Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time, and perhaps we can continue that discussion in another venue because today I am rising in support of this act. Mr. Speaker, a while back I was at the Library of Congress and I met the famous filmmaker, Ken Burns and he taught me something. He spoke to us about the creation of the National Park System last century and how it represented a singular defining moment for America; our sense of vastness, openness, and endless opportunity, and regenerated for us an understanding of an American ethos, this great ideal of conservation, caring for what we have and transferring it into the future. Mr. Speaker, our National Park sites are majestic places, great sources of national pride, and a living heritage for all Americans. But here is the problem: We have a backlog of maintenance, but we fix it today. Along with providing certainty for the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, this all is a great boost to communities eager for innovation and conservation ideals.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, as well as Mr. DeFazio for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, I believe, is the single most exciting policy development in the conservation space in decades. As an amendment to today's bill, we are doing three things here: We are protecting ecosystems; we are enhancing community; and we are supporting recreation. I also add my thanks to Representative Debbie Dingell, who has been a tremendous leader in this particular effort, as well as Jamie Raskin, the Congressman from Maryland, for joining us. Mr. Speaker, most Americans don't know that the Federal Government requires that States do wildlife management planning. This amendment funds that Federal mandate in a more creative fashion, by connecting resource extraction with prudent resource recovery, to help States improve their plans and create a continuity of habitat for multiuse opportunities within communities. That is why we have such a diverse group of persons supporting this bill: Hunters and anglers and birders and hikers and other wildlife enthusiasts, as well as those who are involved in the burgeoning field of ecotourism. Mr. Speaker, here is another benefit. When something goes wrong, of course, we tend to act. And in this regard, we act through a very important law called the Endangered Species Act. But this amendment puts preventative measures in place, moving upstream from the emergency room enactment of the Endangered Species Act and moving us from regulation and litigation to collaboration and conservation, which saves huge amounts of government resources, societal resources, while it also enhances our environmental security. And while there are some structural difficulties with the overall bill from my perspective, nonetheless, this provision is a winner.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, from Monday, March 9 through Wednesday, March 11, I missed votes due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, and 100 and ``nay'' on Nos. 95, 96, 99, and 101.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, our world has changed. Who could imagine just 3 short months ago where we would be right now as this silent avenger has threatened life, the life that we knew, and we suddenly found ourselves quarantined in our homes and apartments with nowhere to go, no planes to catch, no appointments to make, just quiet isolation with family and neighbors across the way. Many friends are suffering, suffering unemployment or job uncertainty, or the impact of the sickness directly. The trauma of this crisis is so, so real. With that said, Madam Speaker, I am sure all of us in this body are doing quite a bit of reflection, adjustment, and alteration as we go back to what I call first principles, and here is an example. As I was reviewing my mail recently, my daily mail, a gentleman wrote to me. He was concerned about something. It might not be about what we will talk in a moment, our dependence on China for protective equipment and medical supplies, it might not be the latest surge of the virus in cities throughout America, but, nonetheless, it was important to him that he point something out to me: The flag at one of our small post office locations is not flying, and it hasn't been flying for some time. So my diligent staff actually contacted the gentleman. I believe they reached out to the post office themselves, but it sat out there as a lingering issue. So I decided to call the postmaster myself, and I apologized to her. I said: I know this is highly unusual that a Congressman would call you directly. She said: It is about the flag, isn't it? I said: Yes, ma'am. She said: I don't have anybody to help me. I have the equipment to fix it. The top of the pole is broken. I just don't have anyone to help me. I said: Let's get it fixed. I called our electric system. We have a public power system in Nebraska. They deal with us all the time on a whole variety of issues. Their response was: We will get it fixed. There are a couple of levels of issues here, Madam Speaker, and the reason I tell the story. First of all, it was important to that gentleman that that flag, which represents us all, right behind you, the binding notion of what it means to be an American, that people have fought and died for, the symbol of this dignity, this nobility of tradition that defines not only where we have been but, really, what we ought to strive to be. Maybe he didn't think through all of that, but he just wanted the flag to fly at a government building. The postmaster had no ill will or ill intent, she just didn't have any help. In a previous time maybe we would have just said, well, you need to get the purchase order written, but in my own way, let's just solve the problem. And whether it is a person who has had a problem with their Social Security check or their economic stimulus check, or a farmer who has not been able to get their emergency loan, or a small business tripped up on some aspect of the Paycheck Protection Program--which by the way, has been a bipartisan life-send by this body--to go person by person, business by business, I am sure that many of us have adjusted to the new reality of serving people where they are. And maybe in some small way in the midst of this trauma and crisis, this is a silver lining of returning back to, first, principles versus the abstract discussions that can sometimes consume us, and the ruckus, fighting, and pushing and shoving over things that never seem to come to any end. But hanging a flag in front of a post office is important, because it is who we are and what we ought to be. And I want to thank that constituent for calling me. Of course, in a great Nebraska way, when I told him we got it fixed, he said: Well, is it an all-weather flag? I said: Sir, I don't know that. We did what we could. Madam Speaker, I want to turn back to another set of issues that actually happened before coronavirus hit