Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. I not only oppose the bill that is before us, but I also have to oppose the process by which the remaining fiscal year 2019 bills are being dealt with by the new majority.
Anything but a full open rule on appropriations bills was absolutely condemned by the Democrats for the past 8 years. However, the new majority, as one of their first actions, has proposed a closed rule for all four appropriations bills this week.
I, along with my colleagues, am dismayed at the prospect of adopting the Senate-passed Agriculture appropriations bill to represent the House's position on funding and policy matters for our farmers, ranchers, producers, consumers, and nearly all the citizens impacted by the great work that has been done by USDA, FDA, and the CFTC.
The priorities of literally hundreds of Members were part of the original FY19 Republican-led legislation.
Around 10 months ago, we began the process of developing a House bill with House priorities. We drafted H.R. 5961 after holding five oversight hearings, after receiving and reviewing nearly 6,000 bills and report requests that were submitted by over 350 Members of Congress, after we incorporated bipartisan House Member requests covering House priorities from every corner of the Nation and from all demographics, after we held a subcommittee markup with full participation by the Agriculture Subcommittee members, and after we held a full committee markup that lasted several hours and was an open process by which all the members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, could offer amendments.
The House Members invested hundreds of hours to produce a spending bill that is best for the needs and the priorities of the constituents back home, whether they came from rural, whether they came from suburban, or whether they come from urban communities.
Starting this past summer, we started the process of negotiating the House and Senate bills and reports to arrive at a four-corner agreement between the House and the Senate. The House and the Senate majority and minority parties made tremendous progress in coming along with a negotiated agreement.
After all of that time and effort that was invested in the process, why would we throw it all away today?
I want to point out that over the course of the past 10 months and during my 6 years that I have served as chairman of the Appropriations Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, it has been an honor to work beside my friend and my colleague and now the incoming chairman, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, as we develop the bills to meet the needs of our fellow citizens.
But now we have an Agriculture appropriations bill in front of us today which totals $23.1 billion and $101 million below the Senate- passed Agriculture appropriations bill. And I will point out that the $101 million represents a change to the Senate bill made by the House majority to reduce funding for the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Let me provide this Chamber with a few of the examples where this current bill fails to fund House Member priorities:
Regarding public health, the House Republican bill included $3.1 billion for the Food and Drug Administration, while the new Democratic proposal that is before us includes only $2.9 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. The higher levels in the Republican bill are critical to helping industry advance their medical product innovations to the marketplace sooner, safer, and with greater efficiency. The ultimate beneficiary is the American consumer or the patient.
Also, compared to the House Republican bill, the Democratic bill fails to include two provisions that place limits on chicken imported from China. The Republican bill includes an outright ban on Chinese chicken in school meals, while the Democratic bill fails to include this protection for our children.
Regarding rural broadband, in FY 2018, we established a pilot program to expand broadband infrastructure to rural communities. One of the greatest needs that I have heard when talking to my constituents in rural Alabama--and I know this is the same from other Members whom I have talked to across the Nation--this bill provides $125 million less than what we provided in the House bill.
When it comes to agriculture research, our Republican bill included nearly $30 million more for National Institute of Food and Agriculture for research priorities of House Members who are not included in the Democratic proposal.
When it comes to rural infrastructure, the Republican bill included language to secure set-aside funds for persistent poverty counties in rural areas. This provision is vital to rural communities across the country that face challenges escaping poverty. This language is not included in the Democratic bill, and so the new majority chose to dismiss this protection for the rural poor.
These are just a few examples of why the new House majority's adoption of a Senate-passed bill is not going in the right direction.
The other side wants to claim that these bills are bipartisan, but they are clearly not bicameral, and they have no input from the 435 House Members.
Some of the great House appropriators of our time on both sides of the aisle would probably be rolling over in their graves right now if they knew of such a move to take up Senate spending bills without any House input.
So I urge my fellow Members to stand up for the House priorities for public health and for rural development and reject a strategy of passing the Senate bills, which at the end of the day is not going to bring us any closer to resolving the partial government shutdown.
To paraphrase the President's remarks two nights ago: In order for us to resolve this funding dispute, we need to invest in border security not because we hate the people on the outside of our borders, but because we love the people within our borders. The only thing that is immoral is for politicians to stand by and do nothing.
So I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), who serves on the authorizing committee, the Agriculture Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), who serves on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. He has been a vital part of that subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the new ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and also the Armed Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who serves on the Appropriations Committee.
As I noted earlier, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee received over 350 Members who came before our subcommittee and submitted requests. Many of those requests included support for animal disease and for plant pests destroying agriculture products. Let me just give an example of some that we heard.
The House bill included $15 million to fight the pest from China called the spotted lanternfly. This pest is destroying fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals in the mid-Atlantic States.
The House bill included $5 million more for the oriental fruit fly that ravaged south Florida.
The House bill and also the House report included higher amounts for the citrus greening disease killing the orange groves across Florida.
I can give numerous examples of other House priorities and directives included in the House bill and report by the majority that have been dismissed by the Senate bill. Like I said, these are just some examples that our Members have requested. It has been important to their districts. They thought it was very important for agriculture in their regions.
Again, by us adopting the bill today, we would be doing this for nothing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. He, of course, chaired the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee in the 115th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as it has already been said by many of my colleagues here on the Republican side, that this bill serves only to give a false impression that the new majority is trying to resolve our funding differences.
The American people want and need both enhanced border security and funding of remaining government agencies that are operating on limited staff currently, as we speak. This bill is really an affront to the House of Representatives and to the citizens who elected them to serve them because, as has been said over and over this afternoon, there has been no input from any of the 435 House Members into this legislation.
Therefore, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation that is before us this afternoon, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. I am, in its current form.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit restores a House priority that had overwhelming support when we put together the FY 2019 Agriculture bill during the last Congress.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, our House bill last year placed a high priority on delivery of broadband to the unserved and underserved populations in rural America. Eighty percent of the 24 million American households that do not have reliable, affordable, high-speed internet, are in rural areas.
That is according to the most recent report by the Federal Communications Commission. Again, 80 percent are in rural areas.
Reliable and affordable internet connectivity is fundamental for economic activity throughout the United States. It is also a fundamental need for rural American households, for schools, and for healthcare centers.
The National Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force recommended connectivity for all rural Americans because it has become a modern-day necessity. It is not simply an amenity anymore. In today's information age and where we live today, it is driving our global economy.
Our House appropriation bill last year included $550 million for this new pilot program. This motion that is now before us will simply add an additional $125 million to the $440 million in the bill before us today.
This higher level will not fully address the multi-billion-dollar requirement to address rural broadband internet needs, but it is a wise and necessary investment.
The new rural broadband program that was designed by USDA this year takes into account lessons learned from prior-year broadband initiatives.
The new pilot program is a good balance between grants to the neediest communities and low-cost loans to those communities and citizens that can afford the loans.
Mr. Speaker, you might not find a great deal of agreement between the priorities of President Trump and former President Obama, but the vital need for rural broadband is one of those things. This motion is a modest proposal that all of us feel obligated to support, regardless of your politics.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source