Calling on the President to support the creation of a Special Tribunal for the Punishment of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, every day when I anticipate the Agriculture appropriations bill coming to the floor, I wake up with my usual admonition that this is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Today as we take up this Agriculture appropriations bill, it stretches my faith to say that this is a good day because I rise in very, very strong opposition to H.R. 4368.

As the ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I am extremely disappointed to see this bill does not meet the needs of Americans who rely on this funding to ensure safe food and medicines, healthy and resilient farmlands, and strong rural infrastructure.

The programs contained in the Agriculture funding bill are important for all Americans, and they affect our country in so many ways.

These programs help Americans by helping American farmers produce the highest quality, safest, most abundant, and most economical food and fiber in the world through the assistance provided through the Farm Service Agency in almost every county in America.

They help future generations by funding conservation practices, which preserve our farmland and our national resources for years to come.

These programs are essential to those who live in rural areas and ensure quality of life through access to clean drinking water, electricity, telecommunication, broadband, sewer infrastructure, and housing.

They help feed every American, including our most vulnerable families, children, and seniors in difficult times.

They fund USDA meat and poultry inspectors and FDA inspectors of all other food products so that the food on Americans' tables is safe and nutritious. It funds the CFTC and the Farm Credit Administration, so this bill affects our financial space.

I cannot think of a funding subcommittee with as broad a reach as our bill has. A bill with such a broad reach deserves to have these programs adequately funded.

However, the bill passed in our full committee markup only provided $17.8 billion in funding, which takes us back to the 2007 funding level.

That is entirely inadequate for the needs of the American people, and it had no chance of being passed into law when it came out of committee.

Unfortunately, rather than moving in a more productive direction, the majority used a procedural gimmick to impose even greater cuts of 69 percent to the Food for Peace program and 14.2 percent to all other discretionary programs.

Instead of improving the bill, the Rules Committee made it even worse. In total, the cuts to the bill have reduced funding 41 percent lower than last year. The bill before us today will take us back to 2001 levels. That is totally irresponsible.

The bill will harm rural America by taking money from programs supporting rural communities such as it cuts $500 million from the Rural Energy for America Program, the REAP program, and it eliminates grants under the program, which will raise the energy costs for over 15,000 rural farmers and small businesses.

It takes $1 billion from rural electric cooperatives, 900 cooperatives that serve over 40 million people in 48 States.

It slashes $800 million from the WIC program, which drastically also cuts the cash value voucher benefit for fruit and vegetable purchases, affecting nearly 5 million hungry women and children.

It strips loan assistance needed by 100,000 economically distressed farmers, which could literally cost folks the family farm.

It cuts rural development programs by over 40 percent, which means thousands of rural families will no longer be able to get a loan to afford a home.

Hundreds of projects meant to provide clean water and wastewater systems will be eliminated, and thousands of families will not be able to turn on the tap and count on drinkable water.

It completely guts the Food for Peace international food aid program. It cuts the McGovern-Dole program by 14 percent, which will further exacerbate the global hunger and instability and the risk of conflicts abroad, which will weaken American security.

The bill also strips the Secretary, as you have heard, of discretionary use of the Commodity Credit Corporation funding.

The CCC is a tool authorized by law to benefit our farmers and the thousands of church and community food banks that it helps to fund.

No matter which party is in the White House, the only folks that suffer when any administration is not allowed to use the CCC at its discretion are our ag producers and American families.

Our farmers benefited tremendously under the Trump administration when Secretary of Agriculture Perdue used the CCC to give our farmers relief from the trade wars with China.

As I look at it, the path this bill has taken so far and the proposed amendments that we will see tonight would make it even worse.

I ask myself for any farmers that are watching tonight who are trying to do what is best for their land, for their businesses and their family, what will they see?

For people in rural communities facing the challenges of providing clean water, affordable housing, and dependable utilities, what will they see?

For those same communities trying to ensure that their law enforcement and first responders have the vehicles, the communications equipment, and the other resources they need to keep their rural communities safe, what will they see?

For struggling families trying to put food on the table for their children, what will they see?

Sadly, if those Americans are watching us tonight, what they will see is a majority which is focused on overriding medical science to take away a woman's freedom to control their own reproductive health choices, but not a majority focused on ensuring that those women and their children are able to afford food.

They will see a majority that is focused on an undefined so-called critical race theory while pushing this bill to jeopardize the safety of our food and our medicine, slowing down our supply chain, and ironically, making these things harder to get and more expensive to buy.

Make no mistake, the majority would have a person who is watching at home to believe that this bill fights against some undeserving citizens who don't need the help. The hard truth is that this bill is a nuclear bomb against the needs of every single American.

The majority wants the people to be distracted by their culture war while they cut the crucial programs that every American depends on for the safest, the highest quality of affordable food, fiber, and medicine in the world. It appears that tonight we will see more amendments from the majority that further push the bill in a terribly harmful direction.

It astonishes me that we are 4 days away from a government shutdown, yet we are not debating a bipartisan bill to keep the government open. Instead, we are debating an extreme messaging bill that does nothing to bring us closer to the bipartisan agreement we will need to eventually pass a 4-year government spending bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a responsible bill that meets the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my personal staff, including Tynesha Boomer, and the subcommittee staff, including Martha Foley, Alex Swann, and Tyler Coe for their hard work on this bill. I thank the majority staff for their efforts. I pray that the majority Members of Congress and the majority of Congress will have an epiphany and deliver a much better work product to the American people by the end of this funding process.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we are in this deficit situation largely because we don't collect the revenue from the people who owe taxes, the wealthy millionaires and billionaires that the Republican majority is protecting by not funding enough agents to collect the money for the Internal Revenue Service so that we can fund the government.

We wouldn't have the deficit that we have today were they willing to put sufficient agents on the job to be able to collect the money that is lawfully due. People should pay their taxes and they shouldn't protect those tax cheats.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and a member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and a member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Every time I hear Republicans talk, they are talking about the cost of everything going up. Assuming, which is not true, that the $6 billion is the same as the last year, they say over and over and over how much the cost of living has gone up, how much more it costs to buy groceries. That is what they talk about every single day when they are not talking about what they want to slash.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a hardworking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope that the people who are watching tonight will take note of the fact that they don't have to take our word for it. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill, and they have

scored the manager's amendment. The gentleman says that the bill is $22 billion. After the amendments that they are going to be offering on this bill tonight, CBO has scored it at $15.1 billion. It is clearly not what he is representing. After the manager's amendment, which is the first amendment that we will be considering tonight, the CBO has scored this bill at $15.1 billion, which is a drastic cut to the needs of the American people.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

Mr. Chair, over the past two decades, our country and the agriculture industry have grown. Our population has grown, yet this bill initially withdrew funding for America's agriculture, as you have heard, back to 2006 funding levels with an allocation of $17.1 billion, which is nearly $8 billion below last year's enacted bill.

Sadly, we are here tonight with a bill that the majority made even worse this past weekend by gutting Congress' commitment to American farmers, producers, rural communities, and families to levels last seen in 2001. This bill keeps moving in the wrong direction.

Also, many of the amendments that we will be debating tonight, which lower this allocation much lower than the American people need, will be an attempt to circumvent the ongoing negotiations in the House authorizing committee, the Agriculture Committee, which is working so desperately to get our farmers, our rural communities, and our lenders in America our 2023 farm bill, which is the blueprint that our farmers and our stakeholders need to plan for agriculture in America going forward.

This will jeopardize the consensus that we hope to build and to pass for the 2023 farm bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill. Let's send it back to the committee, and let's begin to put together a better work product for the American people.

This bill is a disgrace. It really does not rise to the level that the American people deserve. We have to continue to keep our farmers and Americans in a position to consume and produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant food and fiber anywhere, and to have the safest medications and medical devices.

Mr. Chair, I urge us to defeat this. We need to do better, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment includes 42 amendments--5 bipartisan, 17 Republican, 20 Democratic.