our country and hit this body as well. One of the most basic expectations of our government is the health and well-being of our Nation. Three months ago, this week, in a timely subcommittee hearing--I sit on the Appropriations Committee and two subcommittees, on State and Foreign Operations, and I am the ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and we have jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration. So in a timely subcommittee hearing, I asked the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services this question--it is a simple question, it is just three words--are our drugs safe? Four words. Are our drugs safe? This raging coronavirus has drawn much attention to this much overlooked problem. And in the name of global profiteering, what has happened is that we have enabled a dangerous outsourcing of pharmaceutical production to foreign countries. A significant portion of that outsourcing is to the very origin of the place where coronavirus came from, China. Over 80 percent of active drug ingredients and 40 percent of finished drugs on the American market, from ibuprofen to reduce your fever, to antibiotics to treat infection, they are produced outside the United States. Even if we vigilantly inspect our domestic manufacturing processes, we cannot possibly get a handle on drug safety when our drugs are sourced from over 150 countries, including a significant portion from China. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, has a daunting task in managing the spending and performance of agencies that are so large they can be bigger than some countries' GDP. And one of those agencies is the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. There is an inherent and unfair duality, however, in how FDA's foreign and domestic inspection regimes are carried out. FDA inspectors routinely conduct surprise inspections in America to ensure that drug companies are producing medicine in a clean, safe, and responsible manner. But when it comes to foreign inspections, the FDA customarily gives companies advance notice, often as much as 12 weeks, enabling drug suppliers plenty of time to clean up their acts. This is counterproductive and it is wrong, and it creates an unlevel playing field for companies trying to manufacture drugs right here in the United States of America. Compounding these problems, the FDA inspectors also face obstruction, coercion, and deception in foreign countries. In one case, a Chinese company reportedly imprisoned an inspector in a conference room for an hour to force her to destroy the photographs that she took of its facilities. Madam Speaker, this inadequate monitoring of foreign production of medicine, it really does have dire consequences. In 2008, a tainted batch of the blood thinner, heparin, which is made in China, killed over 100 people worldwide, including 81 in America. It led to this drug's recall. In August of 2018, the FDA issued an alert that a Chinese manufacturer of a thyroid medicine was recalled due to inconsistent quality. At this hearing that I am referencing with the Department of Health and Human Service's Inspector General, I asked: Why has so much of our drug production moved overseas? Why? Now, of course, in asking that question, Madam Speaker, I basically knew the answer, it has to do with capitalization on low wages, lax safety, environmental and labor standards in those countries. But my fuller intention in asking the question was to probe as to whether or not we have inadvertently, in U.S. law and regulatory structure, perversely encouraged offshoring. These troubling dynamics take on a special urgency given the massive spread of COVID-19. Several months ago, the FDA identified 20 drugs that exclusively source their active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished drug products from China. The agency then issued an alert that at least one Chinese drugmaker had ceased production of a human drug due to coronavirus infection at its manufacturing facilities. So drugs with short expiration dates are particularly vulnerable to these supply-chain disruptions. Another level of problem. So solving these issues can become easier when we can fully identify and inspect foreign sources of medicine. But with the bulk of our foreign drug supply originating from a country that suppressed news about the coronavirus origins, its severity, and its timing, and to this day prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from fully accessing the actual virus, I am not optimistic that we will gain better information. I get it, Madam Speaker, it is convenient in this moment to point a finger at China, but we have plenty to do in our House to restore some order here. The Inspector General promised me an answer within 2 weeks to my question. Do you remember what it was? Have we inadvertently through our legal or regulatory structure perversely incentivized the offshoring of drug production from America? The Inspector General promised me an answer in 2 weeks. I have heard nothing yet. The reality here is that we have to change how we do public policy in our country, just like so many other processes--business and society are shifting. Coronavirus has caused a tectonic plate shift. We are seeing massive spikes in the use of digital technology, which has huge implications for telemedicine, telework, and tele-education. In a bit of a silver lining in this time of crisis and suffering, I am frankly proud that this body has come together to protect healthcare, to protect individuals and families, and to protect small businesses and farmers. Once our body itself recovers our rhythm and order here, there are some particularly good places to start thinking about action around our healthcare security. So policy question one: How much of our drugs come from foreign sources? To solve this, we should enhance the FDA's powers to track the ingredients. We should require labeling as to where they come from. And, third, increase reporting requirements for the pharmaceutical companies themselves, particularly within the precursor ingredients. Bottom line, we need clear answers about how we oversee the foreign production of drugs and drug ingredients. We also need the right incentives to ensure that U.S. companies will produce more and more drugs and drug ingredients right here, here at home in America. It is about healthcare security. If it is made in America, we will all feel much better about knowing that it is safe. But going beyond these policy considerations about our healthcare security, Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to possibly pull back the curtain and read into what we are experiencing now, some future trends. It is not to diminish in any way the trauma, disruption, and suffering that has hit our country, but there are many open-ended questions that we are facing now. And it might be helpful to look into what some new realities are going to be in short order. We have adopted masks and social