Fiscal Year 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Related Agencies Bill

call this meeting the appropriations committee to order i wanna welcome everybody to our fourth full committee mark-up for fiscal year twenty twenty seven covering the agricultural rural development food and drug administration and related agencies bill um the uh just quickly we're not exactly sure what votes will be today exactly what's coming when so uh obviously we'll break for votes i would just uh and we'll try to give you enough time to get down there uh i would just ask that you come back it's my understanding potentially as early as ten thirty we might have our first and another one around four then maybe late tonight we the intent will be to get this bill done today i really wanna congratulate all of you on both sides of the aisle for moving expeditiously yesterday i really really appreciate it um and again i have no problem with amendments and discussions and opening statements that's important part of the process but uh you all uh made your points and and we were able to move along pretty quickly but again the aim will be to get this done today um i'll uh now again uh We'll begin the first order of business today, uh, is consideration of the Ag, World, Development, Food and Drug Administration. I'll now recognize Chairman Harris to present the bill.

Thank you, Chairman Cole, and I want to commend your leadership in moving the FY twenty-seven appropriations process forward expeditiously. I also want to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Laro, and the ranking, uh, subcommittee member, Mr. Bishop, for their work in getting us to this point. I appreciate the conversations Mister Bishop and I have had, and while we may not agree on everything in the bill, I know we are closer to agreement than some of today's debate may show. For FY twenty-seven, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies' subcommittee's discretionary allocation is twenty-six point two seven billion, a three hundred and eighty million, or one point four percent decrease from FY twenty-six enacted levels. In a setting of two trillion dollar deficits, these modest spending reductions are necessary. This legislation reflects a clear conservative commitment to fiscal responsibility, while ensuring that America's farmers, ranchers and rural communities remain a top priority, and that all Americans have access to a safe food and drug supply. This legislation builds on the successful efforts of the Trump administration to root out fraud, waste and abuse, shrink the federal bureaucracy, and make USDA programs more farmer-friendly. It sets USDA on a responsible and sustainable spending path. that will make both the department and our nation stronger. Under President Trump and Secretary Rollins' leadership, every taxpayer dollar will be spent in the pursuit of putting all American farmers and ranchers first. I'd like to highlight a few areas where this legislation supports the administration's efforts to refocus the department on its core mission, by prioritizing essential functions in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill provides one point one six billion dollars for the animal and plant health inspection service, to support the department's efforts to protect our producers from high path avian influenza, new world screw worm, and other foreign plant and animal diseases. The legislation continues to invest in the delivery of farm programs, disaster assistance and crop insurance to farmers by prioritizing funding for farmer-facing functions. Following the budget request, the bill moves fifty million dollars of farm service agency IT funds from FSA to the Office of the Chief to continue to invest in and implement USDA's one farmer, one file initiative. After accounting for this transfer of funds, the bill increases overall funding for FSA staff, including for county office staff. The bill provides eight billion dollars for wick, four percent higher than last year's mark, and allows wick r- participants to purchase fresh, frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables making all affordable options available. The bill provides important investments in critical agricultural research that will keep our producers on the cutting edge of technology and production practices. We maintain funding for USDA's flagship competitive grant program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, and protect capacity funding for our land-grant universities to ensure that our farmers and ag workforce remain competitive with China. This legislation continues to fund vital rural development programs, including critical infrastructure investments in water and wastewater systems and housing programs, as well as increasing the loan authority for the business and industry and rural electric programs due to increased demand. For the Food and Drug Administration, the bill provides three point three six billion in direct appropriations and with increased user fees, FDA has a total budget of seven point one billion. to enable the agency to keep food, drugs, and medical devices safe and effective, as well as advancing the Make America Healthy Again initiatives highlighted in the President's budget. I believe credible evaluation of this legislation will conclude that it balances the funding needs of the USDA, FDA, and CFTC, while being responsible stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. As Mister Bishop has said, this is a g- a good faith effort to meet the moment, And there are critical things that do warrant support. We wanna keep working with the minority as we move this bill forward through the process. In conclusion, I wanna thank the staff of the subcommittee for their efforts, Pam Miller, Elizabeth Dent, Judd Gardner, Nick Selinger, Sykes Connell, as well as Martha Foley, Alex Swan, and Marie Gualtieri on the minority staff. I look forward to working with all of you as the bill moves forward, and I ask for your support for this legislation. mr. chairman i yield back

thank you gentlemen for his remarks i'd now like to recognize my good friend mr. bishop from georgia for remarks on the bill

