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…
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, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
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 demand a recorded vote.
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 demand a recorded vote.
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 claim the time in opposition.
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. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
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, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
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 claim the time in opposition.
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. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
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 yield back 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 yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
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, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
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 yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
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, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
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.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, the amendment prohibits the administration from finalizing any rules with significant economic impacts. The amendment adds to the pile of bad policy riders aimed at tying the administration's hands when it comes to carrying out the laws passed by Congress.
It will stop USDA, FDA, and CFTC from finalizing regulations that are designed to keep the food and drug supply safe, the environment healthy, and markets stable.
This amendment has little to do with an appropriations bill, and even less to do with supporting farmers or rural America.
While I can understand the gentlewoman's intentions, I must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
Madam Chair, I am a strong supporter of our Nation's dairy farmers in the southeast and in Georgia, but I must regretfully decline to support this amendment.
The Agricultural Marketing Service, from which the funds will be taken, is equally as important, and it supports farmers in all segments of agriculture.
The Initiative, which goes to entities only in four States got $80 million from the American Rescue Plan just 15 months ago. The offset from the Agricultural Marketing Service is one that many, many Members, certainly on my side, deeply value.
It does great work, particularly for our specialty crop producers, and it is already underfunded due to the manager's amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' also.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Unfortunately, my great colleague is not conflating or confusing apples and
oranges, it is almonds and cheese curds. These moneys are designated to make sure that our dairy industry is intact. We either support small family farms or we do not. Money talks, and I will not finish the rest of that colloquialism.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, USDA's climate hubs were created to promote robust and healthy agricultural production and natural resources under increasing climate variability and climate change.
Climate hubs develop and deliver science-based, region-specific information and technologies to USDA agencies and its partners, including Federal and State agencies, extensions, and Tribes to make our communities and our Nation more resilient to climate change.
They provide outreach and education to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on the effects of climate change on their working lands.
We are all witnessing drought, extreme weather events, and changing growing seasons, so why would we want to prohibit aiding farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners understand and respond to climate change on their working lands? Why would we want to prohibit these 10 regional climate hubs from providing usable regional data and forecasts to underserved and vulnerable communities, Tribes, and individuals that can help their land be more productive?
This amendment does not save the American taxpayer money. In fact, it jeopardizes our food security, our economy, and the lives and livelihoods of many across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The amendment targets a dedicated leader in nutrition for apparently doing her job as the law required. With all the challenges that we face in feeding our Nation, we should not obstruct the agency charged with carrying out our nutrition policies.
This House should hold its actions to the highest standards and not engage in attacks on individual officials in the executive branch.
Madam Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, this Workplace Safety Plan was developed according to the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Decisions regarding the safety of Federal workers and returning to work should be driven by science and the methodical recommendation of experts not by broad Congressional mandates.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
The USDA Equity Commission was set up in 2022 to address the historic inequities in implementation of the programs by the Department of Agriculture.
The Department has a long and storied history of discrimination, as evidenced by the billions of dollars that it has had to pay out as a result of discriminatory policies over the years.
To quote directly from the USDA website regarding the commission: ``At USDA, we acknowledge we have not done enough to provide all farmers and ranchers an equal chance of success and prosperity. We are committed to changing that, actively working to build a USDA that ensures none of our customers are ignored or left behind.''
What is so threatening about that?
The bill already came out of committee bearing harmful policy riders restricting the administration's efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The continued assault on equity initiatives at USDA is not helping our farmers. This amendment is a distraction from the real issues that are facing our farmers, and it does nothing to move us closer to a bipartisan conference agreement, an agreement we know we must reach to pass these appropriations bills.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I am perplexed that anyone would not want to provide good-paying jobs that will help our Nation tackle the climate crisis and build a stronger country.
The goal of the Civilian Climate Corps is to put more than 20,000 young people on career pathways in the growing fields of clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience.
In launching this effort, President Biden is calling on Tribal, State, and local governments, labor unions, nonprofit service allies, the private sector, and philanthropy to collaborate with the Federal Government to build on current relationships and expand skills-based training partnerships to ensure that our workforce is ready to meet the climate crisis.
We have seen the devastation to coastal communities impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms. Why would we not want to train our youth to restore coastal wetlands that can protect communities from storm surges?
We know the damage and the loss that accompanies wildfires across our Nation, so why would we not want to train youth to manage forests, to improve health, and prevent catastrophic wildfires?
We know the power of skills-based training as a tool to expand pathways into good-paying jobs. Let's not deny our youth this opportunity, and let's not deny our country the resources for our future.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chair, I rise in extremely strong opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would take away all State waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents, the so-called ABAWDs. If employment is over 10 percent or there are not sufficient jobs for people in the State, again, who are we to take that State's judgment away?
If you think we will never experience these conditions again, think again. Neither you nor I can foresee the future. If these conditions do occur, what are the chances that these folks will find jobs?
I cannot and will not support this amendment, nor will any of my Democratic colleagues. If it is included in a final conference report, I doubt my Democratic colleagues will provide the necessary votes for final passage, nor will President Biden sign it into law.
