David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, which includes my proposal to require the Administration to report to Congress on the status of United States military-to-military and diplomatic deconfliction channels with Iran. This amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues Jan Schakowsky, Gerry Connolly, John Yarmuth, Lloyd Doggett, Barbara Lee, Peter Welch, and Earl Blumenauer. I thank them for their support, and I thank Chairman Smith for his consideration. Last month, President Trump came dangerously close to conducting a military strike on Iran in retaliation for the downing of an American surveillance drone. During that week in June, officials from the U.S. and Iran traded public accusations before any investigation into the downing of the drone was complete. Meanwhile, oil tankers have been attacked in the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian regime is beginning to increasingly enrich uranium, and U.S. troops are being moved around the region. These events demonstrate the extraordinary need for established military-to-military and diplomatic channels of communication and deconfliction to prevent miscalculation, define ambiguities, and correct misunderstandings that could otherwise lead to unintended and possibly devastating consequences. In January 2016, such diplomatic lines of communication saved U.S. sailors on two Navy riverine command boats that were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after entering Iranian territorial waters. Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. Within 15 hours, the sailors were released unharmed. Since withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Trump administration has eliminated those channels of communication. Can you imagine what would happen now should U.S. forces be captured by Iranian forces? Can you imagine the cost and consequences of military action provoked by a misunderstanding or miscalculation? Even Department of Defense officials caution that spiraling escalations put our troops in the region at risk, and that we cannot be pulled into an unnecessary armed conflict with Iran. This amendment would assert Congressional oversight to ensure that we have information about the status of vital military and diplomatic channels of communication that must be in place to prevent miscalculation. I urge the adoption of this En Bloc amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to include in the Record the executive summary of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture's (NCCIT) seminal report, Torture Flights: North Carolina's Role in the CIA's Rendition and Torture Program. I do so today in recognition of the United Nation's ``International Day in Support of Victims of Torture,'' and to emphasize the continuing role of Congress as well as informed and engaged citizens in bringing to light the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program. I am reminded of this important duty by an exceptional group of North Carolinians who established NCCIT--a non-governmental and non-partisan commission--to investigate North Carolina's participation in the CIA's RDI program following the September 11 attacks, which is described in its September 2018 report. The report found that in the first stage of the RDI program, a private company based in North Carolina used publicly-funded infrastructure to conduct over 80 percent of identified CIA rendition flights from September 2001 to March 2004. North Carolina public infrastructure was therefore involved in the detention and rendition of at least 49 individuals, without regard for the rule of law or due process. According to the report, some of these individuals turned out not to be involved in terrorism and have yet to receive official acknowledgement or redress, and some of these individuals continue to suffer from their mistreatment. This report complements the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2014 report on the RDI program, which found that the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' were not effective, that the program was poorly managed, and that the CIA misled Congress and the public. I commend Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Committee members and staff who worked on this report, and I applaud NCCIT for their steadfast commitment to bringing transparency and accountability to the State of North Carolina's involvement in these activities. Even in our darkest moments, we must always uphold core American values, including respect for the rule of law and human rights. I encourage my colleagues to read NCCIT's report, including its recommendations for local, state, and federal officials, so that we may learn from the mistakes of the past and chart a more promising course for the future. Torture Flights: North Carolina's Role in the CIA Rendition and Torture Program--Executive Summary North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government ushered in a large-scale program of secret detention and torture that relied significantly on the State of North Carolina. Six days after the attacks, President George W. Bush signed a covert memorandum that authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to seize, detain, and interrogate suspected terrorists around the world. This report investigates North Carolina's role in that illegal program. The program made use of Department of Defense facilities, a network of ten CIA-controlled secret prisons or black sites in six countries, and the facilities of foreign governments. In what was called the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program, the CIA abducted and imprisoned at least 119 individuals before the practice was officially ended and repudiated by Executive Order in 2009. Given that detainees were also handed over to foreign governments, and