distancing. We casually use terms like ``herd immunity,'' ``flattening the curve,'' and ``community spread.'' We have also accepted a world with less noise, less urgency, but more intimate connection with those in our immediate orbit. We wonder what we will encounter when the doors fully open once again and we are uncaged to see the world through an entirely new lens. So perhaps here is a little bit of a sneak peek. First, Madam Speaker, our relationship with work has substantially changed. For those fortunate to still have good employment, telework has arrived. While many Main Street businesses are really hurting, many have also transformed themselves into online, brick-and-mortar hybrids. Like never before, people are ordering groceries online, medical supplies, and other essentials through their phones for pick up and delivery. Doctors are seeing patients remotely. And in a little-known shift, we are actually reimbursing properly for telehealth. It is here to stay, and it is going to make some huge advances in our well-being, and perhaps save some funds. School, of course, has temporarily centralized in the home, reconnecting families in important, beautiful, exciting, if not sometimes stressful ways. The handshake may be in decline, but the elbow bump, thumbs-up, and head nod are, of course, enjoying a renaissance. As we extrapolate from these changes to a world in which we are hopeful that better treatments are right around the corner, we are seeing less dependence on automobiles, more connectedness to the outdoors, an increase in victory gardens, and local foods. A nice side effect, nature is recovering. The air is cleaner. Traffic is down. Cities feel calmer. This reality presages the aligning preferences, and this is a fascinating fact, the economic preference curves of the baby boom generation and the millennial generation are aligning for livable, walkable, nurturing communities. But even while we consider the rosier side of this predicament, we have urgent questions. When are we getting back to normal? When can we hug those we love? When can we visit those incapable of visiting us? What does normal even mean? Madam Speaker, here is one aspect of what normal may look like. A new intrusive reality, I have an acronym for it, I call it SSTT, screening, sanitation, testing and testing. So let's unpack this. SSTT is a suite of best practices that will gradually enable the full reopening of our State in Nebraska, where I live, and our country, while ensuring those who are vulnerable, especially the elderly and those with underlying conditions, are fully protected. On screening, you will see more high-tech thermal scans when you enter large public places. As we experienced after 9/11 with the dramatically-enhanced security screening, your temperature will be regularly taken. As for the next S, sanitation. I found a new respect for medical personnel who must wear these surgical masks hours on end through the day. They are hot. They are bothersome, as I am sure you can attest, Madam Speaker. But they are now part of the normalization of our own personal protective equipment routines at retail establishments, at work, and on public transportation. You are already seeing the sneeze guards and other physical barriers at grocery store check-out stands. Hand sanitizer sales are not declining any time soon, as the surprisingly fragile COVID-19 is easily killed through basic hygiene and surface disinfectants. Social distancing is a subset of sanitation. Perhaps we should change the name. Perhaps we should call it social respect because this is what it means. It is an embrace of a necessary constraint out of concern for the public good, and it also lessens our own individual vulnerability. When combined with advancing our ability to work from home if sick, these factors are certainly lessening the disease's impact, thankfully. New configurations for workplace foot traffic and airflow will emerge as we embrace the need to consistently and vigilantly fight this virus. Look for TSA-style COVID prechecks at airports, on trains, and at hospitals. Watch for new office architecture: open floor concepts and lunch buffets being out; plexiglass partitions, staggered desks, one- way walkways will be in. Zoom is the new communal coffee break. As offensive as this seems, look for social distancing monitors on elevators in large office buildings. Again, the acronym is SSTT. The first ``T'' stands for testing. There will be a dramatic increase in onsite work testing. Early diagnosis of those who show symptoms or who have some reasonableness to think they may have been exposed is one way to significantly reduce the spread of the disease. I have been very proud to continue to work with the University of Nebraska Medical Center. During the Ebola epidemic, we worked with the Obama administration to help the University of Nebraska Medical Center, which has a long history in infectious disease and virology, to build out containment facilities just in case Ebola would impact us significantly in America. You might recall, Madam Speaker, that the first coronavirus cases that came off the cruise ship went immediately to Nebraska. Our National Guard hosted people. Those who needed to be in isolation and then those who needed to be quarantined who had the disease went to the University of Nebraska. That is because we have led the country in forward-thinking as to how to create the possibility of containment for some type of pandemic. We have a lot more to do, such as creating a surge hospital concept for our military and our country at large. Nonetheless, in working with the University of Nebraska Med Center, trying to think about how we just don't sit back and let the sick come to us but that we go forward and use institutions that have occupational health specialists and larger capacities to become the center for controlling the diseases themselves in a manner that parallels the necessary public health response that is going on. Again, sanitation and screening are part of that and onsite work testing. The second ``T'' though in the SSTT is for serological testing. This test determines whether you have developed antibodies to the virus, which are needed for immunity. As we are discovering, a number of people who have had the disease don't have any symptoms. They didn't know they had it. They could have antibodies, which will help them fight the disease, should they be reexposed in the future. Said another way, it means a person who has had the virus recovered, and it lessens the possibility of reinfection for them. Both types of testing will become widespread, faster, cheaper, and ordinary--again, helping us control the spread. As we work toward a vaccine or effective treatment to stop the serious effects, this SSTT suite of approaches--again, the University of Nebraska, I am proud of them for developing this and their outreach to the community. It may not be a panacea, but it will give us the data and confidence to more robustly