thank you very much mr. chairman and good morning uh thank you making member delora my counterpart dr. harris uh and our respective staffs let me thank you all for the hard work and your cooperation uh we've had an opportunity to chat uh a number of times with uh chairman harris uh and while we have not necessarily uh come to agreement on all things i think this is a good faith effort uh the agriculture rural development fda related agencies bill is of vital importance to our farmers and our rural communities across our nation the programs and the workers that we fund through this bill affect the lives of every single american every single day It's about the food our families eat, support of our rural communities, our entrepreneurs and agricultural producers. It's about the safety of our medicine and cutting-edge research needed to ensure that America will continue to produce the highest quality the safest and most abundant and affordable food and fiber, anywhere in the world. Today we are marking up the FY twenty-seven bill and we must take this opportunity to improve it. so that it actually meets the needs of our country's agricultural producers and our rural neighbors. The bill does continue twenty twenty-six funding levels for all of the rural housing programs. It maintains funding for low-income seniors in the commodity food supplemental program. And it serves our strategic interests around the world by keeping the McGill McGuffin Dole program intact. It also provides flexibility for rural electric programs. However, all of this is overshadowed by the devastating and unfortunate cuts to USDA programs and staff that will hurt American children, attack our freedom to drink clean water, to eat safe food, and to preserve US farms. The FY twenty-seven bill before us today drastically cuts fruit and vegetable benefits over five million hungry women, infants and children. And it reduces funding for emergency food assistance. It eliminates the healthy food financing initiative. And it fails to help school districts with the equipment needed to cook real food

Mm-hmm.

to meet the dietary guidelines. The bill also provides two hundred million dollars less in new funds per week than the FY twenty-six bill. That means that ninety five thousand more women, infants and children, will go hungry in Doctor Harris's home state of Maryland. Chairman Cole, this means that fifty six thousand women, infants and children are going without fruit and vegetables in Oklahoma. And Alwa, represented on the committee by Miss Henson, that's another forty eight thousand across the Chattahoochee River from me in Alabama, represented on this committee by Mister Strong and Mister Adahunt, that eighty five thousand women, infants and children, losing access to affordable healthy food. We have several members on the committee from Florida, yet, if they support this bill today, that means three hundred and thirty thousand of the most vulnerable Floridians are gonna go hungry. In my own state of Georgia, and I'm joined on this committee by my colleague, Mister Clyde, one hundred and eighty five thousand women, infants and children are left asking how on earth does ending their access to healthy food help make America healthy again. And that's just a snapshot shot from a few states. Every state is going to see more women, infants and children going without the fresh food and vegetables that Dr. Harris says that he wants to promote. If WIC remains underfunded, as it is today in this bill, we will turn away eligible families for the first time in three decades. Unfortunately, American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars a day on an unauthorized war with no end in sight. For nearly two months, and just one week of this war in Iran could fully fund WIC for the whole year. Ag producers and rural America need our help now more than ever. Yet this bill cuts staff at the agencies that our farmers and ranchers rely on most, the Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, uh, NRCS. When it comes to agricultural production, growers know that you have to make hay while the sun shines. But my constituents, and I would bet most of yours too, are driving further and taking more time to catch the USDA office open on a day when it's open. They face delayed payments, reduced technical assistance, and loss of services from programs as this administration tells us they can do more with less. That's just not true. American farmers need USDA resources now. And this bill turns away from our responsibility for making sure USDA's staff is available and ready with the expertise to help them. This bill also cuts water and wastewater grants nearly in half. for the smallest and poorest rural communities in yours and my districts. We have rural neighbors living with clay pipes and without access to sewer service. This makes no sense. Clean water and working wastewater systems are a basic human need, not a privilege. Businesses will only set up shop when there's access to clean water. This is a quality of life issue and a job creation issue. My colleagues across the aisle seemed obsessed with the border in November of twenty twenty four but will not provide the basic utilities that Texas border residents, American citizens, need. Colonials often lack running water. They have substandard housing and rely on failing septic tanks. Yet this bill cuts water and wastewater funding to these neighborhoods, as well as neighborhoods in Alaska and Hawaii. Unfortunately, in this FY twenty-seven bill, rural broadband is cut by twenty percent, rural business development is cut by almost thirty percent, and rural energy programs are cut by fifty percent. I'm also disappointed that the majority is once again offering caustic riders that distract the committee from the mission at hand to invest and our hard-working ag producers support Americans' rural communities and ensure the timely review and safety of the medicine that families need. While this bill largely rejects the disastrous cuts and in some cases program eliminations that were proposed by the White House, we can and must do better. Let's make sure that we don't leave our constituents behind, especially as they face higher costs for food, fuel and everything else in this Trump economy. Now is our time to make this bill great again. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee, as well as the House and Senate to do so. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, I now recognize myself for remarks on the bill. Um, thank you, Chairman Harris. And thank you, Ranking Member Bishop and Ranking Member DeLauro. and frankly all the members on both sides of the aisle on both the subcommittee and the full committee. As we start today's full committee mark-up, I'm reminded that America's farmers and ranchers were already in the fields long before we walked into this this hearing room, planting, tending and carrying the responsibility that keeps this country fed and moving forward. Our fiscal year twenty twenty-seven agricultural, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies bill reflects the same focus, doing the work meeting real needs and delivering where it counts the measure supports farmers ranchers and rural communities and reinforces research to keep the united states competitive it invests in food safety through important inspection resources and ensuring american agriculture is protected from foreign pests and diseases and we make sure buy american isn't just a slogan through policies prioritizing products produced right here at home this bill's on the health and well-being of americans it strengthens rural development protects nutrition access and upholds the reliability of essential food and medical systems it also further steps uh it also takes further steps to safeguard american interest by strengthening guardrails of uh foreign purchases over agricultural purchases and enhancing oversight of overseas drug manufacturing protecting our land and ensuring greater security across the supply chain we depend on are common sense priorities we can all share further it shifts the focus from spending more to spending smart eliminating inefficiencies ending biden era regulation and holding every dollar to a higher standard this measure is rooted in the people it serves america's producers consumers and communities When we strengthen agriculture and protect public health, ensure the long-term prosperity our country depends upon. I want to thank uh Chairman Harris for his leadership and work in drafting this vital legislation, and I appreciate the partnership of ranking bishop uh ranking member bishop, uh as well again as majority and majority sta minority staff. I look forward to uh adding to our total of bills reported out of the full committee, and I urge support for today's measure. With that, I yield back. It's now my uh pleasure to recognize uh to recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Lohr of Connecticut for opening remarks.