The agriculture funding bill has historically been a bipartisan bill, and we will need to channel that same cooperation if my colleagues want to pass appropriations bills into law.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendments and his cooperation in having this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment would cut funding for the Office of the Chief Economist by an additional 46 percent. That is almost half.

The Office of the Chief Economist provides advice and counsel to the Secretary on matters affecting the economy with respect to the Agriculture Department. This bill already guts funding for USDA. Any further cuts just make a bad bill worse.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It is bad for the country. It is bad for the USDA.

Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when you cut the energy assistance programs for our farmers and our rural communities, you raise the cost of their production. When you raise the cost of their production, you raise the cost of the products they produce to put on the shelves of the grocery stores. This is not a good thing, so I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I urge the defeat of this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would cut funding for the Office of Civil Rights at USDA by an additional 19 percent. The bill already guts funding for USDA. Any further cuts would just make a bad bill worse.

The Office of Civil Rights at USDA is there for one purpose, and that is to make sure that every American has an equal opportunity to access the programs of USDA regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of national origin.

USDA over the past decades has been required to pay billions of dollars to folks who were stakeholders who were denied equal opportunities to access these programs. If we cut this, we will be hamstringing the ability of USDA to do the right thing. We want to stop this before it spreads. It has already done too much damage to access for minorities, for women, and for various ethnic minorities, so we must fund this office.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is another amendment that does nothing to serve farmers, nothing to serve rural America, and it has no place in this bill. We should fund the USDA in a way that makes its programs accessible and available to every single American.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It will cut funding for the Natural Agricultural Statistics Service and the Census of Agriculture by an additional 8 percent.

This bill already cuts too much funding from USDA, and any further cuts, again, will make a bad bill worse.

The Office of National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Census of Agriculture serve very important functions.

The American people need to know--we need to know what we grow; we need to know who is producing what we grow; we need to know where it is grown; we need to know what the country will need.

This office provides very important data that informs us; it informs governmental entities; it informs our private sector; it informs the consumers. We don't need any more cuts here.

I urge Members to defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

Cutting funding for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture by an additional 17 percent is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The bill already guts funding for USDA, but the NIFA, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture provides grants for research to our colleges and universities, and particularly the 1890s institutions that were created under the Second Morrill Act.

This is a very useful agency. It provides essential research, the tool that keeps American agriculture on the cutting edge. In America, we produce the safest, the highest quality of food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world, and we do it because we fund research.

Our research is cutting edge. Why would we cut it by 17 percent? We need research like we never needed it before because of the climate challenges that we are facing. We have got challenges that we must overcome in order to continue to produce the food to feed the people in this country and around the world.

This research is essential, and we need to continue to fund it. We don't need this 17 percent cut.

I urge the defeat of this amendment. Let's defeat this amendment, and let's pass a useful bill that is responsible that meets the needs of the American people and the American producers.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, these amendments just go to undermine the ability of USDA to do what it is supposed to do for the American people.

This is another amendment that cuts funding, and if you keep cutting funding, you will totally make this agency unable to deliver on its promises to the American people.

Mr. Chair, it is a bad amendment. It is a cut that doesn't need to happen. I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Cutting funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service by an additional 8 percent will just, again, make it worse.

This is a very important agency. It provides very valuable services to our communities as well as to our farmers. You have a number of programs that are so vitally important.

They have the conservation innovation programs.

They have the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which helps farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to integrate conservation into their working lands.

They have the grants that support the development of new tools and new approaches, practices and technologies to further our natural resources conservation on private lands.

They have the Conservation Stewardship Program, which builds on conservation efforts to strengthen the farmers' operations.

They have the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which is a Federal emergency recovery program that helps local communities recover after natural disasters strike. Look at what we have endured over the past year, the past 2 years. Communities have been struck by floods, wildfires, and hurricanes.

We have problems, and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program is there. It needs to be fully funded, particularly this year with what we have experienced with climate change.

They have watershed and flood prevention programs, the wetland reserve easements. We have to help with this. We have to protect our forests and, of course, the forest programs and the grazing funds for our livestock.

This is just penny-wise and pound-foolish. We must protect the conservation programs because they protect our environment and our farmers and help them to be sustainable.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, this bill, our funding bill, funds rural America. We, as Members of Congress, ought to be committed to ensuring that people who live in rural communities are not disadvantaged simply because of their rural ZIP Code.

I urge us to defeat this amendment because affordable, decent housing is something that every American ought to have access to regardless of where he or she lives.

Of course, this funding for rural America is comparable to the same programs that urban Americans have access to. It provides support for families so that they can afford to have decent housing.

To cut this is to punish people who need help for decent housing and who happen to live in rural America. This is something we should not do.

Rural Americans should have the same opportunities to realize the American Dream as any other American anyplace they live.

Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is a bitter, nasty amendment that hurts people who need a hand up.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated. It will cut funding for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service by an additional 44 percent.

Agricultural cooperatives provide effective marketing and local supplies and services to their member-owners. Cooperatives bring electricity, eConnectivity, affordable housing, capital, financial services, telecommunications, healthcare, food, hardware, building supplies, and countless other goods and services for people who live in rural communities.

An example for electricity: There are 900 co-ops, electric membership cooperatives, that serve 42 million people in this country in 48 of the 50 States, and they cover 51 percent of the land area in the United States of America.

We need the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to help support these rural co-ops that help bring business and help marketing in our rural communities.

Agriculture is a very, very lucrative business, it happens in our rural communities for the most part, and we need this cooperative service and we need the support for it.

Mr. Chair, this is a bad amendment. It is penny-wise and pound- foolish, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I certainly rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for the Foreign Agriculture Service, which reduces the services promoting United States agricultural exports, developing overseas markets, and increasing global food security.

This cut would directly harm American farmers because they would have less opportunities to market their commodities abroad. There is already a 14.15 percent cut from the House levels imposed by the majority in this bill, and these cuts would only further harm our American farmers.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to hear the discussion about a $2 trillion deficit when that was created by the tax cut that they passed in the last administration--$2 trillion because they cut the taxes and reduced the amount of revenue. Come on.

You balance the budget with revenues as well as with spending reductions. Let's be real here. This is just a subterfuge. We need to defeat this amendment and we need to move forward and try to produce an agriculture bill that really addresses the needs of the American people in 2023.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

As a reminder, the bill already cuts the Food for Peace program by 69 percent from the level passed in the full committee. During a time of increased need and difficult decisions ahead for prioritizing funding from this program, this amendment would further cut Food for Peace. Additionally, today, we have already considered three other stand-alone amendments to cut the program.

I not only oppose this amendment due to its effects on people without food security across the globe, I also oppose it due to its effect on our farmers here at home. U.S. commodities are a key pillar of this program, and cutting funding would directly harm those farmers who produce these commodities that go to this program. There is an international aid shortfall of commodities, including millions of commodities that American farmers proudly produce, such as wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, lentils, beans, and peas.

This amendment shortchanges America's farmers as well as America's values, our Judeo-Christian values. I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As I said in my opening statement, this bill already cuts the Agriculture funding bill back to a level last seen in 2001.

Apparently, those cuts are not enough because this amendment would cut 50 percent from the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. That is a 50 percent cut from funding supporting schoolchildren abroad.

This is a proven, successful program, a bipartisan program which takes concrete steps to ensure that the program activities continue after U.S. support is no longer provided. This money is not wasted. It is not indefinite for any one location. It is a sound investment to promote the health and education of schoolchildren, especially girls, in need around the globe.

We are 4 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of debating a bipartisan path forward, we are debating further cuts to programs that have broad, bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary and harmful.

While there is a global commodity shortage and conflict that fuels hunger around the world, this bill has already been cut by 14.15 percent. Further cuts will only cause further impacts to efforts to improve the food security and education of children around the world.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have extremely strong opposition to this amendment.

If there are not sufficient jobs for people in the State, who are we to take that State's judgment away?

The other side is always talking about States' rights. Well, these are not people that are living high on the hog. They are not people that have excess money.