and quickly open our economy and gradually reduce the need for strict containment measures. It is changing a bit now, Madam Speaker, but on an earlier trip to D.C. for some votes we took several weeks ago in which we replenished the funds for the highly successful Paycheck Protection Program--Madam Speaker, if you don't mind, I am going to divert for a moment because I am proud of my State. Again, this was a bipartisan airlift, the Paycheck Protection Program, to help small businesses maintain personnel on the payroll while we tried to get in front of the disease spread, creating a one- two simultaneous step to protect our healthcare system and protect our economic well-being. The Paycheck Protection Program was vital to this effort, widely supported by many of us, as well as the replenishment. Nebraska has a very robust community banking system. We worked very aggressively with the small business associations and got the word out so we, on a per capita basis, have the largest number of loans for the Paycheck Protection Program, which, again, is so important to the well- being of our economic vitality as we fight our way through this virus. The point being, though, I went to get on the airplane, and I stood in Omaha Eppley Airfield and then later at Chicago O'Hare and witnessed this eerie stillness around me: vacant terminals, closed businesses, nearly empty planes, a science fiction movie come to life. Madam Speaker, the Earth has really stood still for a moment, but perhaps in this stillness, just perhaps, we have rediscovered some important things, and we do see some trends that will mark a new way forward. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank Congressman Shimkus, because as he was speaking, I was reminded of my own Concordia College I represent, which is a part of the consortium of Lutheran colleges, which I know is very close to his heart. So I thank him for mentioning the gentleman. Madam Speaker, before I begin, may I inquire as to the allotted amount of time. Is it 30 or 60 minutes?

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I am going to remove my mask as I speak. We are appropriately socially distanced here. I am grateful for the time. Before I begin my own remarks, I am going to yield to the honorable gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who will be departing from us soon. He is in his last term, has announced his retirement. It has been a pleasure to serve with you, my friend. We have a long way to go, but it is always great to see you, and I look forward to your remarks. Congratulating Reverend Dr. Dale A. Meyer on his Retirement

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Steve called me recently. He has one of the businesses that has been hardest hit by coronavirus. He is down 90 percent. We talked through some issues. Steve decided to fight back. He got in line early for the Paycheck Protection Program and made a decision to bring his employees back, and then he had a virtual ribbon cutting where he announced his reopening. Madam Speaker, our country is in dire need of some good news, and this PPP has been a bright spot in the trauma that we have all faced here. Where I live, Madam Speaker, the banker knows the farmer, the banker knows the barber, the banker knows the cafe owner. CPAs, financial advisers, credit unions, we have all pitched in. This is what I call community solidarity. It was clear from the beginning that this program would run out of money, and we have reached that point. This has been a bipartisan airlift, a lifesaver for so many people who make things with their own two hands and take care of others under their employ. I wholeheartedly support this bill.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented crisis, requiring an unprecedented response. People are suffering, and America is uncertain. This legislation acts to protect America's health care system, protect individuals and families, and protect small business. With this battle plan from our government--and the sacrifice and courage of the American people--we will fight back, we will help our sick, and we will restore our great nation. I support the bill.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted yea on H.R. 748, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, as amended.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Neguse for his profound words, generous words, kind words, and committed support to this bill. I also thank Ranking Member McClintock for his review of this impactful history of our Nation. This is the reason that Nebraska chose to honor Chief Standing Bear and to share his legacy with the entire United States with a statue recently placed in Statuary Hall. In fact, Madam Speaker, I was walking through there recently, and I stopped for a moment and paused. I watched the young children gather around the Chief Standing Bear statue because it is so impressive and so dignified, and the words that are below it are so impactful: ``I am a man.'' You see, as Ranking Member McClintock traced some of this history, in 1877, the Ponca people were forced off their land in Niobrara, Nebraska, forcibly relocated in a harsh march down to Oklahoma--Indian territory, as it was called at the time. Chief Standing Bear's little child, his daughter, died along the way. His son later became ill, perhaps because of the trauma of the journey. But he promised his son that he would bury him in their native homeland, and that is what led to this tale. That really is what led us here today, Chief Standing Bear honoring a promise to his son. With other members of the Tribe, in the winter of 1878, they started northward back to Nebraska in the harshest of weather conditions. He was arrested for leaving the reservation. The predecessor to today's paper in Nebraska, the Omaha World-Herald, picked up on the story. It became a famous court case that was followed throughout America. At the end of the trial, Chief Standing Bear simply raised his hand and said this: That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I shall feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you also feel pain. The blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as yours. I am a man. God made us both. With that profound statement, the court was so moved that the judge ruled, as Ranking Member McClintock said, that Native Americans for the first time--this was 1879--would be declared persons for purposes under the law. It is an amazing, traumatic, difficult, but poignant civil rights story. Today, what we are doing is potentially talking about the establishment of the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail that would honor both the courage of this brave individual and his great contribution to the idea of freedom and civil liberties for all Americans. This bill is a first important step toward establishing this trail, and I am really thankful to my colleagues for their support.