Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly in opposition to H.R. 3055, and but let me say that I appreciate the efforts of the majority in producing the fiscal year 2020 appropriations package that we will be considering today.

As my colleague from New York referred to, this bill does address many priorities and concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle and, certainly, those of us from the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Chair, we do appreciate that.

I am pleased that the bill provides critical resources for our world- class space program. It funds NASA at levels necessary to work toward the completion of the Space Launch System and the Exploration Upper Stage, and it provides strong funding to continue developing deep-space exploration technologies.

This bill also includes important funding for our Federal law enforcement components and valuable support for our law enforcement partners back home. These resources will help eliminate the sexual assault kit backlog. It will support drug courts and other vital initiatives to address the opioid crisis and help put an end to human trafficking.

The Commerce, Justice, Science bill that is a part of this package is a testament to the commitment that Chairman Serrano made to work together. As he referred to earlier, we worked very closely together. While we may not have agreed on everything that is in this bill, there was a lot that we could agree on.

Let me add that I also appreciate the majority's attention to rural development matters when crafting the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am particularly appreciative of the continued robust funding for the rural broadband program and for what now-Chairman Bishop and I worked on together to draft in the last Congress.

Yet, the fact that there are programs in this bill deserving strong support does not negate the need for fiscal accountability. Unfortunately, the bills

in this package have been written to an irresponsible top-line number.

The Commerce, Justice, Science bill alone, for example, includes a $7.5 billion adjustment for the 2020 Census plus an additional $2.3 billion above the fiscal year 2019-enacted level. It is money that the Department of Commerce says it does not need.

I stand willing to work with the majority in good faith because if we are to avoid more continuing resolutions or even a protracted government shutdown and sequestration, we need to come together in a bipartisan fashion, along with the administration, to agree on a realistic top-line funding level.

Finally, I still have many unaddressed concerns with this bill.

The bill lacks additional funding requested for NASA for the purpose of establishing a permanent U.S. space presence on and around the Moon within the next decade.

The bill also contravenes existing law by funding lawyers for the individuals who are here on our southern border without documentation.

Also, it prohibits the Justice Department from using performance metrics to measure immigration judge productivity. Let's be honest: An immigration court system with a docket approaching 900,000 cases and no appreciable case completion goal is a system devised for those who do not have a lawful right to remain in this country.

In addition, the bill eliminates several longstanding Second Amendment protections that have enjoyed historical, bipartisan support throughout the years.

The bill also prohibits the Census Bureau from including a question just merely on citizenship in the 2020 Census.

In closing, again, I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for their hard work and that of their staff. Certainly, I thank Chairman Serrano for his dedication and hard work on behalf of the appropriations process and the United States of America.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

NASA's plan for facilities to support our human exploration mission is not sufficient, because nothing is more important than keeping our American astronauts alive and safe on these exploration missions.

We will continue to support robust funding for NASA exploration. The funding that is mentioned here, which is part of the SLS Orion and related ground system programs, is critical and supports multiple NASA facilities and personnel, and it even allows NASA engineers to assist commercial space companies with complex engineering challenges.

I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment, Madam Chair, and NASA's exploration programs.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment.

I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman Serrano for working with our side of the aisle, including many provisions that are important to many of our Members here on the Republican side.

Included in this en bloc group of amendments are several NASA and science-related items that I wholeheartedly support.

Congressman Babin's amendment enables the Office of Space Commerce and the Office, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs to better assist American companies to be globally competitive, while still retaining necessary requirements for consultation with relevant agencies.

Representative Foster's amendment emphasizes the need for NASA to move towards a demonstration stage of using safe, low-enriched uranium for power on the Moon and in space, including thermal nuclear propulsion to Mars.

Madam Chair, I appreciate Chairman Serrano's decision to offer this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Unfortunately, there is a campaign that seems to be of fear that surrounds this citizenship question. It really should be an educational campaign.

I would just like to reiterate some important facts about the Census itself.

The proposed question regarding citizenship status only asks if a respondent is a citizen, as has already been pointed out. It does not ask if the respondent is here lawfully or not.

Also, a person's response, if they are not a citizen, does not provide the government with any reliable information about whether they are lawfully present in the U.S.

Furthermore, by law, the Census Bureau cannot, and it will not, disclose anyone's sponsor or share data from which any individual can be identified by ICE or any other Federal agency.

Fortunately, the Census Bureau is deploying expert communicators and trusted messengers to conduct local outreach in hard-to-count communities and motivate each and every person to respond to the Census.