I cannot and I will not support this amendment, nor will any of my Democratic colleagues. It is mean and it is cruel to ask people to do something that is not possible. If there aren't jobs, they can't be employed and they can't comply with this. The States should know better than we in Washington. If the State requests a waiver, which is a request, it is not a mandate, certainly the Department can examine it and determine whether or not there is sufficient cause to justify the waiver.

We shouldn't just sua sponte on our own decide that a State doesn't have sense enough to know what is going on within its borders.

We should not support this, and if it is included in the final conference agreement, I doubt my Democratic colleagues would provide the necessary votes for final passage, nor that the President would sign the bill.

I urge us to defeat this amendment. It really makes no sense, and it is mean, and it is cruel.

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

Mr. Chair, electric vehicles produce no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions when driving, and they create a healthy environment for all Americans by reducing air pollution. Electric vehicles require less fluids and lubricants, which keeps our drinking water cleaner.

Why would anyone object to having cleaner air or cleaner water for our children and our grandchildren?

This amendment doesn't save the American taxpayer any money because it prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from purchasing electric vehicles that will reduce fuel costs for the Department of Agriculture.

It is estimated that by 2035, most of the world's automakers will offer nothing but electric vehicles. While that is

12 years away, there is no reason to prohibit the Department of Agriculture from replacing retiring vehicles with electric vehicles to build our fleet for the future.

We are all witnessing the impacts of climate change through drought and extreme weather events. Let's not prevent any steps that would help us address climate change.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. This amendment would prohibit funding for carrying out the recommendations of the interim report of the USDA Equity Commission.

The Equity Commission has made 32 initial recommendations on a range of topics such as environmental justice, increasing financial support for minority-serving institutions, and ensuring farmworkers have access to nutrition programs, among other topics.

These recommendations are a great first step toward addressing historic inequities and we should all support them.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, setting aside whether this amendment is misplaced in the Agriculture appropriations bill, this amendment is simply bad policy.

We are still fighting the lingering effects of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and attempts to cut funding for the World Health Organization would hamper work to monitor any new variants of COVID-19.

Moreover, the World Health Organization's work extends far beyond just responding to COVID. Cutting funds for the World Health Organization will affect efforts on other diseases and illnesses, including polio or the flu.

Efforts to disengage with the WHO through our bill are misguided and do nothing to address any concerns about accountability, transparency, or cost efficiency.

This is not a good amendment. I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the closing of offices of the Farm Service Agency for any reason.

Although it mentions COVID-19, the prohibition amendment would not be limited to closures related to COVID.

The Crawford amendment is duplicative of the stronger, clearer proviso on page 25, lines 8 through 10 of the bill that is being considered where it says: Provided further that none of the funds available to the farm service agencies shall be used to close Farm Service Agency county offices.

Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary because it would create a restriction that the legislation already contains.

We don't know what the future of COVID or any future pandemic or disaster may hold, so we shouldn't impose such a broad restriction. This is duplicative.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding for the USDA Office of Chief Economist to fiscal year 2016 levels, which will save us more than $11 million in 2024.

Now, what is interesting, I have been listening to my colleagues across the aisle saying that it is going to 2001 levels. They don't want 2000 levels. This goes to 2016 levels, so I am hoping that they will support this because our annual discretionary spending has exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response.

No one thought our government was too small before COVID. We are currently spending $400 billion more in fiscal 2023 for the same government we had before, and deficits for this year are expected to exceed $2 trillion.

That is why we have a $33 trillion national debt, and that does not even include the $600-$700 billion in interest that we pay.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels far exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2016, meaning that if we were to shrink the Federal behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months.

This is the first of many amendments that I will be offering to appropriations bills this week intended to reduce spending. My staff and I spent countless hours earlier this year reviewing the prior year's appropriations bills and making recommendations to the Committee on Appropriations. I even filed 521 separate bills to cut spending across the discretionary budget totaling $100 billion in spending reductions for fiscal year 2024.

I am not singling any one office or department out here. We need to tighten our belts across the Federal Government in order to get spending under control.

I will just ask you: How bad is the national debt crisis? The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that compose the largest central bank in the world have a monopoly on printing paper dollars. It is the world's reserve currency. Yet, its ability to print money and invest it in bonds, the Federal Reserve is now on pace to lose over $100 billion this year.

They lost $53 billion in the last two quarters. They are going to lose over $100 billion.

Why is that? Because Federal spending is out of control. If we are not going to fix it, who is going to fix it? Who is going to start fixing it? It is our job.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chairman, for the last while I have heard my colleagues across the aisle, they were talking about costs, that Republicans want to cut costs, and that we always talk about costs.

Here is my question: What could they do? They are the ones who fostered this massive inflation on us that is imposing terrible, terrible costs on the American people.

The first thing they could do is they could unleash American energy. When you unleash American energy, you reduce the price of the fuels that are necessary for the farmers to produce our food. You reduce the cost of the transports to bring that food to market, and you make our cost structure go down.

That is not necessarily inflation, because the other thing you have to do to bring inflation under control is to bring Federal spending under control.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which restores funding for the National Agricultural Statistics Service to the fiscal year 2019 level. That would result in nearly $13 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024.

Annual discretionary spending, I won't go through that again, what I said last time.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels actually exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2019, meaning that if we were to shrink the Federal behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months.

Now, I want to continue on why this is so doggone important that we take care of this. The proposed funding level for the National Agricultural Statistics Service is a 7.6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 level. So we are actually bumping it slightly above the 2019 level, but we are getting right back to the pre-COVID levels.

Now, let's talk about this for a second. My colleagues across the aisle--I actually heard one of them say in talking about the underlying bill, the main bill, that the Federal Government needed to ``meet the needs of every American.'' I want you to think about what that says. The Federal Government meets the needs of every American.

Who determines what that need is and who pays for that need? Well, our grandchildren must be the ones that they think are going to pay for the current needs because we are borrowing $2 trillion this year; and it will be more than that next year. We are paying interest about $700 billion in 2023. It will be more than that next year.

Let's talk about the Fed again. I mention the Fed just so people can understand that the Fed has now put itself in a precarious position. We always used the Fed. We counted on it--those who wanted to grow government did. They believed in modern monetary theory, that the Fed could just keep printing money, no inflation would result, just money grows on trees, and that we could supply every American with every need that they might have.

So you use the central bank to keep interest rates really low. That made private borrowers really happy because they could service government debt inexpensively.

But what happened? COVID happened, right? And trillions of dollars flooded our economy, and when those trillions of dollars flooded our economy, it devalued our currency and caused inflation to go up because those were nonproductive dollars.

What did the Democrats do last year--because they didn't get their act together on budgeting--they passed a couple of CRs, which led ultimately to the omnibus bill, and that flooded money in there--after COVID was long gone. They added to the inflationary pressures.

I am going to continue this, but for now, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let's talk some more about the Fed and why we are in a world of hurt and why we have to start reducing spending and funding.

We can't fund every project, everything around the world and even in our own country. We send hundreds of billions of dollars out of this country.

Guess what, when the Fed bought $4.7 trillion in additional assets, $2.5 trillion of that was in mortgage-backed securities, and they invested in long-term loans. Then, as inflation pressures up, they kept increasing the prime rate. They are now expecting another increase in the interest rate within the next 2 months. We will have to pay that debt service. That will contribute to the inflationary pressure that we have.

When you screw up your energy policy and you screw up your Federal funding policy, the American people suffer, and they suffer through higher costs due to inflation. That is a hidden tax.

That is why I keep trying to find ways, line items where we can actually provide services but we can reduce the Federal spending to at least make some rational nod toward bringing us back to some sound funding policy, something we haven't seen here in ages.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to fiscal year 2019 levels.

This amendment would direct $157 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024.

Let's talk about this. I have been talking all night about the precarious position our economy is in. I am often baffled by this. I view it as an existential threat, and you know what, bipartisan we have seen national security leaders of this country say our biggest threat is our national debt.