Good morning uh to everyone and good morning Chairman, thank you. I wanna say a thank you to you, to Doctor Harris and ranking member Bishop. Also wanna say a thank you to the subcommittee staff, to Martha Foley, Alex Swan, Marie Gualtieri on the minority side and their counterparts on the majority. Pam Miller, Elizabeth Dent, Judd Gardner, and Nick Selinger as well for their work. I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. It will increase costs for American farmers, decrease aid for working families, and scale back our support for rural communities. In twenty twenty five, nearly seven million women, children and infants received supports for grocery vouchers provided under the WIC program. These are families who struggle to put food on the table, who are just trying to keep their heads above water as the cost of living and their grocery bills keep rising. This bill makes substantial cuts to this assistance. And by the way,

Mm-hmm.

there's an overall two hundred million dollar below twenty twenty six to the WIC program. This bill makes a cut specifically to the vouchers for fruits and vegetables. Denying women, infants and children access to fruits and vegetables is hardly a way to make America healthy again. In addition to providing assistance for families WIC supports the farmers and grocers who grow and sell the produce these vouchers can be used to buy. Cutting back on this aid will have a cascading economic effect that will reverberate throughout our communities. WIC works. Multiple studies have found that WIC participation reduces the risk of adverse birth outcomes, like premature birth or low birth weight. And it lowers infant mortality, and that it leads to healthier overall diets for young children. Yet, this bill would prevent participants from enrolling or recertifying in the program remotely. I think this is the twenty-first century. They can do this remotely by failing to extend this option beyond the September thirtieth, twenty twenty-six deadline. This option has proven to be critical in allowing more Americans to access these benefits, allowing working people to avoid transportation barriers and time off work. In some rural areas of the country, including uh, and and that is is including many states with Republican members of Congress, there is not a readily accessible WIC clinic where individuals can go to enroll in person. Virtual recertification is a proven process that eliminates these barriers to access for many people, allowing more efficient use of taxpayer dollars and making sure that people can put food on the table, maintaining the program's integrity. The American people deserve programs that work to support them and do not impose unnecessary burdens. I don't understand why people cannot certify um online. This bill cuts the Food for Peace program by three hundred million dollars, a twenty five percent cut compared to twenty twenty six. This not only deprives farmers of the additional revenue they can earn when they grow food to support the program but it denies hungry children around access to assistance they desperately need. My faith reminds me in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, and I quote, " For I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink." I can also quote Leviticus, just set aside a share of the harvest for the poor. This bill turns a blind eye to our brothers and sisters who are suffering, and for what purpose? More than two point two million Americans do not have access basic plumbing and running water in their homes. And this problem is more pronounced in rural communities. Yet, this bill proposes cutting grant funding for waste and water development programs in rural communities by sixty-two million dollars. Rather than alleviate the problem, the bill before us makes it worse, leaving more Americans without access to the basic necessities of life we should all expect uh in the in the United States. The bill scales back loans under the Rural Energy for America program by fifty percent, while eliminating all grant funding. This program was created to help bring down energy costs for farmers, small business, rural communities. More than twenty-five thousand projects have been funded through the program, helping people across all fifty states reduce their energy costs. And over two thirds of grants have gone to Republican-led districts. More than twenty-five percent of all REAP grant funding has gone to just twenty congressional districts. Eighteen of those districts are represented by Republicans, including all of the top five highest REAP grant recipients. Iowa's second district, now represented by Representative Ashley Hinson, has received the most REAP funding at more than fifty million dollars. Minnesota's seventh district received the second most funding at more than forty-seven million dollars. Minnesota's seventh is represented by Michelle Fischbach, Iowa's fourth district has received the third most funding with more than forty million dollar total. Iowa's fourth is represented by Representative Randy Fenstren. In twenty twenty five, out of the twenty two hundred plus REAP awards, seventeen hundred and fifty-two for three hundred and seventy-two million dollars went to Republican districts. By contrast, only four hundred and sixty-five went to Democratic districts for one hundred and sixty-nine million dollars. Despite this, the Republican bill we considered today decimates the program. It raises energy costs for their own constituents all across the country. This bill cuts funding for Reconnect Broadband, a program designed to expand internet access of rural communities, by twenty percent. Broadband access is not a luxury. It is a necessity today. It drives economic growth. It connects people to a wider community, including jobs and career training. It improves access to medical care, which is crucial when the nearest medical center may be an hour's drive away or more. It expands educational opportunities, helping to assure every child is equipped to succeed in the economy of the future. This bill does nothing to further protect our infants and better ensure infant formula safety, even in the wake of the by-heart botulism outbreak that took regulators and parents by surprise just a sh- few short months ago. This bill leaves behind specialty crops, family, small farmers while doing nothing to tackle tackle the big agribusinesses that terrorize our farm economy. increased cost for the American consumer. I find it troubling as well that this bill does nothing to recognize the essential role that FDA plays in the vaccine review process for approval and use by Americans. Prior to this administration, FDA followed long-standing good guidance practices related to vaccines, assessed scientific evidence in a transparent manner, and adhered to the principles required by the federal advisory uh committee act. Earlier this year, the FDA refused to even review a flu vaccine developing developed using MRNA, which Secretary Kennedy has crusaded against for years, because it was used to develop the COVID-nineteen vaccines. The FDA L- FDA later reversed course only after facing a substantial backlash from the medical community and the public writ large. Uh, last week the FDA refused to approve a drug for advanced skin cancer, which Secretary Kennedy personally opposes, despite numerous cancer doctors attesting to the effectiveness of the treatment. FDA has been the gold standard for drug safety and efficacy. I have serious concerns that under this administration it's less focused on proven treatments and more attentive to Secretary Kennedy's personal opinions. Lastly, the bill includes a litany of partisan policy writers, it eliminates protections for small meat and poultry producers, a gift to larger corporate competitors, which the American Farm Bureau is opposed to. It would encourage Americans to eat raw eggs that have not been properly stored or refrigerated, which increases the risk I don't understand the obsession among some of my friends across the Iowa giving themselves food poisoning as an expression of individual liberty but to each their own I suppose uh uh uh lastly, the bill also brings up partisan culture wars in its current form, the bill raises costs for American farmers, takes food away from hungry families, cuts off support for rural communities, loudly bangs the divisive culture war drums once again. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the legislation, work with Democrats, let's work together to fix it.

