Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

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

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