Nation at the same time. But we are asking for the American people to also recognize what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. And just as I speak to you today, I speak to people back home, as other Members of Congress do to their constituents, and say we are trying to balance what we do over time with the efficiencies that keep this great Nation great.
I will be honest with you. We live in the greatest Nation in the world. And thank God we are Americans. We trust in God, but we also trust in discipline to make this great Nation even better. And that is what appropriations bills are about: priority, making this great Nation still great tomorrow with discipline. And discipline has a lot to do with our ability to be a great Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues who serve on the Rules Committee, the gentleman Mr. McGovern and the gentleman Mr. Hastings.
They are both not only extremely committed men to their constituency, but also to bettering this House of Representatives. Their voice and their words and their opportunities of which they stand up for, I have great respect for, and want to thank them for the character in which they have come after today's not only debate, but yesterday's debate that took a number of hours as we heard from four Members of this body about their ideas about how we should pursue these two appropriations bills today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my comments to a perspective, and that is satisfaction that I have for the way in which this process is working today. I understand, as acknowledged in the very beginning, we have an issue with how much money we are going to spend.
I recognize we are back at 2008 levels in 2015 in most of these bills. I do acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that we are asking--requiring--on government a chance to run their agencies--spend money back at 2008 spending levels.
I think that the process that we are going through will also be an advantage ultimately, sure, in the short-term, but ultimately, where we will look at this as a prioritization basis, where we will empower the government, if they work with us and if we work with them, to understand how we can keep this country great--even spending less money--how we can continue to prioritize the decisionmaking to where we can pick and choose what needs to be done.
Look, it doesn't make me happy. It makes no Member of this body happy. Certainly, the Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, would recognize--you have needs in your district. I do, from Dallas, Texas, have needs in my immediate district and districts that are around.
The overwhelming need is all of us--and that is not to spend more than we can say and justify for our future because the dollars that we spend are borrowed. The dollars that we borrow and spend show up on our bottom-line debt, and it impacts everybody.
The bottom line is we have to pay back interest on that money, just like any family that takes out money on a home loan or a credit card or something else. They have to be able to understand that takes away because they are paying for that, their ability to spend money in a different way.
Our Republican majority is well aware of the demand that is placed on us, that we cannot go and do all the things that we would wish to do, but we have accepted and taken a pledge that we have given to the American people that they do get an understanding--that is we are not going to keep in the circumstance of spending money based upon taking out a loan because it is not good for our children, our grandchildren. It is not good for our future.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have had a chance to debate these two bills in this one rule. I think, once again, as I stated earlier, it is a commitment to transparency and openness that this body has and every Member retains here on the floor. You saw part of it today.
Through this open modified rule, each Member will have the opportunity to submit their ideas to two underlying bills, H.R. 2578 and H.R. 2577. Through this rule, the House will be able to work its way through majority rule floor votes and to make sure that the vital appropriations process is vigorous, is timely, and reflects the will of this body.
When this rule is adopted, a robust debate will take place in a way that will allow us to fund these important measures, over $100 billion.
I think that, as we talk about this, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that this body is getting its work done. It is getting its work done. We passed a budget. We will pass the appropriations bills.
We go home every weekend; we look our constituents in the eye, and we have to justify what we are doing. We are following a process that we said we would do. It is for the betterment of this country, to keep this country strong.
I am proud of the Members of this body; and, as a Republican member of our leadership team, I can tell you that we intend to follow through with the process, the promise that we make to the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source