the secrecy surrounding the program, the number of affected individuals is likely far higher. Within weeks of the RDI program's authorization, Aero Contractors, Ltd. (Aero), based in Smithfield, NC, began operating the first of two aircraft for extraordinary, or violent and secret, renditions. Between September 2001 and March 2004, Aero-operated aircraft--a Gulfstream V turbojet and Boeing 737 business jet--were used in more than 80% of identified RDI renditions. Over the full length of the program, Aero transported 34 of the known 119 CIA prisoners, plus at least 15 of those sent by the CIA to foreign custody, on 69 identified rendition circuits. These flights, using North Carolina's public infrastructure and flown by its citizens, implicate North Carolina directly in abduction, forced disappearance, and torture. Since 2005, North Carolina anti-torture activists from across the political spectrum have protested these actions. Motivated by diverse ethical and religious beliefs as well as a firm commitment to the rule of law, activists from North Carolina Stop Torture Now have joined with the North Carolina Council of Churches and many other allies. Citizens have pressured public officials at all levels of government to investigate the state's complicity in the CIA's illegal and immoral program. Citizen-led activism culminated in 2015 in the creation of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT), a non-governmental organization dedicated to transparency and accountability regarding the state's participation in U.S. torture. The NCCIT launched officially in 2017 with a blue- ribbon panel of Commissioners who have expertise in domestic and international law, military operations, human rights, interfaith religious dialogue, psychology, and public health. The Commission initiated a large-scale investigation into North Carolina's involvement in torture and rendition. Torture Flights: North Carolina's role in the CIA rendition and torture program details the results of that investigation and makes recommendations for future action. The report draws on original research and expert testimony provided at public hearings as well as the extensive data compiled by The Rendition Project, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and the Human Rights Policy Lab of the University of North Carolina School of Law, among other sources. Torture Flights provides the most comprehensive research to date on North Carolina's complicity in the rendition phase of the RDI program. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ``Torture Report,'' a redacted Executive Summary of which was released in 2014 while the full report remains classified, focused on the detention and interrogation of detainees who were held in CIA custody. Torture Flights demonstrates that that program depended upon both North Carolina's private citizens and public infrastructure. Further, Torture Flights builds on the Senate's work by addressing renditions themselves as an integral component of a system to break individuals down through violent interrogations. As the report details, Aero transported at least 49 individuals, who were forcibly seized without any due process, in a manner that itself amounted to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Preparation for ``rendition'' involved physical and sometimes sexual assault, drugging, and sensory deprivation. Rendition flights were experiences of prolonged pain, dread, and terror. The whereabouts of the individuals flown by Aero, who were citizens of 16 countries and included a 16-year-old student and a pregnant woman, were not disclosed, not even to their families. They were ``disappeared'' for months if not years, causing agony to them and their loved ones. Even today, the fates of eight of those rendered by Aero remain unknown. Many of the prisoners were taken to CIA ``black sites,'' where they experienced beatings, prolonged stress positions, temperature extremes, long-term isolation, various water tortures, mock execution, and sexual abuse. In violation of international law, the CIA transported some prisoners to foreign custody where they were subject to torture and abuse. Kidnapping, torture, and secret detention occurred without respect for victims' innocence or guilt and absent any legal process for them to contest their abductions. Survivors of the RDI program and their families continue to suffer from these experiences. Torture and prolonged detention have left lasting physical, emotional, and social injuries. This in turn harms relationships and livelihoods, which then amplifies the psychological damage. To resume meaningful and secure lives, survivors need medical, psychological and social support, guaranteed legal status, and economic opportunity. This report also carefully considers the moral and legal responsibility of North Carolina for its involvement in CIA- sponsored activities. The federal government has international law obligations under both the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not only to prevent torture, but also to provide accountability and redress for torture. It did none of these and therefore has failed to meet its international obligations. Given that the federal government has abdicated responsibility, North Carolina can and should fill the gap. Its role as home to Aero obligates it to do so. State and federal laws against conspiracy and corruption are among those instruments that apply to Aero's activities. As this report documents, Aero's central role in the CIA rendition and torture program is beyond dispute. But instead of holding Aero accountable, the State of North Carolina and Johnston County until now have effectively endorsed its activities. This support has taken the form of hosting the company's headquarters at the Johnston County Airport and providing it with various