thank you general lady for your remarks uh obviously as you can see we have started voting but we wanna go as far as we can into the uh uh individual

oh wow

remarks and responses on the bill so we'll just keep a sharp eye on the clock i would ask once you go down to vote when we're done you come back as quickly as we can so we can resume wherever we stop and i would ask those that are speaking to try and stay within the time limits if you can

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I rise in support of the fiscal year twenty seven Agriculture Rural Development and FDA Appropriations Bill. Uh, this bill provides the Department of Agriculture with the funding it needs to support our farmers, invests in important research, and provides ample resources to get a Importantly, it protects our farmland and food security from foreign adversaries like China. This bill is also an investment in rural America. It provides robust funding for community facilities, housing, and vital communications infrastructure that will help rural communities like mine thrive. This bill fulfills President Trump's promise to American farmers and rural communities And I thank Chairman Harris for his leadership in crafting this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support it, and with that I yield back.

Thank the gentleman for his remarks, gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Capter is recognized for remarks on the bill.

Thank you Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, thank you all for bringing us together under regular order to consider this bill. US agriculture impacts every American. Uh, and it actually is the lifeblood of each of us and of all the individuals we represent. Uh, we look across our country and we see farmers, ranchers, urban growers now, and our rural producers who serve Americans all the way from our heartland, which I represent, and coast to coast. This legislation is important whether you live in a city or on farmland. It funds the programs that keep our food and agricultural supply chains functioning for the American people. and also with exports adding additional uh economic growth to our uh farmers and agricultural communities. A sector that supports roughly one-fifth of our nation's economic activity and about one point five trillion of our GDP. That's pretty good. Put simply, investing in American agriculture is food security for our own people, but it's also investing in our national and economic security. The share of our economy, represented by domestic agriculture unfortunately, has declined, while imports of foreign-produced food have risen. Every imported food, guess what, we can grow and produce here, and it's a lost opportunity for America. I wanna thank uh Chairman Harris for his sensitivity to this issue of the displacement of imports with US-produced product. Because what America makes and grows, makes and grows America. With that in mind, I want to highlight several areas of this bill that fall short for my constituents in Northwestern Ohio and for rural communities across our country. First, the rising cost of everything. Everyday Americans, including our neighbors and the farmers I represent in Northwest Ohio are struggling to make ends meet. Farmers' margins are razor thin. They are facing drought, tariffs, escalating input costs driven by global instability due to the president's war of choice, and unresolved issues, like permanent extension of year-round E fifteen sales. Frankly, I wanna go to E thirty, E sixty, uh Brazil's doing that, we got a long way to go, but half our income in uh field production in corn and soy now goes into fuels. Without that, these farmers would be bankrupt, and America needs to understand that. This bill does not do enough to help them. It cuts in half the loan guarantees under the Rural Energy for America program known as REAP, and I'm also deeply concerned about sixty percent cut, a three million dollar reduction to the USDA Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production. Frankly, we have four season houses in our area raising fruits and vegetables to displace imports. You have to recognize the new American agriculture that is rising around us. Fertilizer and energy costs have nearly doubled for greenhouses, and I represent one of the largest, if not the largest greenhouse landscape capital of the United States, home to the warmest coast of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie South Shore. And the fertile soil what was called the great black swamp. We have enormous potential. But greenhouses cannot survive or expand when energy costs literally strangle them. Cutting the one USDA office dedicated to urban agriculture undermines efforts to diversify production, strengthen local supply chains, catch up with where science is leading us, and build the next generation of American growers. Second, we must rebuild local and regional food systems. This bill eliminates funding for the