Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak in opposition to the majority's temporary funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. However, our crisis that we are at at this point and at our border is not temporary, and it continues to grow during this government shutdown. I am not sure why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will expect a different outcome today when the real solution, as we all know, starts when everyone sits around the negotiating table. The people elected the President and they elected each of us. They elected each of us to do our job, and this is a serious job. Legislating is governing; not putting bills on the floor of the House that we know the President will veto. He has continued to say that he will veto this legislation, and we know what the outcome will be. I think all of the political points have been made here this morning, and I believe that it is time that we put partisanship aside to try to work together to try to find a solution. Instead of using the words ``coming together to compromise,'' I think we should use better words to say, ``We need to find common ground.'' Just saying ``no'' to the physical infrastructure is not really a negotiating position. This House yesterday had the opportunity to vote to pay Federal workers who have missed their paychecks, and it is disappointing that together, as a Congress, we couldn't come together for the needs of these public servants. We must put this political gamesmanship aside and seek to work together to find some common ground. I think that is where the solution lies. The solution is really simple. One side does not win at the expense of the other. Instead, what we need to do is find a way where each side cannot put our individual parties' interest before the needs of the country and the people who serve this country. So this morning as we debate this legislation and continue to have this legislation before us, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle-- and let me say that, both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans--to reject the proposal so that we can get back to some serious business of being a legislative body. Let's show the American people that we deserve the trust that they placed in us when they sent us to serve in this House of Representatives.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Granger for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies--the subcommittee of which I am privileged to be the ranking member in the 116th Congress--oversees a diverse range of important priorities. It ranges from deep space exploration to Federal law enforcement to supporting economic growth to international trade, and much more. My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), has an abiding commitment to these priorities as well, not to mention a well- established record of bipartisan work on this subcommittee. I look forward to continuing this collaborative and collegial spirit for the good of the Nation with Chairman Serrano in the 116th Congress. In light of that, I appreciate that the bill that is before us this afternoon includes many of the Commerce, Justice, Science agreements that Chairman Serrano made last year with then-Chairman Culberson, and I am pleased that many of the funding levels included for Federal law enforcement, assistance to our State and local law enforcement partners, and many NASA programs were included. However, as it has already been said here this afternoon--and I am sure it will be said again--the President has made it clear that he will not support spending bills that do not address the Nation's urgent border security needs. While the package that is before us this afternoon has a lot of very good features--that is not disputed--the problem is it fails to address the border security funding that is needed at the Department of Homeland Security. So instead of continuing to put appropriation bills on the floor that we know that the President will not support, I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to negotiate with the President, make a counteroffer, and to come forward to the table. We know that many Federal employees are not being paid. Many government services that Americans depend on are not being provided. Along our southern border, women and children are being abused as they are trafficked by smugglers, and drugs are pouring in through the borders as well. The majority continues to refuse to negotiate and to make a counteroffer. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to sit down, as I know my colleagues are, to work on an agreement to pay our Federal employees to get the government operating again and secure our borders.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak in opposition yet again to this Democrat offer for a continuing resolution. As has been said, this resolution today goes through February 28, and I am not sure why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle expect a different outcome just by changing the end date. There is, however, one simple way to get a different outcome, and that is to come to the table and negotiate and talk. Show up at the table when you are invited to negotiate. There is a seat there waiting. The people elected the President, and they elected each of us, and they elected us to do our job. Quite honestly, legislating is a very serious job, not putting veto-bait bills on the floor of the House to be voted on over and over again, knowing what the outcome is going to be. All of the political points, I think, have been made over and over again as we have debated these continuing resolutions. I think it is important that we put partisanship aside. We have to work together. We all have to sit down at the table and decide how we can move forward. Just saying ``no'' to a physical infrastructure, in my opinion, is not a negotiating position. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill that is going nowhere so that we can get back to the serious business of the legislative process. Let's show the American people that we deserve the trust they have placed in us to govern.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member. I originally had intended to offer my support for this disaster supplemental package, especially as it relates to agricultural and rural development. But because of the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I can no longer support the bill in its current form. As the former chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, I worked with my friends and the new chairman, Sanford Bishop, and other Members who represent districts impacted by historical weather-related disasters to provide relief to the farming and rural communities. However, including the already-failed CR in the rule puts partisan politics above bipartisanship. I cannot support this poison-pill package, especially after all we have heard from our Democratic colleagues about letting the legislative process work. Members from the Southeast to California, to Hawaii, to all of the communities in between represent districts with agriculture and rural constituencies that have suffered devastating losses in their livelihoods. From cotton to vegetables, to livestock, to losses in my home State of Alabama, as well as Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, including South Carolina, means lost income now and lost income for the future. Unfortunately, constituents are being used politically as human shields. Everyone in Democratic leadership knows the President will veto this CR, and it is very unfortunate to have this in the rule. Our farmers put food on our tables and clothes on our backs. They put in countless hours of labor and take risks. Putting the CR in this bill is making it 100 percent veto bait. Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and take out the CR, and let the bill proceed to the Senate with a chance of passage. Madam Chair, when Superstorm Sandy ravaged the Northeast in 2012, the House put aside partisan differences and provided $750 billion. I hope that our Democratic colleagues would look at that and do the same.