Every year we have a structural deficit. This year we thought it was going to be about $1.7 trillion. CBO revised it to north of $2 trillion, and that is what it is going to be next year.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture has made a habit of disseminating grant funding to organizations intent on perpetuating societal

division in the United States. These include things like a $350,000 funding grant to a Soros-funded nonprofit promoting ``equity'' in community food development projects, another $1.4 million in funds for organizations to advance ``food justice'' in California, and funding to colleges seeking to ``enhance diversity'' in food economics.

The proposed funding level that is made for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is a 17 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 level.

This reduction I propose in my amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars are properly focused on activities related to food and crop development. That is what this agency is supposed to be doing, not wokeifying the money that we give to it.

Well, I want everyone to support this amendment, and I am going continue my talk about our precarious position, which is an existential crisis to the United States.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, over the course of this evening during the debate of the underlying bill it was referred to as being heartless and disrespectful. This amendment was referred to as being disrespectful, as a matter of fact.

This is what I would tell you: You know what is heartless? Heartless is putting our Nation and wrapping it up with flax and cords that we will not soon be able to get out of with constant perpetual debt.

You see inflation, inflation is going to keep going. Inflation is going to keep going because we don't have a great energy policy and we have a terrible Federal spending problem.

We heard on the underlying bill, hey, you know what, we should just raise more taxes. That is what we should be doing. But you know what, we had record revenue, record revenue, and guess what, we continued to increase our structural deficit, which leads to a greater national debt problem.

It isn't that Americans aren't paying enough in taxes. It is a fundamental spending problem. It gets back to what I have been talking about, this modern monetary theory. You heard it just a minute ago. We need to take care of the needs of everybody. Who pays for that? It is obviously not going to be the American people who are living right now. Maybe it is going to be some who are living right now.

We can't fundamentally afford the government my leftist colleagues across the aisle continue to promote. That is what they want. They want massive government. They want government that controls every aspect of everybody's life. Then, they say, that will meet the needs of everybody.

That is not enough. They have to open the southern border, as well. By the time the Biden administration leaves, you will have 10 million encounters at the border. That won't include the got-aways, both known and unknown, which already, under the Biden administration, exceed 2\1/ 2\ million people.

How are you going to pay for that? They never want to tell you how they are going to pay for it because they have no concept of what is facing this country.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding to the Farm Production Conservation Business Center to fiscal 2019 levels. That is right: Take it back to pre-COVID levels.

This amendment would direct nearly $15 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024. My staff and I, earlier in the year, introduced many bills trying to take a line-item approach to the budget to try to reduce spending, to try to bring us back into some rationality, and this is one of the places we found.

The proposed funding level for the Farm Production Conservation Business Center is a nearly 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2019 levels.

The Farm Production Conservation Business Center is a fairly new office within the Department of Agriculture and is intended to support the agency's farmer-facing components. Under the Biden administration, the agency is pushing out taxpayer-funded climate alarmism and messaging to outline how USDA is advancing equity by providing increased financial assistance to historically underserved groups.

The spending reduction in this amendment would ensure that the business center is not abusing its farmer-facing role to promote divisive ideology, as the Biden regime is trying to do, but instead focuses its resources on serving agriculture producers.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have to say, I am actually baffled a little bit because it is like we are on the other side of an ocean, an ocean separates us. I never hear my colleagues say that they want to reduce spending on any program. I never hear it. Instead, they

want to continually propose big spending programs that we simply don't have money for, and then they want to do something that is actually self-defeating by increasing taxes.

We have significant revenue. We just outspend the revenue. We outspend it every time.

What happened after COVID? Well, I am proposing we go back to pre- COVID levels. What happened during COVID is that the Federal Reserve had to auction so many treasuries it really had to begin offering higher rates. What did that do? That fueled higher rates.

Now, with rates so much higher, the bank is now forced to borrow against all its prior lending, all its prior investments, which they did at like 1 percent. Now, we are sitting at 5.3 percent.

When you are doing bonds, Mr. Chair, and you know this as well as anybody, your value of your asset has decreased. That is what has happened, and it puts us in massive economic jeopardy. We have to acknowledge that.

That is the reason that the Fed has incurred a net loss of $53.5 billion on interest expense, a trend that is going to continue in this quarter.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record an article by Daniel Horowitz from September 26, 2023.

[From Blaze Media/Opinion & Analysis/Opinion, Sept. 26, 2023]

Horowitz: When Money Printers Can No Longer Print Money

(By Daniel Horowitz)

Just how bad is the national debt crisis? The 12 regional

Federal Reserve Banks that compose the largest central bank

in the world have a monopoly on printing paper dollars, the

world's reserve currency. Yet despite its ability to print

paper and then invest it in bonds, the Federal Reserve is now

on pace to lose money on its own scheme to the tune of over

$100 billion this year.

Thus, the great bailout institution of last resort has now

itself become a further drain on the federal treasury.

Until recently, the Federal Reserve was the ace in the hole

for the governing elites who wanted to grow weaponized

government on the cheap. The central bank was able to keep

interest rates extremely low, which made private borrowers

happy but also serviced government debt inexpensively. And by

using maturity transformation to borrow short and lend long,

the central bank could turn a profit by lending at higher

rates of interest than it borrowed. The net profit was always

deposited into the rapacious accounts of the Treasury

Department to offset a portion of its ballooning debt.

Then came COVID.

COVID ended the Ponzi scheme. In its attempt to permanently

control our lives, the Federal Reserve was forced to pay for

the lockdowns and ultimately lost control of the money

laundering operation. In order to service the debt, the Fed

in less than a year purchased $4.7 trillion in additional

assets, including $2.5 trillion in mortgage-backed

securities. Central bankers invested this money in the form

of long-term loans locked in at very low rates.

Then came the inevitable inflation driven by this very

COVID spending.

The Federal Reserve was forced to auction so many

Treasuries on the market that it had to begin offering higher

rates. Many would also argue that Federal Reserve Chairman

Jerome Powell raised the federal funds rate too quickly under

the false premise that it would stem the tide of the

inflation it created.

Well, now with interest rates so much higher, the bank is

forced to borrow high against all of its prior lending

(investments), which was at a much lower rate. We now have

the ultimate inversion, which is causing severe deficits. In

just the first two quarters of 2023, the Fed has incurred a

net loss of $53.5 billion on interest expense, a trend that

will only be exacerbated with higher rates, a slowing

economy, and a tightening credit market.

The $53 billion loss for the first half of 2023 is on top

of the $15.8 billion net loss in the final quarter of 2022.

This is a big deal. For the first time in its more than 100

years of existence, the money god itself can't print its way

out of insolvency.

To print even more money now will take an already tapped-

out consumer and small business and crush them further with

even higher inflation, tightening of credit, and crushing an

already insolvent housing market.

On top of the Fed's capital deficit is more than $1

trillion in unrealized losses on its $7.6 trillion balance

sheet of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities it

purchased in its System Open Market Account. All those assets

the bank purchased at 1 percent interest are now worth much

less if the bank were to sell them off at 5.3 percent.

Ironically, this is the same insolvency other banks that come

to the Fed for bailouts are facing today.

Yet the Fed simply writes off the loss as it unloads a

small portion of its balance sheet (about 9 percent from its

high in 2022) without using mark-to-market accounting, as

other banks are required to do under the Dodd-Frank law.

Mark-to-market uses the actual market price of the bonds, not

the irrelevant face value. The Fed ignores the market price

of bonds and assumes they are face value.

If the Fed is incurring this much of a deficit, which will

engender more bailouts from the Treasury--rather than the Fed

bailing out the debt-ridden Treasury--imagine how the economy

will look in the coming years. The majority of FOMC members

announced at a Wednesday meeting that they expect another

interest rate hike before the end of the year. Then they

envision the elevated rates to remain at least for a few

years. The capital deficit and unrealized losses on the

balance sheet are going to explode exponentially because of

the yield inversions, which will further exacerbate the debt

tsunami.