Agriculture, uh, Marketing Services micro-grants for food security program, which helps communities grow food through small scale gardening, that they can increase, herding and livestock operations. It also reduces funding for the Healthy Food Financing initiative, which helps retailers overcome barriers, uh, to serving rural and low income communities. And, as many dear colleagues know, I am laser focused on connecting producers with local food school programs, so our children can access more locally grown fruits, vegetables, grains and other food, milk and other locally produced food. But cost is a major barrier. School meal reimbursement rates need to reflect inflation, supply chain pressures and labor costs. Students, by the way, don't like the food they're eating in the schools. Just ask your kids when you go out into the schools. America has to do better. Schools also need more kitchen capacity for scratch cooking, especially in rural America. Yet this bill cuts. school breakfast equipment grants by fifty percent, or five million dollars. Uh, third, we must invest in the future. Research funding is essential to countering pests, invasive species and threats to soil and plant health. Yet this bill cuts NIFA research equipment grants by three million dollars and reduces the sustainable agriculture research and education program by seventeen percent, or eight million dollars. These cuts slow farmer-driven research and hinder efforts to protect including the largest watershed in the entire Great Lakes, which I have the privilege of representing, the Western Lake Erie Basin. In closing, Mister Chairman, I recognize we face tough choices and these are finite resources. While this bill certainly improves on the President's budget, it still falls short, it needs amendment, but where the President shortchanges farmers and rural communities, this committee has the responsibility to make up the difference because protecting their interests is protecting the nation's interest. If the president can direct forty billion dollars uh of US taxpayer funds around the world, including twenty billion to Argentina, uh to foreign cattle producers, surely Congress can find a fraction of that amount to invest in America's cattlemen. And in the energy savings, local food systems and research programs that I've highlighted, that this bill cuts. I hope we can work together to address these shortcomings. Let's at least level fund the programs that help farmers and rural communities manage rising energy costs, strengthen local and regional food systems, and support farmer-driven research that protects our soils, watersheds, and the future. Because when we do so, we innovate and increase the percent of our GDP and nation's economic activity from the food and agricultural sector. Thank you uh for your attention because what America makes and grows, makes and grows America. I yield back.

Thank you, General Lady, for comments. General Lady from Iowa, Miss Henson is recognized to address the bill. Thank you, Mr. Giroir. I rise in the

Today, in support of the fiscal year twenty-seven Ag FDA appropriations bill, um, this bill takes important steps to modernize our USDA operations, improving customer service for our farmers and ranchers while making the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars possible. I'm proud that this bill includes fifty million dollars for the USDA Chief Information Officer to help support IT improvements at our farm service agency, including the one farmer, one FSA local offices play an incredibly important role in connecting our farmers with USDA programs, and this effort will help farmers access those federal resources that they need and trust. This bill also maintains language to protect our national security against foreign adversaries, adding the secretary of agriculture to CFIUS, and including my language to secure our food and ag supply chains from countries like China. We're also making some targeted investments in food and ag research, providing funding to support discoveries that give our producers a competitive edge in the global marketplace. Our bill also does support our most vulnerable population, babies, through ensuring that foreign infant formula factories are held to the same standard as American factories. And this also protects the US, uh, infant formula supply chain. And finally, the bill includes my language to help improve price transparency for fertilizer and to lower the cost of inputs that our producers in Iowa rely on. So in short, This bill is responsible, it respects taxpayers while still making those targeted investments in agriculture to support our producers and our growers. So thank you, Mister Chairman, for your work on this, and I yield back.

I thank gentlelady for making her point so concisely. Uh, absolutely, she you ought to applaud her. But you can applaud speakers on both sides here. I'd next recognize uh my good friend from Minnesota, gentlelady, Miss McCollum, for remarks on the bill.

