Chellie Pingree: “I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for…”

“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.…”