Also, even if the Fed itself doesn't raise the funds rate,

the yields on Treasuries must continue to climb just from the

sheer volume of issuance the Fed will offload on the market

to service biblical levels of interest on the debt, now

slated to top $1 trillion every year. There is already a

problem attracting enough buyers--with many foreign

countries, including China and Japan, dumping U.S.

Treasuries. Just wait until these other countries continue

with their plan to move away from the U.S. dollar as the

reserve currency. Yields will need to increase, further

perpetuating and exacerbating the cost of servicing the debt

and the Fed's own fiscal deficit in doing so.

Yields on the two-year Treasury are at the highest level

since 2006. However, 17 years ago, the gross debt was $8.5

trillion, not $33 trillion. Also, we were running $200-$400

billion annual deficits, not $2 trillion deficits. Not to

mention the fact that we didn't have nearly this much debt

and credit crush in the private sector and among households

that are straining banks and individuals to the point of

insolvency. Oh, and we are officially not in a recession and

have relatively low unemployment. Wait until the fun begins

in 2024 and the cost of social programs skyrockets. Even

without any new debt, $7.6 trillion of existing debt will

mature within the next year at much higher interest rates.

In other words, the Fed, which has been the government's

lifeguard for several generations, is now drowning in the

very pool it, along with corrupt politicians in Congress and

the Treasury Department, has created. Who will bail out the

money printer then?

Mr. Chair, let's talk some more about what should be done. We have a structural deficit of $2 trillion. We are spending $700 billion in interest. The Fed is losing money. Our economy is slowing down to boot.

The question is: What could we do? How about we rein in our Federal spending so that the value of our currency doesn't keep dropping like a stone? How about we unleash American energy so that we have pressure to reduce costs on the energy side and have traditional currency protection on the inflation side? That would do it. That would help, but we don't see anything from the Hill from which my colleagues across the way speak. We don't hear from the White House, either.

Mr. Chair, I am urging adoption of this amendment. It is a small measure to reduce a small program in a small way, but it moves us in that direction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to strike funding for the Food for Peace Title II grant program, which would direct $1.74 billion to deficit reduction.

I will repeat again what has been said so often here: Annual discretionary spending exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response. No one thought our government was too small before COVID, and we are currently spending $400 billion more in fiscal year 2023 for the same government we had before. Deficits exceed $2 trillion.

Let me just make this clear: In 2019, we spent about $4.9 trillion, $4.7- to $4.9 trillion, depends on who is telling you, and our revenue is going to be about $5.2 trillion. Wouldn't it be great to get back to those 2019 levels? Wouldn't it be great to get to the 2019 spending levels with our current revenue levels? Then you would not be increasing your deficit, your structural deficit.

The spending deficits that we have are out of control. They are leading to this massive national debt, which is fueling inflation and is going to be generational theft.

Let's talk about the Food for Peace Title II grant programs. Since the program was established in the 1950s, funding for the program has exploded. The Trump administration's fiscal year 2020 budget request recommended eliminating this program, which is duplicative of other foreign aid programs.

What is interesting, I say ``Trump,'' and you know that is going to set off, oh, no, the Trump derangement syndrome folks, the far left of this body are going to say: Oh, that is crazy.

However, Trump wasn't the first to do it. The Obama administration's 2014 budget request recommended shifting all Food for Peace Title II funds into accounts funded through the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. They cited potential improvements to flexibility, timeliness, and efficiency.

I am urging us to wipe out $1.74 billion in wasteful, duplicative spending and put it into deficit reduction.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, previously, some of my counterparts in debate have said we should supply every need, the Federal Government should supply every need to every American, and now they want to persist in trying to satisfy the needs and wants of people offshore, as well.

We can't afford to take care of every need of every American today. That is why we have a $2 trillion structural deficit. That does not include the $700 billion that we are spending in interest. We simply cannot afford to keep giving our future away, and that is what we are doing here.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am encouraging everyone to support this important amendment. I think it is important, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to strike funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

I appreciate that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) offered an amendment reducing it, and I appreciate that that is now going to be part of the underlying bill since it just passed on voice vote.

My amendment would direct the entire $240 million supporting that program would be used to reduce our deficit in 2024.

When you think about it, Mr. Ogles certainly made a strong case as to why that should be so, but I am going to add just a couple points to it. I am not going to belabor the fact that we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion at the Federal level. That is causing tremendous inflationary pressures, bringing stress to every American family.

What I am going to talk about instead is what happens in any Federal bureaucracy, what we see government do constantly. Mr. Ogles talked about the negative policy aspects of it, but I will just cover briefly what happens in the Federal bureaucracy on the spending side of it.

This particular program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program first received appropriations in fiscal year 2004, just 20 years ago, 20 short years ago. The bill set aside $50 million to carry out the program. That was the program, $50 million. Help around the world ostensibly, right?

However, what happens to Federal bureaucracies? They grow like Topsy. This one has grown to $240 million annually.

The Trump administration's 2018 budget, pre-COVID budget, request recommended that the program be eliminated as it ``lacks evidence that the program is being effectively implemented to reduce food insecurity.''

Additionally, the program primarily works by donating food produced in the United States to communities in need around the world, but we have already heard the seven nations identified. It is a great deal for U.S. agricultural producers whose surplus is purchased by the Federal Government for use in the program, but the provision of free food, as Mr. Ogles so eloquently pointed out, is required to be delivered, and that causes native, local production to decline in those States.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, why else might we want to eliminate this program? The provision of free food to these seven nations on this list, which is required to be delivered in a not-so-timely manner on U.S.-flagged ships, distorts food production markets in those nations receiving aid, and it actually increases the cost.

It is a classic ``give a man a fish, feed him for a day'' problem. The program isn't eliminating food insecurity. It is slow. It is costly. It is growing. It pushes out local production. Quite frankly, we simply can't afford it anymore.

At some point, we are going to have to say we are having trouble funding everything in our own country, and now we are going to send it abroad. That is something I don't think the American people stand for.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to fiscal year 2019 pre-COVID levels.

This amendment would direct $77 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024. Annual discretionary spending exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response. No one thought our government was too small before COVID. We are currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in fiscal year 2023 for the same government functions that we had before.

Deficits are now projected to exceed $2 trillion for this fiscal year. Recently, the U.S. eclipsed $33 trillion in debt, accounting for nearly $100,000 per U.S. citizen.

Earlier in the debates today, we were told that if we go down this road, we are going to see a threatened credit rating reduction. We have already seen that. Fitch already did it. Moody's is threatening to do it again, and why are they doing it again? It is because, as they said the last time they downgraded us, we don't have an effective plan to handle and reduce our Federal deficit.

We just don't have a plan anymore. The plan is to actually increase our deficit, and my bill attempts to take one small bite at trying to shrink that deficit, that structural deficit, that leads to the gross national debt problem we have every year.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels actually exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2019. What that means is if we were to shrink the Federal spending behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might just be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months. That is all I am asking.

I am begging us, can we do it for a month, 2 months, 3 months? You will see that this country will not fall apart. Instead, it will prosper and grow, and we would be better off.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend, the Agriculture Committee chairman, and his opposition, but I must respectfully disagree. The proposed funding level for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is a nearly 30 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 levels.

The CFTC is following in the footsteps of the SEC under the Biden administration with efforts to mandate, without statutory authority, an onerous climate disclosure regime on the private sector.

Last year, the CFTC solicited comments on climate-related financial risk. Conservative attorneys general, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, forcefully pushed back, stating that attempts to mandate disclosure through rulemaking or through another regulatory framework would clearly implicate the major questions doctrine, raised First Amendment concerns related to compelled speech, and stated that courts would find climate-related action to be arbitrary and capricious.

Other reporting suggests that the CFTC is aggressively pursuing enforcement action and hefty fines over minor technical reporting requirements. That is typical of the bureaucratic regime established under the Biden administration.

Adoption of my amendment would ensure that the CFTC is properly utilizing its resources to fulfill its mission of fostering open, competitive, and financially sound futures and option markets, not becoming the Biden administration's ESG enforcer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4368, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to bring before the House H.R. 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024 appropriations bill.