So, bye bye. I rise in opposition to the bill before us. Last year, Republicans and President Trump forced through their incredibly unpopular, big, beautiful bill, which cut millions of Americans from food assistance benefits. This year's agricultural appropriations bill to snap is no different, continuing a six billion dollar cut to SNAP. Now Minnesota administers SNAP at the county levels, and many of us in this room do exactly that on both sides of the aisle. The counties are being asked, well, I should say they're being forced to modernize their enrollment systems to comply with new federal standards. Because of this, some of our counties are now facing unfunded mandates that carry steep penalties that the counties cannot afford. The bill does nothing to solve the catastrophic problem that will go into effect later this year for our counties. This bill also, uh, presents a problem with its failure to fully fund the special, supplemental, nutrition program for women infants and children known as WIC with this funding level young children and pregnant women who are eligible to receive nutritious food through WIC will not receive the assistance for which they are entitled many of you might not be aware of the healthy food financing initiative which provides funding to improve access to healthy fresh foods well that's eliminated too take these cuts together to nutrition services and it will impact all of our districts everyone's paying more for gas groceries, for basic needs. This bill will even be more burdensome to our families who deserve assistance. Some people might find it odd, I hear that sometimes on the floor, that someone from St. Paul cares about agriculture. But Minnesota is a farm state. We produce corn, sugar beets, soy, and we are the country's largest turkey producer. Just ask Brad Finstead about that. In my district we have some amazing apple orchards, organic farms, heritage animal production, and small, agriculture um is very important to our community. My district also has University of Minnesota St. Paul campus, which is vital to agricultural research. Programs like Serial Disease Lab conduct research, protect corn, barley, wheat, and more. If you have these crops in your state, we're doing the research to protect them in my district. The university's metner- veterinaria program is also in St. Paul, training a future workforce. that cares for animals, large and small. Agricultural research is vital for our food security, for our economic security. And I'm gonna continue to fighting for increases in those programs. Rural Minnesota is uh, we're one Minnesota, and so when rural Minnesota is harmed by cuts in these bill, like reconnect broadband, slashed by twenty percent, it's a problem for the whole state. And we all care about clean drinking water, but this bill cuts vital water and waste grants to help rural communities. An eight percent cut also to conservation programs will limit our farmers' ability to implement best practices to c- to conservation to protect their land and protect all of our water. Bottom line is, this bill does not support our farmers enough, it hurts best practices, and it doesn't do anything to help with the affordability of nutrition in my state.

again i wanna thank general lyddy for her precision in her remarks it's staying within time limit with that we're uh we're getting close enough that i think we'll probably suspend remarks uh then we'll resume obviously we have more speakers so please come back as quickly as you can thank you very much and the committee stands in recess subject to call of the chair

it's the thing with the white house but like

committee will uh resume session let me quickly obviously we've had some confusion here and some uh just talked with the ranking member she's headed to the facilities but she said let's get started uh and we agree with that obviously we're going through opening statements and uh we will accommodate as we can there we're not sure exactly what's happening on the floor but we think it's gonna take a while uh no matter what and we might as well resume uh so i would ask you to any of you in communication with any of our colleagues just urge them to come on back so we can proceed as normal and uh uh i'm gonna give we had several members coming in uh wanna give my uh friend the gentlelady from florida who's been very patient uh recognize her to uh make comments on the uh legislation gentlelady is recognized

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise, my friends, to speak in strong opposition to this bill. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is because our farmers, ranchers and growers need help. They face skyrocketing fuel costs, erratic tariffs and global markets and increasingly extreme storms and droughts. So they need real help right now. Agriculture, as I've reminded my colleagues before, is the number two driver of Florida's economy. and unfortunately instead of investing in the hardworking people who put food on our table this fy twenty seven agriculture and fda appropriations bill completely abandons them it slashes spending by more than one point one billion dollars a four percent cut from last year meanwhile families nationwide still struggle with the cost of groceries still line up at food banks and still count on this congress to have their backs but this bill just deserts them Let's start with WIC. Last year it served nearly seven million new mothers, babies and young children during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Yet this bill cuts WIC by two hundred million dollars below twenty twenty six levels. And the pain doesn't stop there. It fails to fully fund the cash value vouchers that allow women and children to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables. Think about that. We're telling new mothers that we know you qualify and we know you're eligible, but we're gonna shortchange this vital benefit anyway. That's just heartless, and it's not who we should be as a country. But it gets worse. Snap, the backbone of America's food security infrastructure, takes a six billion dollar hit in this bill. And that's a direct consequence of cuts baked into the big ugly law, which handed working families crumbs just to lavish huge tax breaks on millionaires and billionaires. Yet we know Snap is the most effective and efficient anti-hunger program in the federal government. It keeps food on the table for working families, seniors, people with disabilities, Every dollar cut from SNAP doesn't disappear. It shows up as hunger. And the emergency food assistance program that helps stock food banks and pantry shelves is cut by five million dollars here. These are the organizations that catch people when they fall, when a job disappears, when a medical bill arrives, when the unexpected happens. All this bill does is make their work harder. Let me turn to Food for Peace, because this program does something extraordinary. It supports American agriculture by purchasing US grown commodities, and uses them to fight hunger around the world. It's good for our farmers, good for our standing in the world, and good for all the hungry children that it feeds. But this bill cuts it, guts it, by three hundred million dollars, even after this administration already gutted USAID and dismantled the very infrastructure that delivers this food to those who need it most. This isn't fiscal responsibility, this is fiscal negligence of the cruelest kind. Lastly, there's the Food and Drug Administration. FDA's job is simple, keep our food and medicine safe. But this bill cuts FDA discretionary funding by fifty-six million dollars below last year's level, right as public health concerns mount around food safety, drug integrity, and the slow pace of approvals. The answer to that anxiety is not to defund the agency tasked with protecting us. The answer is to invest in it. Look, uh, I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this bill is about fiscal discipline. But discipline without moral direction is just damage. And a budget is a moral document. If it reflects what we value, well, who we fight for, and what kind of country we wanna be. This bill says that we value painful cuts over our children and farmers. It says we'd rather trim line items than protect a mother's ability to buy fresh vegetables for her kids. It says that Food for Peace, a program that both helps American farmers and feeds hungry kids abroad, is expendable. well i say it's not it's not who we are or who we should be and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back the balance of my time