A successful 2020 Census will provide a full and accurate and a secure account of every person who is living in the United States, while gathering the data vital to both understanding our Nation's changing demographics and bolstering enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

The citizenship question does not threaten anyone. The bill includes the outreach sources needed to make this fact abundantly clear to everyone. Inclusion of this provision will only serve to sow more confusion and to make the allocation of the 2020 Census more difficult.

For those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Florida. It is in human nature to explore.

Wernher von Braun and his team in Huntsville, Alabama, designed the rockets that took us to the Moon. The Marshall Space Flight Center which is just north of the district I represent in Alabama, put the shuttle through full-scale stress tests as part of its safety certification. Now, the Space Launch System rocket, the most powerful rocket in the world, is 80 percent assembled.

With Orion on top--the capsule which allows deep space exploration-- the SLS will launch from Cape Canaveral.

As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon, we further honor it by pushing ahead with the SLS mission, which will land the first female American astronaut on the Moon's surface.

Madam Chairwoman, I urge support of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as I mentioned, I do rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. The U.S. Marshals Service's Federal Prisoner Detention account supports detention of all who are remanded to the custody of the Attorney General ahead of trial or sentencing.

Of the largest segments of the average daily population of 61,000, 31 percent are held on drug charges; 24 percent are held on immigration charges; and 14 percent on firearm charges.

Moreover, the detention of individuals for these offenses is on the rise. The U.S. Marshals Service cannot afford to see this account reduced by this magnitude. There are some dangerous offenders out there. Again, I think this is an important program, but I don't think it is in the best interest to pull this money from the United States Marshals Service, and, therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition. I am opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to my good friend from Michigan's amendment.

As I said, there are some issues here that I think we do need to make clear. The amendment would reverse the July 2017 order from Attorney General Sessions, which included safeguards to ensure such adoptions are legal and conform to Department of Justice policy.

Adoptions allow the Federal Government to recover funds that are proceeds of or that are connected to Federal crimes but where property happens to be discovered by local law enforcement.

Moreover, this type of Federal and local cooperation fosters important collaboration between agents and officers. We should not return hastily to the Obama administration policy, but rather continue to review carefully the practice of forfeiture adoption as part of a broader discussion of asset forfeiture reform.

Violent crimes, gangs, and drug trafficking are a growing and continuing problem. We should not take away a tool from law enforcement that it needs to combat criminal groups and make our streets safer.

Madam Chair, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This proposal would prevent Federal law enforcement from enforcing current law and from protecting public health and ensuring community safety.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration defines schedule I drugs as having no current acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there is no scientifically recognized medical benefit from smoking or eating marijuana plants.

Claims of benefits from smoked or ingested marijuana are anecdotal and generally outright fabrications. It is established by fact that such marijuana use has real health and real social harms.

This is true especially for young children with developing brains and those with impaired physical conditions as well as psychological conditions. New data shows crime and health problems from marijuana use and trafficking in particular in States that decriminalize its use.

This amendment that is before us sends the wrong message about widely abused drugs in the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration says more young people receive treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol and other illegal drugs combined. The amendment ignores the problems with abuse and sends the false message to youth that smoking marijuana is healthy.

Mr. Chair, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate his work on behalf of domestic manufacturing.

This amendment would highlight the importance of the Department of Commerce antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations and the threat posed to American businesses from foreign companies selling products to the U.S. at less than fair value, commonly known as dumping, as well as the threat of imported goods from foreign countries that benefit from financial assistance from a foreign government in the form of a counter-vailable subsidy.

This amendment would also encourage better utilization of resources to self-initiate these investigations, pursuant to U.S. law.

Although most antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations are initiated following a petition on behalf of an industry alleging injurious dumping and/or unfair subsidy of imports into the U.S., antidumping and countervailing duty investigations can be self- initiated by the Department of Commerce from information that is made available.

The self-initiation of antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations is an important tool in cases where a U.S. industry consists of small companies or is fractured and the members of that industry cannot meet the threshold necessary to file a petition.

The United States needs to strongly enforce our trade laws and not allow our domestic manufacturing capacity to be degraded in the face of unfair trade practices that hurt American employers, workers, and communities.

These investigations are crucial. They are important tools in the effort to ensure a level playing field that allows our businesses and our industries to compete.

Mr. Chair, I think this is a good amendment. I ask that my colleagues support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I actually rise in strong support of this amendment. I certainly understand the concerns about potential misuse of Census data. Thankfully, misusing Census data is a felony. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and by a $250,000 fine.