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Smith for yielding. First of all, let me acknowledge the gentleman's tireless work on behalf of human rights, justice, and human dignity. The gentleman is authentically the conscience of this Congress, and I am so grateful for his leadership and deep friendship. Mr. Speaker, as you walk down this aisle as I just did, if you will notice this beautiful rostrum in this well where we speak, along the sides of the rostrum here are a couple of words. They express the deepest, noble sentiments of what it means to be an American: union, justice and peace. But there is another word that is often overlooked and it is right here. It says: ``Tolerance.'' We are living in a very interesting age. We are living, in a certain sense, in a divided age. We seem to be struggling with our narrative as a nation, particularly politically. But something beautiful is happening. There is a new momentum among this new generation that is coming up that is wrestling with these deeper questions as to how you build a more just nation; how you include people who have been left out. How do you struggle for peace? How do you find authentic freedom, liberty? Tolerance creates the space for protection of that sacred space of conscience, of deliberation that we have in this body that is built upon a fundamental foundation of life: the protection of the ideals of life. We cannot say that we are going to include everybody and celebrate diversity except for them, the littlest ones, the smallest ones, the most vulnerable ones, the unborn child and the mothers that carried them in their womb. We have to do better. The young people cannot reconcile this paradox. They can't. That is why tens of thousands of them are going to come here next week--and a number of them are from my home State of Nebraska, and I am very proud of them--and they are going to do the American thing. They are going to exercise their civil rights for the noblest of sentiments; namely, tolerance for the most innocent, for the most vulnerable. They are going to say to us who are older, who have to shepherd this Nation: Please, please open your hearts and minds. We have to do better. We must do better. No matter how deep the problem, no matter how severe the circumstance, we should be loving enough, caring enough, big enough, and we certainly have resources enough to be a community that cares and loves and helps no matter how difficult the circumstances.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Boyle. Frankly, it is my honor and privilege to join the Pennsylvania delegation as they honor their friend and mine, Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Boyle would appreciate this. I had never heard of Bucks County until I came to Congress, but I learned of it quickly because of a young Congressman named Mike Fitzpatrick, who consistently talked about his home, his relationship with the people whom he served, whom he loved, whom he was devoted to. The gentleman gave some beautiful, generous comments about the nature of his character: He was devoted to his family; he was a man of high principle; he was personable. I think it is important to point out as well: The gentleman is a Democrat; he was a Republican; I am a Republican. And here we are, talking about things that actually unite us because of the character of people, good Americans like Mike Fitzpatrick, who looked for a way to be in authentic dialogue--while standing on his principles. He was a fighter, as well, but looked for a way to be in authentic dialogue, even with people he might have a disagreement with. He was my friend. I remember in that corner back there, we had a very intimate conversation one day of how he was facing a true dilemma because there was a vote that was about to be taken, for which he said, ``This may cost me my election.'' He took that vote anyway, and it did cost him the election, but then he came back and joined us again. Mr. Speaker, let me join with Congressman Boyle and the entire Pennsylvania delegation in expressing my condolences to Kathleen and his six kids, whom he talked about and whom we got to know as well. Being from Nebraska, again, I am a long way from Bucks County, but learned a great deal about the gentleman's home and, of course, the deep character and the place that formed this wonderful public servant, Mike Fitzpatrick.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I have been concerned since the beginning of this impeachment process that it has been driven by a predetermined guilty verdict. It is unfair. It is wrong. And now, every future President, Democrat or Republican, will have to worry that the impeachment process will be driven as a blunt-force political instrument. It has been said that this day is sad. It is not sad; it is regrettable. But this day will end shortly. The House has had its cathartic moment. Tomorrow will begin a new day. Let's get back to work.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say how thankful I am for the leadership of Chairman Bishop and, frankly, for the partnership that we have developed over this past year. It has been truly remarkable. I also thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for their intensive effort around this important piece of legislation, and that of the staff. This is good for America. Agriculture, Madam Speaker, is, in its essence, really essential to the well-being of our country. The Agriculture portion of this entire package includes support for the hard work of our farmers, ranchers, and producers who give us something that we really all do take for granted, some of the lowest grocery prices in the world, as well as protection for the most vulnerable who are in the midst of food insecurity and disaster relief for humanitarian causes. Madam Speaker, in the midst of a House divided, I would like to say this: Food is food. A meal brings us together. Agriculture production is the basis for economic and social well-being, and I am very proud of this effort. We found a reasonable path forward to consensus in meeting the needs of fellow Members. This cooperation allowed us to fight hard to defend, in a bipartisan fashion, House Member priorities. For example, this bill includes funding streams for the building and rebuilding of critical infrastructure needed in our rural communities, from housing to utilities to economic development. Specifically, the bill includes $555 million for the ReConnect broadband program we started just 2 years ago. The Senate bill didn't include any money for this basic utility, but we have. The bill includes an additional $87 million for other rural broadband initiatives that will help bridge the gap and create an ecosystem of livability for telework, telehealth, precision agriculture, and a host of beneficial digital outcomes for rural America. Beyond food, this bill also includes a certain level of responsibility for our Nation's healthcare policy. We support initiatives at the Food and Drug Administration to enhance blood