Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, let me just say I believe that we are missing out on the opportunity to effectively do our jobs.
As elected Members of Congress, we are here to fight for what is right, what is fair, and what is just. When presented with the administration's budget, it is Congress that is charged to serve as the first line of defense for the needs of the American people.

And the agriculture bill before us, as a part of this omnibus, is our attempt at doing just that. However, the progress made in the agriculture bill will end here because we do not have a budget resolution to conference, and it is entangled with other very contentious bills, and that is most unfortunate.

In light of the draconian budget request presented by the President, Congressman Aderholt and I, along with our bipartisan Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee colleagues, worked diligently to protect as much of our country's agriculture and food and drug safety systems as we could.

In order to inflict the least amount of damage, the funding reductions were spread across several programs. But let me be clear, the communities that make up this great Nation need these programs to be robustly funded in order to keep us competitive in the global marketplace.

The United States of America will not continue to be the Nation that produces the safest, most abundant, highest quality, most economical food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world if sufficient resources are not made available by this Congress.

While we were able to maintain McGovern-Dole at the 2017 level, the Food for Peace program was reduced.
This bill provides $830.4 million for research and education activities, which includes approximately $161 million in funding, consistent with fiscal year 2017, for minority serving land-grant institutions. These funds will assist in increasing minority representation and participation in the multidisciplinary agriculture community in fields such as agriculture research, agribusiness, as well as farming and ranching.

At the same time, the Commodities Future Trade Commission was deprived of the $2 million of funds that it needs to protect U.S.

customers from nefarious trade activity. Unprecedented language was inserted into the bill that allows the CFTC Chairman to reduce the pay and benefits of his employees if he deems it necessary to avoid a RIF or furlough, whether or not it abrogates established collective bargaining agreements.

And unfortunately, the amendment I submitted to strike that provision was not made in order by the House Rules Committee.

Funding for the Food and Drug Administration remains flat, which is in stark contrast to the Trump budget that sought to cut it by more than $900 million. And still, funding for this agency that oversees the safety of our food, drugs, and medical devices will not grow, despite our significant dependence on their activities and the increasing workload each and every year.

FDA is being forced to do more with less resources, and that limits its ability to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the American people.

Nutrition. Mandatory funding for SNAP and child nutrition were funded consistent with the current estimates. That is good. Additionally, school kitchen grants are funded at $25 million, which the Trump administration requested be zeroed out. I thank the committee for this.

Now, we just voted for a bill to provide aid for the victims of Hurricane Harvey just as the potential impact of Hurricane Irma looks over us. Instead of being proactive to ensure our citizens who have been and will be impacted by impending natural disasters are protected, we are going to the floor with a package which inadequately funds our Federal agencies and does not completely meet the needs of the citizens of this great Nation.

This approach to funding our government for fiscal year 2018 all but guarantees our short term, if not a full year, continuing resolution.

But just like every year, Democratic votes will be needed to enact an appropriations law. Working together on a bipartisan basis will be absolutely necessary for it to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, we still have a lot of work to do to discharge our obligations to the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to note a few concerns with items in the en bloc amendment. I am not opposing it, but I want to lay down some markers.

On the amendment by the gentleman from Florida relating to ag research, my major concern about the amendment is that the intent is, in effect, to earmark USDA competitive research grants. That really is a no-no.

USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative is one of the jewels in our bill. We have built up funding for it over time and have zealously protected it against any efforts by Congress to say what research is and is not funded.

The agency in charge, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, has a complex internal process for deciding what areas to focus on, and that is free from political interference. For AFRI to retain its credibility, we must not start micromanaging that process and specifying research areas and amounts, as the amendment does.

My other concern is that cutting the Agricultural Marketing Service by $2 million is not a wise choice. In many ways, AMS is the little engine that could. Of critical importance to many Members on both sides of the aisle is its role in overseeing the National Organic Program and the Specialty Crops Program.

Similarly, on the gentleman's NRCS amendment, I want to point out that cutting the National Agricultural Statistics Service, as the amendment would do, is not a good idea. NASS is USDA's premier statistics agency.

Anyone in the agriculture business can tell you that statistics are extremely important to farmers, to ranchers, and industry. NASS produces information on production and prices for virtually every crop grown in the United States, and the major livestock categories, floraculture, organic farming, farm income, land values, and even computer usage on farms; so this is an important agency that needs every penny that we give it.

The amendments relating to watershed and flood prevention operations and specialty crops for Members on my side of the aisle, unfortunately, make reductions to the Offices of General Counsel and the Chief Economist, both very important parts of USDA.

Again, I do not oppose the en bloc amendment, but I did want to make these points.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, I find it troubling that Congress, having enacted numerous laws governing the oceans and coasts, and having put 11 departments and 4 different agencies in charge of administering those laws, now seems to pause in the effort to bring consistency to that process.

The USDA has an extremely limited role in ocean policy, and it is so little that I often wonder why the majority feels it necessary to stop it.

I also wonder why anyone in a rural area would want the USDA's voice to be excluded from any discussion of policy. Shouldn't the interests of the farmers and the ranchers who are served by the USDA be taken into consideration?

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, what the Davis-Bacon Act does is protect the government, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work.

It requires that every contract for construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contains a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of labors and mechanics.

The House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. In fact, most recently, during consideration of the FY18 security omnibus, the House firmly rejected a similar amendment 249-178. I hope that we will defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more substantive matters.

I would also note that it is somewhat ironic that this amendment is being offered on the agriculture appropriations bill because the Davis- Bacon Act specifically protects rural community workforces. It requires that prevailing wage determinations for rural counties be based solely on local workforce costs. Wage data from urban areas must be excluded.

This requirement, I would note, came into force during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. I urge all Members to vote ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Since President Bush ordered Federal agencies to comply with E-Verify back in 2007, this amendment, if it only applies to hiring at Federal agencies, would do absolutely nothing. I am not aware of any effort by the Trump administration to undo President Bush's order, so it is a needless use of the House's time.

I believe the gentleman's language would also require every one of the local county employees or local folks to be E-Verified. Wouldn't this add another burden on USDA when it has to implement the new farm bill?

If so, I would like to ask the gentleman what he expects would happen in an emergency, such as we experienced from Hurricane Harvey, when USDA may need to bring on employees quickly. They would have to wait for E-Verify clearance.

I would also submit that it is not clear whether the language also covers every single person who receives any of the funds in this bill as a grantee. I think it is unclear and would risk requiring every single one of the thousands of grantees to go through E-Verify. Then you would impose a truly undue burden on many small farmers, ranchers, and businesses that receive grants in this bill. I would strongly oppose that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source