Put another way, by law, the Census Bureau cannot disclose anyone's responses or share data from which an individual can be identified, by ICE or any other Federal agency. That is in current law.

So I join my colleague in opposing the use of any funds that would be made available to violate the confidentiality laws that govern our Census.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, if a Member quotes a reference to a newspaper that impugns the character of a Cabinet official, does that violate the House rules?

Madam Speaker, last week, our friends in Azerbaijan celebrated Republic Day, honoring the 101st anniversary of the founding of their country.

On May 28, 1918, the National Assembly of Azerbaijan adopted a Declaration of Independence, and formed the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the first secular parliamentary democracy in the Muslim world.

In 1920, the Bolsheviks invaded the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and established a Soviet government. Azerbaijan was forcefully incorporated into the USSR and suffered under the weight of the Soviet regime for many decades.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republic of Azerbaijan restored its independence on August 30, 1991.

The United States recognized Azerbaijan as an independent state on December 25, 1991 and established official diplomatic relations with the Republic of Azerbaijan on February 19, 1992.

As they rebuilt from the wreckage of the failed communist empire, Azerbaijan grew into a strong and reliable ally of the United States.

Today, the Republic of Azerbaijan is not only a valuable partner of the United States, but also plays a critical role in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Azerbaijan was one of the first countries to render unconditional assistance to the United States after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. It also has a strong friendship and partnership with Israel, one of the closest allies of the United States.

Azerbaijan, as a participant in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace program, has supported NATO's peace operations in Afghanistan by providing troops from the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan to assist with the missions since 2002.

As we commemorate this 101st anniversary of the founding of Azerbaijan, the United States remains grateful for the strategic relationship and enduring friendship between our two countries. Furthermore, we look forward to this strong and close friendship continuing and even growing stronger in the many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I want to send my congratulations to the men and women of Lakeland Community Hospital in my hometown of Haleyville, Alabama as it marks 50 years of serving the people of Winston and Marion counties and the surrounding area.

Lakeland Community Hospital first opened its doors to patients on Monday, May 19, 1969. Known as Burdick-West Hospital for many years, it was originally owned by Winston County and governed by a nine-member hospital board. The original name came from Mr. Fred Burdick, then Chairman of the Winston County Commission during the establishment of the hospital, and from Haleyville businesswoman, Ms. Ila West, who donated the property to the county on which the hospital sits. The hospital was a two-story structure, with 32 beds served by 5 doctors. Later, a third floor was added to the hospital to accommodate more patients. Mr. Tillman Hill was the

first hospital administrator and the hospital thrived for many years under his direction.

Five decades after it opened, Lakeland Community Hospital is truly living up to its name, as it is owned and operated by the community. Now a 49-bed facility, under the administration of Martha McCormick, the hospital is committed to providing high-quality medical care in a friendly environment.

Lakeland's medical staff includes 8 skilled physicians representing a wide range of medical specialties. The hospital is also equipped with some of the most advanced medical technology available today and provides services such as CT scans, nuclear medicine, digital mammography, senior care and medical detoxification. These tools help their doctors properly diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses with greater effectiveness than ever before.

Lakeland Community Hospital is the only hospital in Winston County, Alabama. Like many other rural hospitals, it recently faced the threat of closure. However, due to the hard work of the leaders such as Haleyville Mayor Ken Sunseri, the Haleyville City Council, the Winston County Commission and citizens of Winston County, the Haleyville Winston County Hospital Authority was created, and it has partnered with Java Medical to keep the hospital open and serving those in the area who need medical care.

I want to send my congratulations to the administration and the leadership and staff of Lakeland Community Hospital for their 50 years of service to the citizens of the entire area. I'm confident that in the years to come, Lakeland Community Hospital will be there to provide high quality healthcare that is needed to Winston, Marion and surrounding counties.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the lifetime of service Mr. Loyd Rutherford of Moulton, Alabama has given to the farm community in our nation and the difference he has made in countless lives.

Mr. Rutherford currently serves on the board of directors for Alabama Farm Credit. He will be retiring on April 19, 2019 after almost 30 years of service to the board. In addition to this longevity on the board, he has served as Chairman of the Board for almost the same length of time, taking that title in 1995. He held that title until 2017.