thank the gentlelady for her remarks the gentleman from texas mr. quay is recognized for remarks on the bill

thank you mr. chairman i wanna thank the uh chairman harris and the ranking member bishop and of course uh you mr. cole and of course uh mr. laro and i especially wanna thank uh the uh committee staff that has worked uh on both sides very hard on this I wanna uh, I know this is a bill in progress, I understand that. But I wanna talk about a couple of provisions that I worked on and funding that are important to uh, my state and my district. Uh, first of all, I wanna thank the committee for the strong investment in cattle health, including the funding to eradicate fever ticks, uh, for livestock and wildlife hosts. Uh, the cost share program for the construction and repair of livestock or game fencing on private line is critically important to contain the spread of uh quarantine areas and for protecting texas ranchers uh thank you for that also wanna say thank you for the important steps that we've taken to address the growing threat of the new world screw warm by expediting the treatment approvals uh this is a proactive common sense investment on virus security and thank you for that uh along with that uh wanna say thank you for the uh uh inclusion of the assessment of the operational capacity for the sterile mexican fruit fly production facility at moore air force base which is critical uh making sure that we do the repairs the modernization the full operational capacity to make sure that we protect the specialty uh areas in our border region along with that the work that you did for the avian uh influenza as you know uh we gotta keep the prices of eggs down And I think this will help us, and I want to thank, uh, you for the investment. Uh, also want to thank, and I think, uh, uh, uh, Debbie and I and other folks, uh, know the support for the citrus greening research, uh, for citrus fruit, uh, along the border and Florida and other places, uh, for that. Uh, the work that you all did, uh, adding money for the, uh, to combat cotton pests, the white fly, the feral swine, to help ensure the farmers can continue to produce the food and the fiber that our country uh depends on. Also, particularly to the border, the APHIS border inspectors play a very important role in protecting uh our country from uh evasive uh pests and diseases. And their uh personnel are so important, cuz they're on the front line to make sure that we protect the United States from those uh pests and diseases to make sure that we keep trade flowing, but at keep those bad pests uh away. And I appreciate the committee for encouraging USDA to exempt border inspectors from any federal hiring freeze that we have. Rural development is another area that's so important, the uh rural housing. I want to thank you for that, especially for the section five O four home repair that is so important for the rural areas across the country itself. So thank you for that. Uh there's one particular area that has to do the farm labor housing provisions in the bill. Thank you for addressing that. Uh, maintaining uh that funding and strengthening the program by requiring USDA to use data to identify gaps to direct resources to the highest needs. This language uh is important to make sure that we coordinate housing, health care, nutrition programs, and that we recognize that farm workers, and my father was a farm worker along with my uh mother, uh that we recognize the importance of farm workers to our agricultural economy and thank you for uh providing the especially the safe housing in basic services um the uh circuit uh rider program regional technical assistance thank you for protecting that funding uh the uh grassroots uh source water protector program again is very important thank you for yeah uh protecting that and finally one of the things that i also uh is the areas of the persistent poverty communities. This is something that uh uh Mister Clyburn has been working on for many years, and I certainly want to follow his lead to make sure that we put the funding for the persistent poverty communities, the direction to increase investments and uh improve accountability of federal resources to reach those underserved areas. And with that, I I know this is a work in progress, uh but I do want to thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, this. uh for the work that you've done in this bill thank you and i yield back mr. chairman

thank you gentlemen very much for your remarks a gentleman from washington mister newhouse is recognized to address the bill