I thank Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Granger and commend her for her leadership in moving this bill and the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process forward.

I also recognize the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee (Ms. DeLauro), and the ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (Mr. Bishop).

I appreciate the conversations he and I have had regarding the bill. While I know we don't agree on everything, we have reached areas of consensus that will keep our ag communities strong.

As Americans know all too well, our country continues to battle high inflation driven by the overspending of the last Congress and the Biden administration.

The fiscal situation in the United States, in fact, has changed since the Appropriations Committee passed this bill in June.

While we were on the August recess, the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit to reach $2 trillion for this fiscal year, doubling last year's deficit of $1 trillion, and the deficit outlook for the future has gotten much worse.

We simply cannot continue down this path of spending large sums of money without regard to the fiscal future of our Nation.

This bill takes the same approach American families take every day. They simply have to do more with less under the Biden economy.

American families decide every single day where to cut back spending to pay for what is most important for them. For them, those decisions are difficult.

Likewise, we have to make tough, difficult decisions for the good of the Nation. This is why the rule implements further reductions totaling $2.7 billion across the discretionary accounts in this bill, except for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children, or WIC.

With this reduction, the fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriation bill's discretionary allocation is $15.1 billion.

By redirecting nearly $7.5 billion in unobligated funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, this bill funds the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with an effective program level of $22.5 billion--a decrease of 12.8 percent from the current fiscal year.

This legislation prioritizes critical ag research and plant and animal health programs, invests in our rural communities, provides nutrition assistance to those in need, and ensures that American consumers have a safe food and drug supply.

This legislation rejects the Biden administration's unrealistic proposed spending levels that disregard the dire fiscal reality our country faces.

It also rejects the administration's continued push to bloat inside the beltway Federal bureaucracy by halting new hires in the Washington, D.C., office; instead, focusing on hiring an increased USDA workforce outside of the Capital Beltway in the offices that directly serve and support rural America.

I will highlight a few areas where this legislation prioritizes essential functions while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.

In regard to supporting the core mission, the bill provides $1 billion for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to support the Department's efforts to protect our producers from foreign plant and animal diseases.

The bill continues to invest in the delivery of farm programs, disaster assistance, and crop insurance to farmers and ranchers by maintaining funding for the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency.

The bill provides $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to fund our Nation's frontline inspectors of meat and poultry products.

We also continue to make important investments in critical agriculture research that will keep our producers on the cutting edge of technology and production practices.

We continue to fund rural development programs, including critical infrastructure investments in water and wastewater systems, broadband, and rural housing programs.

For the Food and Drug Administration, the bill provides just over $6 billion in direct appropriations and user fees to enable the agency to keep food, drugs, and medical devices safe and effective.

The bill includes $296 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to continue to oversee and ensure the integrity of U.S. derivative markets.

With regards to fiscal responsibility, at the same time, this legislation reins in some of the administration's wasteful, out-of- control spending.

For instance, it removes the Secretary's discretionary use of the Commodity Credit Corporation to fund unauthorized, nonemergency programs by returning statutory language to its pre-COVID language that didn't have that discretionary authority.

The CCC is not intended to allow USDA to completely bypass Congress in establishing new programs. Yet, the USDA apparently just can't help themselves, and that is exactly what they have been doing with the Commodity Credit Corporation.

According to a recent article in AgriPost, the USDA intends to use the Commodity Credit Corporation to spend nearly $1.4 billion on trade programs and another $1.1 billion to pay for ``commodity-based international food aid.'' That sounds a lot like the Food for Peace program.

Since the USDA has provided $1.1 billion for food aid that will be distributed during fiscal year 2024, the rule amendment reduces Food for Peace to $532 million.

This bill will put an end to the habitual abuse of the CCC. In doing so, the bill saves $1 billion in fiscal year 2024 alone.

Given that the USDA used these discretionary powers to spend another $2.5 billion and $6.6 billion in the last 2 fiscal years, respectively, I would submit to my colleagues that the real savings to taxpayers of taking these discretionary authorities away will be much higher than the CBO score.

Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we need in times of the fiscal crisis we are in. Let me be clear: Restricting these authorities in the CCC will have no impact on farm bill and conservation programs, crop insurance, or the Secretary's ability to access the CCC in an animal or plant health emergency, the uses for which the program was created, not as a de facto slush fund for the department. All of those important duties and functions will continue under this bill.

This legislation also rescinds wasteful spending from the Inflation Reduction Act. It is finally time to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars by rescinding these new government giveaways.

We must work to rightsize programs, especially since the pandemic is over and President Biden ended the public health emergency in May.

It, in fact, is time to return to pre-COVID spending levels. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we can return to pre-COVID inflationary levels, too, which I am sure the American public would, indeed, welcome.

Well, this is why we are returning the WIC cash value voucher benefits to a normal, sustainable inflation-adjusted funding level.

The American Rescue Plan provided a one-time increase in these benefits due to the pandemic, but these increases continue to be built into the WIC program in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 after they were due to expire. Keeping these increases on autopilot adds an additional $1 billion to the program.

This bill does provide cash value vouchers above prepandemic levels to help with the food price inflation caused by the Biden economy. With the end of the public health emergency, it is time to return this program to normal pre-COVID operations.

On the regulatory front, this legislation puts a stop to USDA's efforts under the Packers and Stockyards Act to dictate how poultry and livestock producers raise and market their animals.

This bill also prevents the purchase of farmland by our foreign adversaries, while providing funds for the Farm Service Agency to fulfill its duty to track foreign ownership of land.

The bill also returns the use of mifepristone to in-person dispensing by a healthcare provider. This is a drug that should not be used without the supervision of a physician or a similarly licensed provider.

Anyone who truly cares, who genuinely cares about women's health and safety, should support this commonsense provision.

Finally, as I said earlier, this bill takes the same approach American families take every single day now. They have to do more with less under the Biden inflation economy. American families decide every day where to cut back spending to pay for what is most important.

We are not appropriating monopoly money, Mr. Chair. It is hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and sometimes tough decisions have to be made, and this bill makes them.

In closing, I ask for your support for this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what is really harmful is a $2 trillion deficit, not the legislation before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind Americans, if they are watching, that we are not dealing with Monopoly money.

Where are the ideas to solve a $2 trillion budget deficit?

The President didn't have any. In fact, the President submitted a budget to Congress that never ever balanced and was supposed to have $1 trillion deficits, but in fact, we had overspending in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which is one of the biggest misnomers we ever had in the history of Congress.

The American people know, when you increase spending by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, you increase inflation. You don't reduce it, you increase it. The fact of the matter is, our deficit is now $2 trillion, not $1 trillion.

Mr. Chair, I am hoping to hear from the other side of the aisle: How do we pay for all of this?

We have to borrow every single penny of this bill, and it has to be paid back by our children, our great-grandchildren--those are the facts. I know the facts are disturbing, but we have a $2 trillion deficit, and it is the House Republicans who are taking the responsible position in Washington and dealing with it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is only in Washington that this can happen. Last year's bill, from the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority, funded WIC at $6.0 billion. This year's bill in front of us funds WIC at $6.0 billion. That is a slash, if you listen to the other side of the aisle.

The average American is going: What? Wait a minute. We are funding it at exactly the same level as last year and they are accusing us of taking food out of the mouths of women, infants, and children.

This is the same level they did last year. That is what the American people can't stand about Washington. The average American understands that $6.0 billion last year is the same as $6.0 billion this year.

All they see is a partisan struggle going on. They don't see Americans and the House of Representatives wanting to solve their problems.

The price of food in the grocery store, the price of gas, the price of everything, the inflation, they don't want to solve the problem at the southern border. What they want to do is accuse us of slashing things when we fund it at exactly the same level.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I guess we are just going to have to be fact-checking all night long. Once again, the gentlewoman said that we are slashing $800 million from the WIC program.