safety, stop opioid abuse, reduce generic drug prices, and further food safety. Continued investments in generic drug competition will help bring down prices for the healthcare needs of all of our constituents. The bill before us maintains a number of very important provisions, such as a Buy America requirement for water and waste infrastructure and flexibilities for child nutrition programs. Interestingly, as well, and of note, the sale of tobacco and vaping products now moves to 21 years of age. No bill includes everything you fight for, but this bill includes a number of benefits for Americans in our diverse communities back home. It supports a number of smaller yet highly impactful programs, enhancing nutrition programs for Native Americans, supporting the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network, and the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. Madam Speaker, let me highlight the importance of one particular program, the farm to school program. We are on the verge of a new movement in this country, connecting the farm to the family, the city to the country. People want to know where their food comes from, Madam Speaker. Programs like this will inspire our youth, build new markets, and uphold the value of agriculture to all America. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill for all of us, and I urge its support.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank both leaders, first of all, for this debate. This is absolutely critical, and here is why: The other day, I went to the doctor--a kind of a common ailment. The doctor prescribed an antibiotic. I said, ``Doc, let's check the price before we use the credit card.'' He said, ``Don't worry about it. It is going to be about $6. It is commonly used.'' But guess what? The list price was about $430. It used to be $6 in 2011; now, it is $430. We have a problem. We have a big problem in America. A very big Democrat, a very big Republican problem. I want to commend my Democratic colleagues for raising the issue, for putting this on the agenda, for making an attempt to propose something. There is strong disagreement with the nature of the policy proposal, but there ought to be unification around the idea that we have to do something. I commend my Republican colleagues for putting together a bill of all the bipartisan initiatives that are around here that we can agree on. So what is going to happen is we are going to get stuck again, really, really quickly. This bill now has a chance of going into law, the bipartisan bill. There is some opposition to it, and it could be fleshed out further. The President has called for negotiations. This is an important part of all of us. So let's get back to work after we get past this moment. Mr. Chair, I thank everyone for a spirited and good debate.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I went to the doctor recently for a common ailment, and he prescribed an antibiotic. I said, Well, Doc, let's check the price on that before we go any further. He said, Oh, don't worry about it. It is commonly used throughout the world. It is about $6. Well, guess what? It was $6 dollars in the year 2011; and now the list price is about $430. Now, I have insurance provided by the House of Representatives, which I am thankful for, but even with that, it is still close to $200. And then you have to start searching for a coupon to try to bring it down a little bit more. So why does an antibiotic, that just a few years ago cost $6 now cost over $400 if someone has to pay cash? Why? Why? This is one of the premier questions before this body. And we debated this today in a prescription drug bill, and it was a robust debate and a good debate. And as I said earlier, I commend my Democrat colleagues for raising the issue and putting something on the table. There were substantive policy disagreements with that bill. There is a realistic fear that if that bill became law, which the President said he will not sign, that we would undermine America's leading role in inventing lifesaving drugs. But there are real considerations as to how to contain costs. We should be focused on negotiations and government programs. I also commended my Republican colleagues for having an alternative answer by coalescing all the bipartisan solutions that are innovative, that have come from both sides, and putting it together in one package that presented an alternative. But that didn't pass, either. So we are stuck. We are right back to where we are. But I only tell my own personal story not because this is about me. That is a simple issue, the little problem that I had. Many other Americans are suffering grievously from this ever-escalating, skyrocketing prescription drug problem. Let's just take, for instance, the case of insulin. About 30 million Americans suffer from diabetes and need insulin. I want to show you something here. Here is an important chart, Mr. Speaker. It starts down here in the year 2011. Basically, this is a chart that shows the price of insulin in 2001, about $35, and here we are today, approaching $300. So, what is happening? That is about a 1,000 percent increase. Is insulin pretty much the same drug? Yes, there have been some modifications and improvements. There have been. Justifying a 1,000 percent increase? No, absolutely not. What is going on here? The price of insulin has gone up dramatically, and there has to be a reason for it. Big pharmaceutical companies and middle management, responding to bad government policy, have created a huge mess in this healthcare space. Not just this problem with insulin, but the average annual cost of a brand name drug has more than tripled in the past decade. Families with diabetic children, seniors on Medicare, and others face prohibitively high costs for these lifesaving drugs, and they deserve better. I want to show you something else right quick, if I could. This is a chart of the last 5 years. Going back to the issue of insulin again, 30 million or so Americans need this drug. This is a difference between what is called the average net price and the average list price. We have about $400 here 5 years ago. Now, we are up to almost $600. But look at this net price. What does that mean? Well, the net price is the price, basically, that the manufacturer is getting. The middle sector here, the marketing sector here, is getting a much higher price. So what is a solution? We didn't come up with a good solution today in debate on the House floor. So what is a real solution? Well, because we can't seem to solve the overall problem with one large piece of legislation, why don't we start with something very small? But it is not small to people affected by diabetes. Why don't we just take this particular drug and allow the manufacturer to sell it directly to the patient? Again, we have an average price of about $600 and a net price of $135. That huge cost savings that could be attained by a person in need by simply being able to pay this