Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020
______
speech of
HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3351) making
appropriations for financial services and general government
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other
purposes:
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I can tell my colleagues with great
confidence that USDA's proposal to move the Economic Research Service
(ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) outside
the National Capital Region is a bad idea.
We held a hearing on the issue last March, at which four former
senior USDA officials with 70 years of combined experience at the two
agencies, from both parties, expressed their deep opposition to this
proposal.
Numerous stakeholders have expressed strong opposition, including the
National Farmers Union, the Association of American Veterinary Colleges
and nearly 1700 other organizations, university officials, and
individuals from 47 states.
We have not received a single letter in support of this proposal.
USDA violated the Appropriations Committee's statutorily required 30-
day waiting period for such proposals when it took action to implement
the proposal six days after notifying the Committee.
It failed utterly to comply with the requirements of the conferees in
the 2019 omnibus appropriations report to submit all cost benefits for
the move and a detailed analysis of any research benefits of a
relocation when it submitted the 2020 budget.
USDA has also refused numerous requests from Members of the House and
Senate that it provide the original cost-benefit analysis developed
before the proposal was announced.
It finally gave us a so-called ``cost-benefit analysis'' after the
final site was selected.
But an independent analysis of this supposed analysis found that
``USDA leadership failed to follow federal guidelines for the benefit
cost analysis'' and that ``the move to Kansas City will cost taxpayers
between $83 and $182 million dollars, rather than saving them $300
million dollars.''
Large numbers of ERS and NIFA employees have left as a result of this
proposal.
I fear that ultimately, these agencies will become mere shadows of
their former selves, with the loss of hundreds of years of expertise.
These agencies' mission is to achieve the best science through
research that advances U.S. agriculture and our understanding of the
agricultural economy.
I believe that the Department's proposal puts that mission at great
risk.
I urge a yes vote on the Norton amendment.
____________________