airport and other county services. Since Aero's participation in criminal abduction and assault was publicly revealed, the State of North Carolina has made several grants to the county airport, at least one of which was specifically used to fortify the perimeter of only Aero's corner of the facility. Torture Flights concludes with specific recommendations directed at federal and state officials as well as toward North Carolina citizens, whose engagement has kept the spotlight on Aero's activities and whose continued attention is needed to ensure accountability. The recommendations seek to increase transparency about the program and accountability for the illegal actions; provide acknowledgment, redress and reparations to its victims; and prevent the future use of torture. As the report notes, additional research is also needed on the involvement of other North Carolina private corporations and public airports in extraordinary renditions in order to complete the record of the RDI program. At the broadest level, the goal is to ensure that neither the federal government nor the state of North Carolina engage in or support torture again.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment and to take advantage of the opportunity this offers to say something about the BUILD program. Mr. Chair, it is unique, as our colleague has stressed. It provides the kind of flexible funding to States and localities that can address complex multimodal projects. My district has benefited greatly from this. The city of Raleigh has successfully built Union Station, a state-of-the-art rail and public transit facility that is already transforming that area of downtown. Unfortunately, despite the diverse set of eligible projects, the current administration has heavily favored road projects only when awarding BUILD grants. This has most significantly affected transit. On average, it received about 32 percent of the awards during the previous administration. Under the Trump administration, this has plummeted to less than 10 percent, and at the same time, the Department has completely abandoned bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects and actually eliminated this as an option for primary project type for years 2017 and 2018. So, the underlying bill provides $1 billion for BUILD--that is a $100 million increase--but it places greater emphasis on investments in transit, passenger rail, pedestrian improvements, and multimodal projects. It also maintains a 50-50 parity between urban and rural awards, while directing the Department to consider the full range of benefits from a project, regardless of location in an urban or rural area. Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I am happy to support it and look forward to continuing to work with her on this issue.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding. I am happy to offer support for her amendment. Mr. Chair, the Family Self-Sufficiency program helps low-income families living in subsidized housing. It allows them to enhance their job skills and to increase earnings to improve their economic security. Currently, there are more than 75,000 families enrolled in FSS, which is just a fraction of the number that should be--the families living in assisted housing, many, many more than that. Mr. Chair, I am proud of the fact that our base bill already increases this program, providing $100 million for Family Self- Sufficiency. That is a $20 million increase from current funding. This amendment would do even better, would make FSS available to even more families, so I applaud my colleagues for offering this. I want to register some concern about the offset in this and other amendments in terms of the Office of the Secretary and other departmental staff. They do have to do their work, and we have to consider the cumulative effect of amendments, but we will do that as the process moves along and we go to conference. Mr. Chair, the situation can be addressed. This is a useful and helpful amendment, and I am happy to support adoption.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and I wish to support his amendment, particularly to stress the emphasis he has given to low- and no-emission buses. They do improve the environment. They improve public health, they reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and also reduce long-term maintenance costs for transit. Our bill provides robust funding for these grants to State and local governments of $145 million. That is $94 million above the authorized amount. Meanwhile, we are offering strong support for the bus and bus facilities program. That provides vital resources that improve bus fleets in communities large and small. Between the transit infrastructure grants and funding provided via trust funds, the bill provides $678 million in competitive grants under that program. These are both important programs for transit grantees. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure robust funding in public transit. Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept this amendment, take it to conference, and work out what the most appropriate level of funding is. I want to acknowledge strong support of this Chamber from both sides of the aisle for the BUILD program. That is the one discretionary program within DOT that allows States and local communities to seek funding for major multi-modal transportation projects. As our colleague has underscored, technical assistance and planning support is often essential to that process, especially for communities with more limited resources or expertise. These planning grants are important. The underlying bill provides $15 million for competitive grants for planning, preparation, and design. The amendment sets that figure at $20 million. These resources are going to lead to increased investments in our communities, they are going to create jobs, and spur economic growth. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's efforts to highlight the importance of planning grants, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I am happy to express support for her amendment and for highlighting this issue. Remote towers can be a cost-effective way to provide additional safety and operational benefits to the National Air Space program. The underlying bill, in fact, includes report language encouraging the FAA ``to use remote tower technology as a means to enhance safety, reduce costs, and expand air traffic control services at rural and small community airports.'' I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue. I urge adoption of her well-considered amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and wish to express support for her amendment. I commend her for offering it. Our underlying bill provides $2.8 billion for HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants program. That is the highest funding level in that program's history. It includes more resources for Emergency Solutions Grants to rapidly rehouse and prevent homelessness, and the bill includes targeted investments for survivors of domestic violence and for youth experiencing homelessness. In addition, section 231 of the bill creates a mechanism that allows HUD to more readily use recaptured funds from the small number of projects that might not utilize their resources. We expect this provision will give us an additional $90 million to use as grantees fight on the front lines to end homelessness. So we have added resources. More can and must be done, and our colleague's amendment reflects that reality. We are going to pair this with sustained investments in affordable housing, and we are determined to reduce housing insecurity across the Nation. So I am proud of what our bill accomplishes in this area. I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment additionally emphasizing our homeless challenge, and I urge adoption of our colleague's amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment and commend my colleague and a number of colleagues, actually, for offering it. The recent news reports about the Secretary of Transportation are disturbing. It is critical that anyone who serves in public office follows the law, and if the law clearly states you can't use your public office for personal gain, that is what following the law requires. We expect all Federal employees to follow the law, and this amendment reminds them that it is their obligation to do so. So I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue. Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her kind words and also for her relentless efforts, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 267 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Texas for those questions, which highlight the issue of historic preservation and NEPA review. As part of its evaluation and approval process, the Department of Transportation must consider the effects of proposed projects on areas of historical significance. Under the law, the Department must make an assessment of any effects of a project on historic properties and evaluate options to avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative effects. This assessment must be completed in consultation with State and local partners, as well as civic and community leaders. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) on issues of historic preservation. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for any comments she might have.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Nita Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I am happy to strongly support this amendment, and I thank my colleagues for offering it. I want to make a comment on what is going on over at HUD. Secretary Carson assured our committee that Dreamers were not being denied FHA loans, that there was no change to the policy, no plan to change the policy. Now, HUD has confirmed that FHA will no longer make loans available to Dreamers. This is the latest in what is becoming a disturbing pattern of HUD telling Congress one thing and then doing another. They haven't been forthcoming, to say the least, on this issue. This amendment reverses that decision, that HUD decision that would effectively block a key part of the American Dream, homeownership, to this population. Dreamers are already in limbo, Mr. Chair. Let's not make these young people pay a further price for our failure to act. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I suppose if you liked a 4.6 percent across-the-board, indiscriminate cut, you will love 14 percent, even more draconian, and equally indiscriminate. I won't repeat what I said a few minutes ago about the drastic effects a cut of this magnitude would have on the range of housing and transportation priorities for this country. But I will look at a particular State, the gentleman's own State, Indiana, and just mention what some of the consequences would be. I hope this is useful information. The gentleman's amendment would cut $10.2 million in CDBG funding for Indiana, which could have been used to rehab housing, to repair streets and sidewalks, provide senior and youth programs. The amount of additional funding generated by CDBG dollars in Indiana is estimated to be--the cut, the effect is estimated to be $40.6 million in money taken out of the Indiana economy. Home funding, the most flexible affordable housing funding we have, $4.8 million taken out of that funding in Indiana. Transit projects in Indiana take a whopping loss of $23.8 million. Highways in Indiana, highway infrastructure, a loss of $5.1 million; and so it goes. These are cuts that would reverse the progress we have made. A lot of people are talking infrastructure these days, including our President. This bill is actually doing something about it. We are making long overdue investments in this country's infrastructure, and that includes the housing infrastructure. Yet, colleagues who--I don't know what they have said about this as a national priority. Certainly, if they offer an amendment like this, or vote for an amendment like this, they are marching back down the hill in terms of the progress we have made and hope to make. So this amendment, I would think, has very little to recommend it for any Member who wishes to invest in our country's future, and I urge its rejection. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly support this amendment and commend the gentleman for offering it. He is highlighting horrible conditions with the situation in Alexander County, Illinois. HUD's IG has concluded that HUD should have done more to oversee this decades-long situation, these deteriorating conditions at the Alexander County Housing Authority and has made multiple recommendations to address the situation and to ensure that something like this doesn't recur. In fiscal year 2018, our House THUD report requested that HUD work with the community to find adequate housing for displaced residents, and to quickly investigate the root causes of the situation. The base bill, I am happy to say, does fund the IG account above the request level, partly to help with work on this issue. And we have also increased funding in the Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds to provide more resources to public housing authorities for capital improvements and better management. Mr. Chairman, we are continuing to monitor this situation. We expect HUD to implement the Inspector General's recommendations as quickly as possible. So I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, as to the tax cut, I will simply quote very reliable figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: The top 1 percent of the population received 34 percent of the benefits of the tax cut. As to the constitutional point, if I hear that correctly, the point is that these programs should be eliminated. Constitutionality raises the issue as to whether this should, perhaps, be zero funding, as opposed to these indiscriminate cuts that would do so much damage to the State of Wisconsin and to the entire country. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, this amendment indiscriminately cuts programs in transportation and housing with, apparently, very little thought as to the relative merit of the programs contained in the bill. The amendment would result in less affordable housing and less support for Habitat for Humanity, public housing, homeless veterans, housing, the elderly, the disabled, and the Department of Transportation and its agencies responsible for the safety of our roads, our bridges, our aviation, our pipelines, and our waterways. It would reduce funds available to pay the bills submitted by State and local governments for their transportation programs. These programs are the legal responsibility of the Federal Government. The base bill enables us to continue to make progress in restoring our infrastructure. This amendment would roll that back. This amendment would not encourage DOT or HUD to do more with less. It would force them to do less with less. Our colleague describes this as a modest amendment. Well, let me just ask how modest these cuts are for his home State of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, is $3.1 million for CDBG funding, which could have been used to rehabilitate housing or improve water mains and sewers, a modest cut? $12.4 million in Wisconsin funding for CDBG dollars, the money that would be generated, is that modest? Or is $1.5 million in HOME funding in Wisconsin, $1.8 million in funding for transit in Wisconsin, or $1.3 million in funding for highway infrastructure in Wisconsin? Our colleague may want to inquire back home as to how modest those cuts are. The amendment is particularly galling since the gentleman voted for the 2017 tax bill, a $1.5 trillion tax cut, most of which went to the top 1 percent. He is concerned about the deficit. That tax bill alone adds $1.9 trillion to our deficit from 2018 to 2027. Why is it more important to give tax cuts to the wealthy than it is to build affordable housing and other infrastructure like roads and bridges that all of our citizens need and that they benefit from? It doesn't make sense. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge Members to oppose this damaging and indiscriminate amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise to support this amendment. The Indian Community Development Block Grant program provides Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages the opportunity to compete for a flexible source of funding to address pressing housing and community needs in Indian Country. We know the needs continue to exceed the funding available. In fiscal year 2017, HUD was able to fund only 62 percent of the eligible applications it received. That is why we provided in the bill $75 million, a $10 million increase over last year, for the program. This amendment would further increase that to $80 million. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment and the strong investment it would make possible, but I do want to express a note of concern about the offsetting cuts to HUD's Cybersecurity and Information Technology Fund. HUD is facing daunting challenges to upgrade its technology infrastructure. As we head into conference negotiations with the Senate, I am hopeful we can reach a comprehensive, bipartisan agreement that makes it possible to boost funding both for critical housing programs and for IT modernization at HUD. Again, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.