In addition to Mr. Rutherford's service to the state of Alabama, he has also served other parts of our nation. He served on the District Benefits Administrative Committee for the Farm Credit Bank of Texas. Rutherford also worked on the Farm Credit Benefit Alliance plan sponsor committee, which services both AgFirst Bank and the Farm Credit Bank of Texas, the Tenth District Farm Credit Council Board, the National Farm Credit Council board, and the Farm Credit Council Services Board.

Mr. Rutherford retired from working 32 years with a local cooperative in Alabama. He is currently the owner and operator of JRL Inc., a construction and development company in Moulton, Alabama. He also farms cotton, soybeans, cattle and broilers.

I want to commend Mr. Rutherford for his service, especially his time serving Alabama Farm Credit. The organization has helped an untold number of farmers, especially those just getting started in the business, to realize their dreams of making a career out of helping to feed America.

He is married to Janice and they have three children, Jeffrey, Regina and Tanya, eight grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. I am happy to congratulate Mr. Rutherford and I wish him all the best in his well- earned retirement from the Alabama Farm Credit Board of Directors. I know his leadership and knowledge will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Captain (Promotable) Jodie Woodrow Minor, Jr. for his exemplary dedication to duty and service as an Army Congressional Fellow and Congressional Budget Liaison for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller). Later this afternoon, I will have the honor to serve as guest speaker for Captain Minor's promotion ceremony in which he will be promoted to the rank of Major.

Born in Carrollton, Alabama, a town that was in the congressional district in which I represented for six years, Captain Minor enlisted in the United States Army as an Intelligence Analyst and later commissioned as an Adjutant General Corps officer after graduation from Officer Candidate School. He holds Associates Degree in Intelligence Operations from Cochise College and a Bachelor's in Business Administration from Athens State University. He also holds Master's degrees in Business Administration from Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University and in Legislative Affairs from the George Washington University. Captain Minor has served in a broad range of assignments during his 14 year Army career. His assignments took him across the country including Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Fort Carson, Colorado, and Washington, District of Columbia. He has two combat deployments encompassing over 27 months in Baghdad, Iraq, supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 2017, I had the privilege of having Captain Minor serve in my office for a year as an Army Congressional Fellow, and I found his assistance invaluable during his subsequent assignment as a Congressional Budget Liaison-Forward for the U.S. Army. Captain Minor worked tirelessly with Members of Congress and their staffs to accurately articulate the Army's budget positions to the Appropriations Committees. His professionalism, diligence, and commitment to the mission are unmatched, and his work both as a fellow and as a liaison very effectively represented the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense to the United States Congress.

The foundation of Jodie's military success is his family. His grandmother, Joeita Simon of Carrollton, Alabama, provided the base of working hard and ``treating others the way you would want to be treated'', and this principle is so evident in all he does. His aunt, Sherry Anderson and mother, Vanessa Stewart have also had integral roles in Jodie's success. Jodie's daily inspiration comes from his three daughters, Jasmine, Taryn and Trey. As Baptist minister, his encouragement and strength also comes from his faith in Jesus Christ. Jodie serves as a model example and inspiration for all around him to continually develop: spiritually, mentally, and physically.

Throughout his career, Captain Minor has positively impacted soldiers, peers, and superiors. Our country has benefited tremendously from his extraordinary leadership, judgment, and passion. I join my colleagues today in honoring his dedication to our Nation and invaluable service to the United States Congress as an Army Congressional Budget Liaison.

Madam Speaker, it has been a genuine pleasure to have worked with Captain Minor over the last two and a half years. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Jodie Minor for his service to our country. We wish Jodie and his family all the best as he continues to serve in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the joint resolution to overturn the President's declaration. I think it is very clear that there is a national emergency that exists on our southern border because of the high rate of unchecked, unregulated illegal immigration, illegal immigration that is directly contributing to the flow of drugs, human trafficking, and gang members into this country, not to mention the humanitarian crisis of those who feel compelled to make this journey to illegally enter this country.

I think there seems to be some confusion among many of my colleagues and maybe many across the country about the action of the President.

President Trump is clearly acting within the authority that is provided by Congress to confront a border security and humanitarian crisis that constitutes a national emergency.

The threat to our border security is evident from the sheer number of migrants seeking to gain illegal entry into this country, and especially the number of criminal aliens in the form of cartels, traffickers, and gangs. These people will continue to take advantage of our weak borders for their own gain.

I recognize that Congress has lawfully enacted the authority for the President to use military construction funds to support Armed Forces to engage in accordance with the National Emergencies Act.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this joint resolution, as the crisis at the border is real.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I am, in its current form.

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

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.