[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SQUARING RHETORIC WITH THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most powerful moment on 
Inauguration Day when the President gave his speech was when he 
reminded his supporters and the people who were assembled there that 
there were too many in America who were forgotten by the Federal 
Government; and that it was his promise that he would, in fact, 
remember them in terms of how he developed policies and programs during 
his time as President. It is a message which obviously he used quite 
effectively on the campaign trail. I think personally it is what 
propelled him into the White House.
  Fast forward to where we are today, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to really 
square that rhetoric with the budget, which was submitted a couple of 
weeks ago by the Trump administration. The one agency which probably 
has the closest connection to rural America, that part of the country 
which he was addressing in his comments on Inauguration Day, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, was cut by 20 percent in terms of what came 
over from the White House.
  Again, that was the third largest hit of any Federal agency of the 
entire Federal Government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It does 
so much in terms of helping farmers, small town America, and rural 
America in terms of dealing with the challenges which, again, I think, 
were just a huge, powerful undercurrent in last November's election.
  In particular, the budget proposes eliminating completely the USDA 
Rural Development for drinking water and wastewater programs, which, 
again, for so many communities, is desperately needed.
  Again, the property tax base of small town and rural towns across the 
country really cannot, by themselves, pay for sewer plants, pay for 
drinking water upgrades. I know because I come from one of those 
districts.
  Even in Connecticut, the eastern half of the State, the Second 
Congressional District is small town, rural America for which the USDA 
Rural Development programs have been the lifeblood of making sure that 
community facilities and, again, a decent quality of life are possible.
  So, for example, in towns like Vernon, Connecticut, where I am from, 
the Bolton Lake sewer plant was just finished a couple of years ago 
through USDA Rural Development. In the town of Putnam, $28 million over 
just the last couple of years, they just built a new fire station, the 
north Putnam fire station, with USDA Rural Development.
  Stafford, Connecticut, there was a sewer plant upgrade. Windham, 
Connecticut, there was a new community health facility, which was a 
community facilities program, through USDA Rural Development. There 
were projects in Thompson, Connecticut, $2.4 million for water and 
sewer; Brooklyn, Connecticut, $1.3; Killingly, and the list goes on and 
on.
  This budget, let's be clear, doesn't just give this program a little 
haircut or tailor it back. It eliminates it. It eviscerates this type 
of help which, again, rural communities, with their own resources, are 
incapable of accomplishing on their own.
  Mr. Speaker, a budget is more than just a collection of numbers. It 
is a statement of your priorities. It is about what is important to you 
as an executive or as a legislator, and this budget fails that test for 
rural America, for the forgotten Americans which the President 
addressed on Inauguration Day.
  I am confident that, in this Chamber, there is potential for a 
bipartisan group of Members to push back on this type of really just 
backwards budgeting and backwards priority.
  Again, in terms of what my father told me a long time ago: Talk is 
cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. Put your budget where your 
rhetoric is.
  On that score, this administration has failed that test. It has also 
failed it with the Sea Grant program for fishermen in America. Again, 
90 percent of seafood that is consumed in this country is from 
overseas.
  Even though we are a great maritime country, the Sea Grant program 
helps fishermen deal with all the complexity of the maritime domain in 
terms of regulations. I have seen it in Connecticut.
  Again, my district borders on Long Island Sound. We have seen 
shellfish growers coming back to life because of the Sea Grant program 
administered through the University of Connecticut Avery Point Campus 
that has given these really hardworking, inspiring entrepreneurs the 
tools that they need to again give America a domestic seafood industry. 
It is just ridiculous when you look at the disproportion of imported 
seafood that is consumed on the tables of Americans all across the 
country.
  Later today, 100 House Members, on a bipartisan basis, will be 
releasing a letter of support for the Sea Grant program. Congressman 
Zeldin, Republican from Long Island, and myself led that letter. Again, 
this is where our focus ought to be in terms of this country.
  If you really care about making America great again, it is about 
giving people out there in the great heartland and in the coastal 
sections of this country the tools that they need to grow, thrive, 
innovate, and succeed. This budget fails that test.

                          ____________________