price is what I am talking about here. I have dropped a piece of legislation, and I am really hopeful that it rallies Republicans and Democrats away from the big construct that we can't necessarily agree on, but we should continue to work toward, which involves major structural change. Why don't we do something that is very, very specific to one group of Americans that is suffering from exorbitantly high prices? Basically, now, under this one-line bill, manufacturers would be allowed to sell insulin directly to a patient. It is just one line. I am from Nebraska. Many people write to me and ask: Why does legislation have to be so complicated? Why don't you make it a single page? I have made this a single line, one line. What we do when we do this is we begin to cut out these layers upon layers of management and bureaucracy that have driven the price upward, while being fair to the manufacturer and without undermining America's system of innovation that leads the world in producing lifesaving drugs. Nonetheless, we have added this problem, or this middle management, if you will, to the way in which we dispense drug prices. That is part of the problem of why they have gone up so fast, especially around drugs like this. Again, not necessarily a brand-new formulary. No extraordinary innovation has happened over the last number of decades, some changes, some modifications and improvements, but no way to justify these price increases. I think this would be a good idea that actually could unite us, to get us away from the large philosophical differences when we discuss how we move forward, ensuring that we both find fair prices and better cures without undermining the good, innovative, leading industry in the United States, but an industry that has a real problem, that really ought to be rallying around solutions that I am suggesting here. That is just one idea, but I am hopeful it is a start because this idea actually pulls a thread. It is specific enough to affect tens of millions of Americans. It would be so beneficial to lower costs, yet without infringing upon the dynamics of a good market system that we have. I think this is an answer. Perhaps, this could be a good start. Besides this one-line solution, Mr. Speaker, another obvious solution here should be the acceleration of generic drugs. Drug companies, however, have a long history of slow-walking generic drug approval through legal maneuvers, anticompetitive prices, and patent extensions. I have been given a unique responsibility in helping to lead the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, which has oversight responsibility for the Food and Drug Administration. Through our focused efforts, the FDA is reforming the generic approval process. Cracking down harder on pharmaceutical companies that are exploiting loopholes to modify patents for not-so-unique drugs is one way to grow generics. Currently, even a small modification in a drug can be enough to get it approved by the Patent and Trademark Office. In 2018, an analysis found that patent protection for 70 percent of the 100 best-selling drugs was extended at least once. This is a significant cost driver. According to the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, when generic competition exists, prices are often 80 percent to 85 percent less than brand-name drugs. With 90 percent of generic prescriptions available for less than $20 for patients with insurance, that translates into very real savings for families across this country. The Government Accounting Office says that generics can save the United States healthcare system--get this--well over $1 trillion in a 10-year window. We could spend another hour speaking about the financial difficulties that we are having. We have a good, strong, growing economy. Many people are finally, thankfully, finding access to meaningful work, and there is an appropriate upward pressure on wages in this country. But what erodes that? The escalating cost of healthcare. For people who are in need of lifesaving drugs, this is fundamentally unfair. Again, our efforts at trying to move generics faster to market, identify abuse, and stop it can result in savings like this. This is huge. This is good public policy, and we are working on it. Another important piece of legislation allows the pharmacist to tell a patient about therapeutically equivalent but less costly drugs as an alternative method that is less expensive. For a small number of lifesaving but rarely used what we call orphaned drugs, we also need to prevent single corporations from exploiting a small market niche of desperate patients who sometimes find themselves in a life-or-death struggle. Further, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this: Getting at another root cost driver of prescription drugs, we need to change how we procure drugs in large public programs. Our government, through Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other programs, is the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world. The Department of Health and Human Services, however, is prohibited by law from negotiating with manufacturers what it pays, but not the Department of Veterans Affairs, by the way. There is broad bipartisan consensus in Congress, as well as with the White House, that this policy needs to change. We should be negotiating. I should note that was part of the earlier bill submitted to the floor--again, substantive policy disagreements that could potentially undermine America's leading role. But that aspect of this in the Democratic bill that was submitted is an important public policy initiative. Again, I commend my colleagues in that regard. Mr. Speaker, a prescription drug should do two simple things. It should cure disease, but at a fair price. And as we have seen today, there were two very large bills debated, but unfortunately, in this political environment, one is a Democratic bill, and one is a Republican bill, and no consensus exists. But after the smoke clears, I hope that reasonable people will make way and will make a pathway for the right solutions and not political anger. This system is sick. Our people deserve better cures at fairer prices. