Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are very in debt in this country. This budget is on path to balance the budget eventually years down the road, but, really, we should be looking to cut spending right now.
You look at things the Federal Government is paying for that should be done locally, and one of those things is these new capital improvements on mass transit projects. I think normally these things do not get the ridership that justifies these projects, and we would not be doing these projects, local governments would not be applying for these projects or building these projects if they had to pay their money themselves. The only reason these things go ahead is the Federal Government is paying for them, and the Federal Government has no money.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal will bring back down the funding on this line to what the Appropriations Committee wanted only 2 years ago, and for whatever reason, apparently in negotiations, this amount went up last year. But I don't think it is too much to ask that this House not zero out this line--and we could argue that we shouldn't be doing this at all--but at least go back to the levels of 2013, especially given the huge amount of debt that is being piled up at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is all fine and good to move forward, but we are going to borrow about 14 percent of this budget, and we have got to stop saying whenever we see a spending item it is time to move forward. I think what we have to do here is--I can certainly understand if we made commitments today, I can understand how people of goodwill would not want this amendment. But if this amendment doesn't pass, then I think we have to make doubly certain that a year from now we have a dramatic reduction here.
If there are any of these projects that are that important, the local unit of government can fund it. There is no surer way to overspend than have the Federal Government give grants to local units of government that they would never dream of spending themselves.
That is what is going on here, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here. It shows different people look at this budget and see different things.
I look at this budget and see a $614 million increase in Section 8 housing, and I look at the huge debt we have, and I say: Why are we spending more? Other people apparently look at the $614 million increase and say: Why, that is just a pittance.
Obviously, a 3 percent increase in any program at a time we are in the huge debt we are should be viewed skeptically. I have an amendment here to get rid of the $614 million increase.
Now, as I understand, the reason there is an increase is because we are getting in less receipts on the Section 8 housing and, therefore, we feel that the citizens of this country have to make up the difference.
My opinion is they have done nothing that we have to take more out of their pocket, either in taxes or by way of inflation, and we should not be increasing this funding by $614 million.
In the debate over the last amendment it was said that there is a waiting list on a lot of these programs. That doesn't mean we have to spend more money on the programs. If we are giving away something for free, there is always going to be a waiting list. If you go out in society, if a store says, we are going to give away something for free, you have a waiting list, right?
This is a flawed program for a couple of reasons. I don't object to using it for disabled people. I don't object to using it for elderly people. But like many welfare-related programs, two things help you in eligibility for this program.
First of all, you are required not to work very hard. And the gentleman made a point that the income level of a lot of these people in the projects isn't that high. That is because if they made more money, they wouldn't be eligible for the generous subsidies. So, of course they are not making a lot of money. It is wrong to set up a program that discourages industry.
The second thing wrong with this program is it discourages marriage. A lot of these housing things are set up such that if somebody marries the mother or father of their children who is working harder, you lose the subsidy. I can't imagine anything more foolish than setting up a program that says we will give you an apartment if you raise a child out of wedlock, but if you get married, we will take away your apartment.
The last time we really looked at this program was 1994. It is time we look at it again. And the idea of pouring another $614 million into this program is out of line.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source