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…
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.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. Research and promotion programs, commonly referred to as checkoffs, are time-tested programs that expand markets, increase consumer demand, develop new uses for those covered commodities, and, quite frankly, helps to fund the research that is needed to be able to deal with issues related to those crops or those commodities.
These programs are voluntarily created by producers for producers, and they receive no taxpayer dollars for any of their activities or for USDA oversight of their activities.
I am a strong supporter of research and promotion programs and will wholeheartedly advocate for their continued existence. I believe any debate surrounding the integrity of these programs should be reserved for farm bill deliberations due to the fact that no dollars from the bill that is up for consideration that we are talking about funds these programs.
I look forward to engaging with my colleagues to explain the merits and the mechanics of checkoffs and encourage anyone who has questions about these programs to engage with their producers to hear firsthand about the
benefits of these programs. I specifically look forward to continuing conversations about these programs with the gentlewoman from Indiana.
I urge my colleagues to stand with producers and join me in voting against this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird), the Agriculture Committee's Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee chairman.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, American agriculture really can be defined very simply by three words: science, technology, and innovation.
We should utilize that to our advantage, obviously, going forward. It really has been a defining nature of American agriculture.
Quite frankly, traceability resources are paramount when dealing with an animal disease outbreak. We have seen that this year with poultry. We had threats on swine.
We obviously invested, as of the last farm bill, a significant amount of money to have a vaccine for foot and mouth. Should that ever impact our livestock industry here, it would be devastating.
APHIS' proposed rule on electronic identification would reduce the overall quarantine times, limit the number of animals that get sick, and allow farmers and ranchers to resume normal operations in a timely manner.
Producers recognize that animal disease traceability is an essential component of protecting livestock during an animal disease outbreak, and that is whether they are the size of herds in Wyoming or, quite frankly, in Kentucky or Pennsylvania, where they are much smaller.
Animal health is incredibly important, and the ability to recognize animal disease traceability is, as well.
We should not allow ourselves to be in a position where efforts to improve animal disease traceability are hampered, and for this reason, I will oppose Ms. Hageman's amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, once again, traceability resources really are incredibly important when dealing with an animal disease outbreak.
We need to do our best to be prepared to deal with these. Otherwise, it compromises our ability to export overseas. Our trade partners could shut off markets in the United States, and it would have a decimating impact on the livestock industry in the United States.
There are moneys in the underlying bill in order to do this. Quite frankly, a more appropriate amendment might have been to make sure the money lines up with the need. I would agree that what is in the bill is not adequate for the full implementation of this, but that is another issue.
Madam Chair, I remain in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.