Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the underlying bill. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I do not believe we should be retroactively taking back already approved funding to pay for tax cuts to corporations.

There are countless ludicrous provisions in this bill to cut rural housing, conservation, and other programs that support communities, farmers, and those in need. I would like to focus on one provision in H.R. 3 that is particularly upsetting because it would rescind over $14 million from USDA's Value Added Producer Grant program, one of the only USDA grants that go directly to farmers' pockets.

Let me be absolutely clear. Despite what the administration has said, these are funds that farmers have already applied for. Those applications were already under review by the USDA when the rescission package was introduced. Projects are ready to go and jobs are waiting to be created with this funding.

It makes me very angry to see that the administration's rescission proposal describes these grants as wasteful and specifically identifies a chocolate-covered peanut project as an example of alleged wasteful spending.

This is not about chocolate-covered peanuts. This is about helping farmers diversify their businesses and providing consumers with new products on which they are willing to spend a little extra.

Farmers are facing very challenging economic times, and I think we should be doing everything we can to support farmers in finding new markets, whether that is by processing milk to make yogurt, making jam from wild blueberries, or even coating peanuts in chocolate.

Ironically, on the same day that the administration released its rescission proposal, the USDA's Economic Research Service released a report on how successful VAPG has been. The report shows that businesses that receive VAPG funding provide more jobs for their communities and were less likely to fail than similar nonrecipient businesses. VAPG works. In Maine and across the country, a little support to farmers through VAPG can go a long way.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source