Now, maybe this is new math. Maybe this is why our public schools are failing our children, but $6.0 billion this year, our amount, is exactly the same as the $6.0 billion last year--6.0 minus 6.0, for those of you watching on TV, take note, is exactly the same. It is not $800 million less.

Now, I think I heard that we are taking this down to FY 2000 funding levels. Well, that is interesting because we just looked up the FY 2000 funding levels, and the ag bill was funded at $14 billion. We are funding it at $25 billion. Now, again, this might be new math, 14 might be more than 25, maybe in some alternate universe. That is the way this government functions. It is in an alternate universe. It doesn't understand what every American family knows: Inflation is what our problem is. Inflation is driven by out-of-control government spending, by a $2 trillion deficit, and then we are accused of cutting spending to the FY 2000 levels. Again, for those who weren't paying attention the first time, FY 2000, look it up. It is easy. Google it--$14 billion. Our bill, $25 billion.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I am going to fact check myself. Our budget, the bill that is coming to the floor is $22.5 billion, not $25 billion, but that is still a whole lot more than $14 billion.

The toxic hazard is not this bill. Rather, it is a $2 trillion deficit and an open southern border. That is what the toxic hazard is, and we are not discussing that in Washington. We should be discussing it in Washington.

Mr. Chair, I just have a question. Aren't the remarks supposed to be directed to the chair, the speaker's comments?

Okay. I thought so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess it is fact-check time again for the American people. FY 2000 was $14 billion. I think I demonstrated that 22.5 is more than 14. The gentleman says we are cutting it to FY 2001 levels. Well, Mr. Chair, that was $15 billion. Again, it might be new math, but when I went to school, I was taught that 15 was less than 22.5. No matter how many times you say it on the floor of this House, we are not cutting spending to FY 2001 levels. We are cutting them to pre-COVID levels because, Mr. Chair, the pandemic is over.

The free-wheeling spending during the pandemic has to end. A $2 trillion deficit and an open southern border are existential threats to this country, and the Republican House majority is dealing with it.

Mr. Chair, I remind the body that the Senate is not controlled by Republicans, and they haven't passed a single appropriations bill to the floor. Now, we only passed one, but, again, when I went to school, one was more than none.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first, it was that we are cutting it to FY 2000 levels, then it was 2001 levels. Now, they raised the ante. It is FY 2003 levels. The FY 2003 funding level in this bill was $17.55 billion. I will remind all the Americans watching that 17.5 is less than 22.5. In fact, we are $5 billion above that.

We are not cutting spending to FY 2003 levels. Now, maybe the next speaker will suggest 2005, 2007. If they get to FY 2019, pre-COVID, yes, we are.

The floor leader on the other side of the aisle said Republicans talk of everything going up. Mr. Chair, if that were true, if it were only Republicans that talk of everything going up, we would be getting 95 percent of the vote in America because everybody is talking about everything going up. You can't go anywhere without someone saying they have to pay $4.80 a gallon for diesel, or they have to pay so much for milk, pay $2 for a loaf of bread that they used to pay $1.20 for.

It is not Republicans talking about that. We are just listening to what Americans say. That is why we are returning spending to the pre- COVID levels.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the Republicans were sent back to the majority this term of Congress to get things in order in Washington.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriations bill, which returns to pre-COVID spending levels and starts us on a path to decreasing our Federal spending and decreasing inflation. That is what the American people want.

This legislation does prioritize critical programs that support our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

The bill importantly reins in Federal spending and regulatory overreach as well as includes a number of conservative policy victories to stop the Biden administration's woke agenda.

Mr. Chair, again, I ask my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of this amendment. This is the bipartisan amendment, which includes priorities for Members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate Ranking Member Bishop working with us on this amendment and ask for your support.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman, because the gentleman brings an amendment to the floor that does something with the $2 trillion budget deficit. He is right, we have a $33 trillion debt. Our interest payments in a few years are going to be over $1 trillion-- more than Social Security, more than Medicare, more than Medicaid, more than food stamps, more than all of them.

One fact check before I sit down. Now we heard it was FY 2007, so I guess the

speechwriters can't make up their minds. Is it FY 2000, 2001, 2003? Now it is 2007.

I would remind the Chair, the spending level in the 2007 bill was $17.8 billion, and that is almost $5 billion less than what we appropriate in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for coming to the floor with a specific idea of how we stop the out-of- control Federal spending leading to a $2 trillion deficit and runaway inflation. That is the bottom line.

There are plenty of ideas on how to spend more money, believe you me. There are plenty of ideas circulating around Washington. What we need are ideas on how to cut spending.

Mr. Chair, I suggest that going after parts of the Federal Government that encourage high-cost energy, because that is what renewable energy is, it is all high cost. That is the fact of the matter.

If we want to create low-cost energy, Mr. Chair, you know what we have to do, we have to extract our natural gas and burn our natural gas and then we can compete with China for the cost of energy.

All that we are doing with programs like this that fund renewable energy is yielding unilateral disarmament to China on energy, and it doesn't belong in the agriculture department.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the Member from Florida for bringing a concrete idea to the floor on how to cut our $2 trillion Federal deficit.

Once again, it is very easy to spend money. We could make a list of a thousand programs that are deserving programs, but the fact of the matter is we have to borrow every single cent to fund the programs in this agriculture bill, and our grandchildren have to pay it back. That is immoral.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time.

This is a commonsense amendment. The bottom line is it is a myth to say that electric vehicles produce no CO2. Where do you think the electricity comes from when you plug it into the outlet? Most electricity in the United States is producing CO2.

Secondly, why would we want the Federal Government to buy a vehicle, an expensive vehicle, that people don't even buy for themselves?

We should run the Federal Government much more efficiently. These are not the most efficient purchases to make. We have a $2 trillion deficit.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, since this administration took office, the average family of four is spending $1,200 more per month to buy the exact same goods and services as compared to January 2021. That is an almost $15,000 increase per year to the average family of four because of excessive government spending that is driving devaluation of our currency, thus inflation.

I grew up ranching. I still ranch. When you talk to farmers and ranchers, they will tell you their biggest issue is the increase in the input costs. Whether it is 4-point barbed-wire, T-posts, a feed truck, a cake box, used tractors, everything is costing almost

twice what it did just a few years ago. The price of agriculture in general is up 23 percent, the stats tell us, just in 2 years under this administration.

To help America's farmers and ranchers, we need to get serious about cutting government spending that is the root cause of inflation and devaluation of our currency.

Right now, for every dollar that we are spending, about $6 trillion, only 70 percent of it is paid for. We are charging 30 percent to our kids and our grandkids, who want to inherit those farms and ranches.

My conservative colleagues and I are urging Congress to reduce overall spending back to pre-COVID spending levels. The cut I am proposing with this amendment is a modest 6.5 percent cut from the underlying bill and funds the NRCS at a higher level even than they were in fiscal year 2019.

I know NRCS programs. In my heavy equipment excavation business, I built ponds. I have friends who work for the NRCS. I have gotten good advice from the NRCS.

My question to my friends at the NRCS and my question to my friends in the agricultural community: Can we not return to the pre-COVID spending levels to give our kids and our grandkids a chance at the blessing of liberty?

There is money within the NRCS that can be cut that is not even conservation related. Like many agencies, the Biden administration is using even the NRCS to carry out a leftist agenda, so absorption of these cuts should start here.

The NRCS has an Equity Division whose mission is to advocate and better align institutional equity into the work and practices of NRCS programs and services.

The NRCS aims to meet or exceed President Biden's Justice40 goals. Under the guise of environmental justice, the Justice40 Initiative goal is to pick winners and losers. It aims to have 40 percent of benefits flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.

The NRCS State offices, like Vermont, have created a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender special emphasis program manager position. The NRCS also provides resources such as Pride calendars, pronouns in the workplace guidance, and LGBTQ spotlights.

This is not the original mission of the NRCS. It demonstrates there is excess within the agency.