It is a bad amendment. Let's vote it down.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
Madam Chair, this amendment prohibits funds from being used to carry out President Biden's climate change executive orders, specifically:
Executive Order No. 13990 relating to Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis;
Executive Order No. 14008, relating to Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad;
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 14013, relating to Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration;
Executive Order No. 14030, relating to Climate-Related Financial Risks;
Executive Order No. 14057, relating to Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability;
Executive Order No. 14082, relating to Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022; and
Executive Order No. 14096, relating to Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.
Who could be against that? Oh, well.
The scientific consensus is clear, however, that we need to take significant steps to reduce carbon emissions moving forward while also working to mitigate the damage from climate change that we are already experiencing.
Extreme weather events and changing temperatures and weather patterns are extremely relevant to America's farmland. The Department of Agriculture should be at the forefront of ensuring that our farmers remain productive and successful on the global market in the years to come.
Tackling the climate crisis is an essential part of that work. Our farmers are on both the front line of dealing with the effects of climate change as well as taking steps to reduce carbon output and to promote sustainability.
This amendment being offered on both appropriations bills brought to the floor this week would hamstring our government's response to climate change.
This amendment is shortsighted and does nothing to help our farmers. In fact, it hurts our farmers.
Madam Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It targets a career civil servant for apparently doing their job as the law requires. This House should hold its actions to the highest standards, and attacks on the civil service have no place in this House.
This is a bad amendment. It sets a bad precedent. It is beyond our duties. It is ultra vires.
Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to this misguided amendment.
The amendment would eliminate research funding into novel approaches to keeping livestock healthy.
Livestock disease costs hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Producers
lose revenue and consumers pay higher prices as a result.
An ongoing avian influenza outbreak has devastated poultry producers across the country, devastating that industry in many areas.
Innovative research on methods to cost effectively protect livestock benefits both producers and consumers.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided amendment and let USDA work to keep livestock healthy for producers and prices low for consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate and share the gentleman's support for our meat and poultry producers. However, this is an amendment to permanent law that, with very rare exceptions, should not be in an appropriations bill. This issue should be considered in the context of the next farm bill.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Who in the world knows what ``woke'' means? I think all of us should be awake to the dangers of overreach in this appropriations bill.
This amendment would prohibit funds for courses, books, or study guides on 17 topics related to inclusion, diversity, and supporting LGBT employees.
These topics include issues such as empathy, fostering an inclusive workplace, or becoming an ally to all.
I do not believe we should be spending our time here on the floor today debating ways that we can cut back on teaching empathy. Instead, what I think would serve our constituents the most would be a discussion on how we can better help American farmers remain competitive globally, help put food on the tables of those in need, and, yes, help foster an inclusive and welcoming workplace for all at the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The National Farm to School Network supports the work of farmers, teachers, and community leaders.
The Racial Equity Learning Lab is a learning program regarding racial inequities in our food system. USDA's support from the program seeks to address racial equity in our farm to school system.
I would think that making sure that all schoolchildren have access to adequate meals would be an easy, bipartisan priority. I am disappointed by this amendment. I urge all Members to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
I oppose this amendment. Members of the LGBT community have historically faced higher rates of food insecurity.
USDA has taken steps to clarify that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are prohibited in programs administered by USDA such as SNAP.
It is concerning to me that the Democratic amendment striking harmful policy riders was not put forward by the Rules Committee for the debate, while a large number of Republican amendments adding further policy riders were allowed to be considered.
These amendments have no chance of becoming law and only move us further from bipartisan conference agreement which can pass both chambers of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit USDA from implementing an executive order on tackling the climate crisis.
This year, our country has experienced more billion-dollar climate disasters than ever before in our history. In only the first 8 months of the year, 23 weather disasters devastated regions across the country, and in every case, the agricultural sector was harmed.
This summer, we witnessed catastrophic floods in the Northeast decimate farmers' crops. Extreme drought in the West continues to impact ranchers' ability to sustain their livestock. Tragically, we watched helplessly as the Maui wildfires ravaged thousands of acres of farmland and took nearly 100 human lives.
This amendment would block Federal efforts to help farmers develop climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices that are critical to combating the climate crisis. If we are to address the climate crisis, help farmers, and strengthen our economy, we cannot be hamstrung by funding limitations that deny that climate change is real.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The amendment would attempt to cut overall funding of the bill by an additional $717 million. Not only that but it would do so without specifying where the cuts would come from. This would effectively turn the decision from where the cuts would come from over to the executive branch, to the administration that the other side is so critical of, robbing Congress of its constitutionally mandated power of the purse, a violation of the separation of powers.
This is something that we should not include in any appropriations bill. The bill already guts funding for USDA, and any further cuts would just make a bad bill worse.
We should kill this amendment. We should enact a reasonable, responsible appropriations bill so that we can take care of the needs of the American people and make sure that the Department of Agriculture is adequately funded to serve the needs of the American people.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.