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Madam Speaker, I think we all agree that the American people expect this legislative body to deliver solutions to the difficult challenges that face our Nation each and every day. As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the years to try to reach agreements when we were trying to fund the Federal Government. What we have to do is try to find common ground. The matter of how we fully fund the Federal Government for the remainder of FY19, of course, remains unsolved basically for one reason: My colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't negotiate. They have rejected requests to negotiate a deal. They need to come to the table with a counteroffer. Instead, they continue to kick the can down the road and continue to play politics with this issue. Our colleagues reject the solutions requested by the professional personnel who actually protect the border. By digging in a position which is political and not policy, ultimately, they are responsible for the shutdown of the government agencies. However, this short-term CR, known as a continuing resolution, does not solve the problem. The Democratic leadership has said 100 percent no. This bill hits, basically, the snooze button for a few more weeks. I think it is time that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wake up and negotiate and come back to the table to find a real solution.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Calvert for yielding and for his leadership on this bill that we passed back in December. Unfortunately, as you know, I am rising, Madam Speaker, in opposition of H.R. 266. What we have before us today, however, is yet another Democrat appropriations bill that fails to reflect the House priorities. This time, it ignores 93 percent of all the House Member requests that were included in the House bill and in the report. I would like to point out just a few of the many House Member priorities that were addressed in the House Republican Interior and environment bill that are not addressed in this current bill. Compared to the House Republican bill, this bill reduces funding for hazardous fuel reduction projects by $21 million. It also reduces funding for operation and maintenance of the National Park System by $27 million. It does not include any of the Endangered Species Act reforms, which are absolutely necessary for the law to work in a practical way. Therefore, Madam Speaker, rather than spending our time debating Senate-passed legislation, which fails to reflect any House priorities, I ask that the Democrats come to the negotiating table so we can secure our border, so we can keep America safe, and so we can resolve this partial shutdown that we are now entering on its 21st day. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. ADERHOLT

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.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), who serves on the authorizing committee, the Agriculture Committee.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who serves on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who is another member of the Appropriations Committee. He, of course, chaired the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee in the 115th Congress.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 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.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am, in its current form.

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.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor Fayette County Probate Judge William Oswalt on the occasion of his retirement. I am proud to recognize Judge Oswalt for his thirty years of public service to Fayette County and the State of Alabama. He is truly a man who embodies the American principles of hard work and devotion to one's community. Judge Oswalt is a life-long resident of Fayette County, Alabama. After graduating from Winfield High School in 1967, he went on to graduate from the University of Alabama in 1975 with a degree in accounting. In 1988, Judge Oswalt was first elected to the office of Probate Judge. He was re-elected in 1994, 2000, 2006 and 2012, serving a total of five terms. As Probate Judge, he became a strong leader in the community and promoted economic development for the region. In particular, he has been actively involved in recruiting industry and has made that a priority throughout his years of service. He worked closely with county and civic leaders in Fayette, Lamar and Marion counties to create C3 of Northwest Alabama, a regional economic development cooperative. He also helped create the Fayette Community Foundation and still serves as its chairman. Furthermore, he served as chairman of the Fayette County Courthouse Restoration Foundation and as a past chairman of the Alabama Probate Judges Association. Over the years, Judge Oswalt has worked closely with seven Alabama Governors, five Senators, two Congressmen and countless mayors and county commissioners, as well as the heads of numerous federal and state agencies to promote the needs of Fayette County. Through his leadership, Fayette County is one of Alabama's strongest and most progressive rural counties. Judge Oswalt is a member of Grace Baptist Church where he has taught the Senior Adult Sunday School class for the last 42 years. He is married to Nelda Langston Oswalt, his wife of 47 years, and they have three children: Deidre, Whitney and Audrey and six grandchildren: Tanner, Dylan, Langston, Hollis, Houston and Harrison. Judge Oswalt has gained the respect by the people of Fayette County for his honesty, hard work, and dedication, and I am proud to call him my friend. Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Probate Judge William Oswalt on his many accomplishments and for his enduring impact on Fayette County and the State of Alabama. I join his family, friends and colleagues in wishing him God's richest blessings in his retirement and the next chapter in his life.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the disaster supplemental package, especially as it relates to agriculture and rural development. As chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I worked with the ranking member and other members who represent districts that have been impacted by this historical weather that is related to disasters to support bipartisan relief to the farming and rural communities. From hurricanes to volcano activity, to deadly wildfires, this supplemental provides Federal financial relief to those most negatively impacted by the national disasters. While many of us favor limited government, there are times like these where Federal assistance is needed and is warranted. Members from the Southeast to California, to Hawaii, to communities in between represent districts with agriculture and rural constituents who have suffered devastating losses to their livelihood. In my home State of Alabama, for example, producers of cotton to vegetables have lost everything. In Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina, producers of crop or livestock lost their source of income now and into the future. At a time when hardworking farmers invested limited dollars and countless hours of labor, their livelihoods were wiped out within hours by a once-in-a-lifetime storm. These farmers and producers take financial risks that are unknown to most Americans. Even if the delivery of this critical relief is delayed by the normal administrative process, lenders and bankers must see a signal from the Federal Government that financial support will be coming before the next crop-year. I want to highlight, just briefly, those parts of the package that relate to agriculture and rural communities. The agriculture portion of the bill totals $1.4 billion. A majority of the funding supports the hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce crops and livestock for food on our dinner tables. The package also provides funding for critical watersheds damaged by the hurricanes and fires. Lastly, the funding provides for basic nutritional needs for those who qualify in the Northern Mariana Islands. In closing, I ask my colleagues to support this bill as we build America's communities impacted by these natural disasters.