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank two of my good friends, Ranking Member McClintock and Chairman Huffman, for the cordial and elevated discussion today about something that might appear small in the big scheme of things, particularly with what is going on in Congress, but, nonetheless, is a good, working part of functioning government on this House floor. This is important to us in Nebraska, and it is important to the rest of America. I am pleased that my good friend, Congressman Adrian Smith, has been working on this effort to rename the Homestead National Monument of America to the Homestead National Historical Park to clear up some confusion. This small but important change will more accurately reflect the nature and mission of this unique National Park Service unit. The Homestead Act of 1862, as we have heard, really did forever change the direction of our Nation. Let me take us through a few facts that have already been mentioned but I think worthwhile emphasizing. In exchange for the $18 filing fee and just a commitment to improve the land, any U.S. citizen could farm 160 acres and own it outright after 5 years. Almost inconceivable to us today, but that is how this began. The National Park Service unit dedicated to telling the extraordinary story of these incredible pioneers is located in Beatrice, Nebraska. And I thank Chairman Huffman for clarifying how it is appropriately pronounced: Beatrice, Nebraska. Before redistricting earlier, I used to represent this area. It is only about 50 minutes from my home in Lincoln, so it is a part of the broad neighborhood of the First and Third Congressional Districts. Homestead is located on the site of one of the first homestead claims in the United States, and it commemorates the lives and accomplishments of these early homesteaders. It also celebrates those hardy individuals who, through harsh storms, brutal drought, wind, snow, and isolation, actually helped grow this country. This minor name change will clear up any confusion about this important site because the word ``monument'' generally applies to a single individual or a unique topographical feature. Homestead is so much more. It is a unique piece of open prairie, as we have heard. It houses the historical records of so many settlers, and many visitors come looking to learn a little bit more about their ancestors. Mr. Speaker, I would like to particularly recognize one individual, Mr. Mark Engler, who is Homestead's superintendent and a friend of the Nebraska delegation who sees us quite a lot, along with everyone else in the Beatrice community who have helped to maintain Homestead as a gem of the Midwest and a treasure for all Americans.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Granger for the time but also for her important leadership on this important bill. I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her continuous work and leadership in seeking common ground on this continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member Granger noted, we find ourselves in a difficult position today, so we are deliberating a continuing resolution instead of passing full-year appropriations. It is important, though, that we follow our constitutional duty to maintain government operations. This bill will keep the government open. It will support essential public policies, and it will minimize the drama in the budgetary process. One of our constraints is that the Senate did just start marking up its bills, as has been noted, last week. Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments on the agricultural portion of the bill. On a positive note, in that regard, the Senate Appropriations Committee's Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee passed its bill out of the full committee just this morning. Until the majority leader decides to bring the Agriculture appropriations bill to the floor, and it passes, we have no option other than to wait for the bill to move through the process. Until that time, Chairman Bishop and I will be ready to start conferencing the Agriculture appropriations bills with our Senate colleagues. We look forward to House and Senate leadership decisions on the respective allocations for each of these individual appropriations bills, and on that note, I would strongly recommend that the House and Senate leaders keep in mind the critical needs of the agricultural and rural communities, as well as food and medical product safety, when arriving at the final number for allocations. As ranking member of the Appropriations Committee's Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I was surprised to learn that in the initial draft of this bill, it would have halted desperately needed payments to our farmers and ranchers in rural communities. The White House had requested an anomaly, consistent with prior years, that the continuing resolution carry a noncontroversial provision to reestablish the funding mechanism for farm bill programs that support conservation, risk mitigation, as well as temporary trade payments to farmers and ranchers so hurt by unjustified retaliatory tariffs. The majority did recognize the harm of not including this provision, and for that, I am very grateful. I would like to make a plea to keep farmers and ranchers out of any political disputes. America's farmers are hurting, and now is the time for further bipartisan solidarity. Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects an oversight in the disaster spending bill to help sugar beet farmers in the Midwest. These hardworking farmers have been devastated by 2 years of flooding, and they do deserve equal assistance to others who have faced unprecedented damage to their crops and their livelihoods due to extreme weather events. Mr. Speaker, I support this continuing resolution. Let's keep working hard to finish the rest of the job.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Congressman Thornberry for the time as well as his leadership, as well as the chair of the Armed Services Committee, because this is very important. Recently, I was looking at the photos of the young men and women who hang on the wall of my office. They died in Iraq--some of them I knew; some of the families I knew, some I didn't know; some I still stay in touch with. At this point, we have lost so much, we have given so much, it is hard to understand why further engagement is necessary. And yet, of the many injustices that remain, one, particularly, stands out. The dark twisted idealogy of ISIS decimated the religious minority communities, primarily of northern Iraq, almost 4 million persons. ISIS attempted to exterminate, to kill off Yazidis, Christians, and other minority populations. Now, since then, the Iraqi Army, with our support and with the support of an international coalition, has fought hard and fought ISIS off. They are gone but not yet exterminated. We have shifted substantial economic aid, but there is one more thing we should do: provide security in northern Iraq through the integration of the religious minorities into the Iraqi Government security forces, as well as the Kurdish forces. I thank both the chair and the ranking member for their support.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment as well. I want to thank the Agriculture Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop, for working with our side to include many amendments that are important to our Members. The chairman has been a great partner and has been very fair throughout this process. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, as it reflects the will of many Members and also makes appropriate changes to the bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, there are no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.