Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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.

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