I know this agency. I have benefited from it. Friends have benefited from it. If we are going to be serious about giving our kids a chance, we can't protect every program that we like from what has to be a nation that starts living within its means. We have to begin somewhere.

Mr. Chair, this 6.5 percent cut is more than reasonable, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I had someone say to me one time that governing should be pretty easy. However much government you want ought to be the amount of government you are willing to pay for.

The problem is, on the Federal Government level, we are not paying for it. We are asking our kids and our grandkids to pay for all of this.

For every dollar we are spending right now, we are asking our children to pick up 30 percent of the tab.

The question is: When will we start being responsible, looking out for the blessing of liberty for our children and our grandkids?

This is a 6.5 percent reduction. The underlying bill, if adopted, leaves $850 million in NRCS.

We are addicted to overspending in this Nation. Fiscal sanity is crying out. Future generations are crying out to start somewhere. I am asking my colleagues to start here with me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate what has often been said this evening, we hit $33 trillion. It is the first time in our Nation's history.

That means, as of today, every baby that is born in any hospital around this country who opens their eyes and takes in their first breath of air owes $98,000.

They are only going to pay it off through a lower standard of living because of the selfishness of the generations before them.

If we continue at this rate of overspending, we are sacrificing their future--make no mistake about that.

It is why my conservative colleagues and I are trying to rein in our Federal spending and return to the pre-COVID spending levels. We have to start cutting spending.

My amendment would eliminate the USDA rental assistance program, which is 1 of 25 duplicative housing programs. I want to reiterate the word ``duplicative''--duplicative housing programs, 25.

This amendment, if adopted, would save $1.6 billion. That is a real number.

Today, the Federal Government subsidizes low-income families through more than 25 duplicative housing programs consisting of projects, vouchers, rental construction, financing, and

grants to State and local governments. It includes 20 different entities administering 160 different programs, tax expenditures, and other tools supporting homeownership and rental housing.

In 2021, the Federal Government spent over $57 billion on low-income housing programs benefiting 9.3 million Americans. We have 333 million Americans total in this Nation.

This particular program represents only about 2.8 percent of Federal housing assistance programs. This duplicative program should be rolled into the Department of Housing and Urban Development to improve efficiency.

In 2012 and 2016 reports, the Government Accountability Office recommended consolidating many of these duplicative programs. That is why, in 2018, OMB under President Trump proposed removing USDA rental housing programs to HUD to improve operational efficiency, service delivery, and produce savings by reducing agency bureaucracy costs.

According to the OMB under the Trump administration, ``USDA's housing programs, which serve eligible rural areas, were initially established in the 1940s in response to an underrepresentation of national housing programs in rural areas. . . . Since then, the rationale for separate, rural-focused housing programs at USDA has become outdated given HUD's role in serving communities throughout the Nation, including in many rural areas. In fact, due in large part to the sheer size of its programs, HUD serves more households in USDA-eligible areas than USDA does.''

The consolidation of agencies or administrative functions could yield a more efficient oversight and administrative structure for cost savings in central housing programs.

The Government Accountability Office recommended that HUD and USDA review and consolidate duplicative housing programs, including the Rural Housing Service.

The duplication of program services provides headaches and confusion to the neediest of Americans wanting to know where to go. It is time to streamline programs and get our fiscal house in order.

What is causing so many young adults outside of this program administration not to be able to afford their homes? High interest rates driven by overspending.

This $1.6 billion that this amendment proposes represents a return to fiscal sanity. For every dollar we are spending, we are only paying for 70 percent of it.

When are we going to get serious about spending restraint for the next generation?

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate: duplication of programming. There are 25 duplicative programs in this same area.

This cut represents 2.8 percent of all Federal housing assistance. We can help the neediest Americans by streamlining housing programs and getting our own fiscal house in order.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reduction in duplication, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, during this Congress, the House Committee on Agriculture has had one overarching goal: to empower our farm families and invigorate our rural economies.

A central focus of our efforts has been to ensure that rural economies gain access to affordable, high-speed internet.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Nunn for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents to develop smart policy ideas to bring broadband internet to every corner of America.

Over the past several years, the House Committee on Agriculture has worked hard on a bipartisan basis to close the connectivity gap. The gentleman from Iowa has been a welcome addition to those conversations.

Every Member of this House is committed to using taxpayer funds wisely, and the House Agriculture Committee will report a farm bill that does just that.

We will ensure that broadband networks financed through USDA's broadband programs will offer fast, reliable service far into the future.

Now, I firmly believe that the best policies emerge through discussions and collaboration. That is what we are doing as we craft the next farm bill.

With the leadership of Members like Mr. Nunn, we will ensure USDA's broadband programs can meet both the current and the future connectivity needs of rural America.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. Nunn taking the time tonight to raise these important issues. I am equally appreciative of his willingness to withdraw his amendment and continue this conversation through the farm bill process.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the gentleman on our shared priorities as we advance the 2023 farm bill through the House and ultimately to the President's desk.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman taking a bite at fiscal responsibility, but this bite actually will create fiscal irresponsibility and create harm.

The CFTC is one of our two financial market regulators acting as a cop on the beat for commodity derivatives markets. The Commission's work is essential to ensure that commodity markets are fair for all participants, from the largest financial institutions to the smallest businesses.

Robust, fair, well-policed derivative markets allow for the accurate risk control and price discovery for essential economic inputs, like agricultural and energy products. Domestic derivatives markets enable U.S. producers and consumers of commodities to effectively manage their risk, making American businesses more competitive around the world.

The Commission's work is also essential to protecting the public from financial frauds and scams, including those targeting the elderly, immigrants, and Americans seeking to participate in the digital assets market.

CFTC is already one of the most cost-effective financial regulators we have, its markets as complex and important as securities markets with a budget that is just a slice, a sixth, of the SEC's $2 billion budget.

Now, this bill, the underlying bill, already reduces the CFTC's funding $296 million, which is less than FY 2021. Enacting this amendment on top of the current reductions in the bill would reduce the CFTC's funding to $219 million, which is a cut $49 million greater than the sponsor's intent.

Instead of bringing the CFTC back to 2019 funding levels, this amendment would bring the CFTC back to its 2014 funding levels. If enacted into law, this amendment would result in a 40 percent reduction in funding for the Commission and would jeopardize the critical work the agency does to support the economy and protect Americans from financial fraud.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment

Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing I represent Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, because it feels like Groundhog Day all over again.

I don't see the point of defunding the police further than what the underlying bill has done to police. It really provides safeguards for those who are involved in the derivative market, those small businesses, those farmers, those Americans.

As I have mentioned before, the CFTC is one of our two financial market regulators. They are the police within this area, acting as a cop on the beat for the commodity derivatives market.

The Commission's work is essential to ensure that commodity markets are fair for all participants, from the largest financial institutions to the smallest businesses. Robust, fair, well-policed derivative markets allow for accurate risk control and price discovery for essential economic inputs like agricultural and energy products.

Domestic derivative markets enable the United States producers and consumers of commodities to effectively manage their risk, making American businesses more competitive around the world.

Now, this Commission's work is also essential to protecting the public from financial frauds and scams, including those targeting the elderly, immigrants, and Americans seeking to participate in the digital asset markets, which, quite frankly, is an increasing number given the state of digital assets in the derivatives market.

The CFTC is already one of the most cost-effective financial regulators we have. It polices markets as complex and important as securities markets, with a budget that--once again I have to state--is less than a fifth of the SEC's $2 billion budget.

The bill already reduces CFTC's funding to $296 million, which is less than FY 2021.

Enacting this amendment on top of the current reductions in the bill would reduce, quite frankly, this police force from protecting those investing through the derivatives market, their funding to $200 million, which is a cut $49 million greater than the sponsor's intent.

Instead of bringing the CFTC back to 2018 funding levels, this amendment would bring the CFTC back to 2011 funding levels.

If enacted into law, this amendment would result in a 45-percent reduction in funding for the Commission and jeopardize the critical work that the agency does to support the economy and protect Americans from financial fraud.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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