Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2577, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2578, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I want to associate myself with his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of the Transportation-HUD and CJS appropriations bills.
First, let me express my astonishment at the big giveaways to the trucking industry in this Transportation-HUD bill. This bill is loaded up with pet projects of the trucking industry that threaten the health and safety of the traveling public.
The lack of regard for the safety and well-being of those on the roads and bridges is stunning. It is hard to believe that some of the provisions that are contained as policy riders in these appropriations bills are actually there.
This bill should focus on strengthening America's infrastructure, repairing crumbling bridges, investing in public transportation, and making our roads safer, but instead puts the trucking industry in the driving seat, leaving the average American left behind.
The bill would, one, increase truck weights in Idaho and Kansas; two, allow twin 33-foot trailers on interstates; three, delay full implementation of DOT's hours of service rule, which requires minimum rest periods for truckers; and, four, prohibit the Department of Transportation from increasing minimum insurance requirements for big trucks and motor coaches.
Mr. Speaker, with all that we know, it is simply outrageous that we would allow bigger and heavier trucks on our highways.
Today's bill is intended specifically to appropriate funds, not authorize new policy. Yet this is exactly what these policy riders are doing. They don't belong on this bill.
Furthermore, there was not a single hearing on these trucking riders: not one subcommittee hearing, not one full committee hearing. These issues are important enough where they should be openly debated as part of a comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill, not tacked on to an appropriations bill. They don't belong here. But this process has become so corrupted that anything goes. Committees of jurisdiction are routinely disregarded and disrespected.
Making these controversial policy changes before the Department of Transportation finishes their comprehensive truck size and weight study that was required by MAP-21 would be irresponsible. We should allow the Department of Transportation the time it needs to get their study right.
Simply put, these trucking industry riders will make our highways less safe at a time when our infrastructure funding is woefully inadequate and our roads and bridges are crumbling.
In just the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic 17 percent increase in the number of truck crash deaths and an alarming 28 percent increase in injuries. Instead of advancing safety measures to make our roads safer, Congress is about to roll back significant safety laws and regulations that will result in more deaths and more injuries on our roads and highways. In fatal truck and car crashes, 96 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the passenger car.
Mr. Speaker, public opinion is clear: Americans do not want bigger trucks or tired truck drivers on the road. Seventy-six percent of Americans opposed longer and heavier trucks, and 80 percent were opposed to increasing truck driver working and driving hours.
Yet here we are with authorizing language on an appropriations bill to make our roads less safe. Why are my friends doing this? It might be good policy for fundraising purposes, but it is lousy policy for the American people.
These dangerous riders don't belong here. They threaten the safety of everyday Americans on the road, and we ought to insist that they be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to express my concern about the dangerous and backward-thinking riders that are included in both the CJS and Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills regarding Cuba.
Obviously, there are several Members here in this House who are nostalgic for the cold war, who are still living in the past. I just want to say, thanks to the leadership of President Obama and this administration, we are making real progress in normalizing relations with Cuba and connecting them with a 21st century economy. We are ending an embarrassing, dumb, and counterproductive policy that by all accounts has been a miserable failure for the last five decades.
In 2011, after President Obama reinstated the rules allowing Cuban Americans to visit their relatives on the island and permitting all Americans to send remittances to Cuba, hard-liners used the appropriations process to prevent the policies from being implemented. Thankfully, Senate Democrats kept the hard-liners' provisions out of the omnibus bill, and legislation reversing the modest but hopeful travel and remittance reforms never reached the President's desk.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of trips between the U.S. and Cuba have taken place every year since, reuniting families and increasing the number of Cubans receiving the economic support they need to run their own businesses and lead more independent lives.
Instead of celebrating the progress, hard-liners are once again trying to shut down the new openings for greater citizen diplomacy created by this administration. This is the wrong thing to do for America; this is the wrong thing to do for American companies, and it is the wrong thing to do for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in six decades, the United States Government is encouraging citizen diplomacy, greater travel and trade, and telecommunications and other industries to build relationships and stronger ties with counterparts among the Cuban people and new entrepreneurs.
American businesses are already seeing the potential for economic growth. That is why JetBlue and other airlines are expanding charter services and planning commercial routes, why ferry companies are planning to set sail for Havana, why Airbnb and Netflix are hoping to build real businesses in the Cuban market, why Governors in red and blue States alike are trying to position companies in their States to succeed.
The provisions in these bills are antibusiness. Airlines and maritime businesses have already taken steps to initiate travel service to and from Cuba based on the administration's December 17, 2014, announcement, and these provisions in these bills will block them.
Even the United States Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes these provisions, and they have sent a letter to Congress basically making the case why we ought to have better and more open travel and trade with Cuba.
It is why Americans across the country and Cuban Americans in communities where they live are so deeply committed to a policy that puts the cold war behind us and puts our country on a path to creating a new and brighter future with Cuba.
Simply put, these provisions in these appropriations bills are trying to pull the plug on new efforts by U.S. citizens and U.S. companies to expand their presence in Cuba. As the policy moves forward, they keep trying to pull us back into the cold war and a policy that has failed for over 50 years.
Let's be clear. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill would ground new commercial or charter flights that came into being after March 15, 2015. JetBlue and Tampa International Airport are just two beneficiaries of the President's new policy who would be adversely affected.
With new ferries leaving port, as much as $340 million would be pumped into Florida's economy. These provisions would hold back that economic growth, hurting American businesses in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami.
Mr. Speaker, the CJS bill would shut down U.S. exports to Cuba in ways that will affect telecommunications firms now in negotiations to open up phone and Internet connections on the island.
Do we want Cubans to be better connected to the outside world? I thought the answer was a huge bipartisan yes, but apparently not. The ugly truth is that these provisions in these bills are hiding their real intent, and that is to shut down the growing connections between Cuba and the United States and our citizens and U.S. companies.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that these provisions, first of all, do not belong in appropriations bills. They are authorizing language. They don't belong even in this debate.
I would suggest to them that these appropriations bills aren't going to see the light of day as long as these provisions are in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to put the cold war behind them and to get rid of these provisions, and let's move on to a better and more productive relationship.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I would just respond to the chairman by saying the thing about this rule that is so frustrating is that important amendments are only given 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side. Some of these issues are important and deserve more than 5 minutes of debate.
We are not going to have debates. We are going to offer amendments and then, essentially, vote. I am not so excited about the way this rule has been constructed, especially given the fact that very little time is being allotted to discuss some of these important issues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source