well thank you very much mr. chairman i appreciate you giving me a few minutes to talk about the the bill before us before i uh mention some of the important things in there i wanna express my appreciation certainly to chairman harris ranking member bishop uh But even more importantly, the staff of the subcommittee, you guys do awesome work and we couldn't do it without you. Um, the bill before us actually does some really good things. I think some of the things you could call them key investments, which is something I'm in- interested in. I just wanna real quickly highlight a couple of those. First of all, something I've been working on since the day I got here is, uh, uh, the issue of the funding for agricultural research, which keeps us as an industry on the cutting edge. and and be able to compete with uh uh countries around the world so appreciate the increase in funding for that and also if you grow things you gotta be able to sell them so we also maintain a strong support for the agricultural trade programs which is very important and then another thing that's vital to everyone whether you realize it or not but we increase the funding for the food safety inspection service which helps address some of those things like emerging pests and diseases, which helps to protect our food supply, so that when you go to the grocery store there's actually something on the shelves. And then, last but not least, generally, it, this does, this bill before us does an awful lot to help, um, in so many ways our specialty crops that are raised throughout the country. And, uh, I appreciate the fact that the chairman sees the, the importance of that, and we do not leave those specialty crops behind. And then, something that we've talked about many times and that um over the last several years have been a strong proponent and we maintain in this bill the the capability for the secretary of agriculture to provide oversight of the communist chinese party through uh their seat on the board which is a i i hope you guys understand how key that that provision is as we face the threats that the communist chinese party poses to the united states in buying our farmland. So, you know, it's said in many way, many ways, but agriculture is the backbone of our country. Our farmers feed and fuel and clothe our country. And this, this bill uh, helps ensure that we show, not only show appreciation to the hardworking farmers every day, but they can continue to do that important work. So for those reasons, and many, many others, I s- I urge my colleagues to support the bill. thank you mr. chairman

thank you gentlemen for his remarks general lady from maine miss pingree is recognized to address the bill

thank you mr. chair so i have some serious concerns about the funding bill before us today unfortunately i think it takes us in the wrong direction i'm gonna start talking about WIC we spend a lot of time in this committee talking about healthy food nutrition getting more fruits and vegetables into people's diets. This administration has created the Maha movement, Make America Healthy Again. But how do we expect to make America healthy if we are cutting the very benefit that helps pregnant women, new moms, babies, and young children access healthy fruits and vegetables? This bill cuts the WIC fruit and vegetable benefit by ten percent for the fiscal year twenty twenty seven. So let's talk about what that means. For women that means going from fifty-two dollars a month for fruits and vegetables down to thirteen. For children, it means going from twenty-six dollars a month down to ten. That's not a small adjustment, that's a dramatic cut. In Maine we have about fifteen thousand people who participate in WIC. In a state of only one point three million people, that's a lot. And the fruit and vegetable benefit is one of the most used and most redeemed parts of the program. One WIC participant in Maine told me, uh, told us that because of the current benefit, she was able to buy a bag of cherries for her child for the first time. Before that, when the benefit was lower, bananas were all she could afford. That child had never had cherries, Mister Newhouse, um, before because they were too expensive. That's what this cut means. It means fewer choices, fewer healthy foods. It means a parent standing in a grocery store deciding what they have to put back. And again, This is a time when nearly half the children in this country do not eat a vegetable every day. We hear a lot about this USDA's support of regenerative agriculture, but this bill cuts the very programs that help farmers to do that. It eliminates funding for the USDA climate hunts, it cuts sustainable agriculture research and education, the SARE program, by eight million, it cuts conservation technical assistance by sixty-one million, And it cuts the Office of Urban Agriculture, which supports food loss and waste reduction projects in local food systems, by three million. Some of the farmers who had their grants cut were told that they were too woke, they were unnecessary, they were political, they were DEI, they were climate change hoax. But I would say just talk to those farmers. The farmers in my state are dealing with extreme weather. The farmers in my state are trying to improve their f- soil, manage flooding, deal with trout, use cover crops. and make their land more resilient. This is not woke. This is what farming in twenty twenty six looks like, as farmers grapple with the impacts of climate change and rising costs. We are derelict in our duty if we are not helping farmers meet the challenges that are right there in front of them. At the same time, farmers in Maine are struggling with the chaos of this administration's tariff. I heard from a farmer in Brunswick, Maine, who was trying to purchase a machine to help with his Brussels sprout crop. The machine came from Holland, and he had to calculate the daily price of steel just to figure out whether he could afford it. Eventually he gave up. I heard it from another farmer in Unity who's trying to buy equipment to weed potatoes. His tariff bill is twenty percent the cost of equipment plus fifty percent of the price of aluminum and steel in that equipment. The dealer does not even know what to charge because no one knows what the price of the equipment until it arrives. That's the reality that farmers are dealing with right now. You know, we learned a lot during the pandemic. We learned that supply chains were fragile, that buying local matters, and that schools, food banks, farmers, and families all benefit when we connect to the local food, we can, when we connect local food to local need. We had programs that did exactly that. In Maine, Farms for Food Equity used LFPA funding to purchase more than sixty-one thousand pounds of nutritious food from fifteen farms in southern Maine. That food went to pantries and other food assistance program. Cultivating communities in Portland supported fresh, culturally familiar food for limited resource neighbors. These programs help farmers make ends meet, help families eat, and kept dollars in local communities, and this is exactly the kind of thing this bill should support. Instead, the bill walks away from them. Our farmers deserve better. Our rural communities deserve better. Farmers trying to put healthy food on the table deserve better. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, General Lady, for her remarks and gentlemen from Florida, Mister Franklin is recognized to address the bill.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise today in full support of this bill and appreciate all the hard work the committee has put into it. It reflects a serious effort to prioritize American agriculture, support our producers, and ensure that our ag economy remains strong and competitive. For my district in Florida, this bill comes at a very critical moment. Earlier this year, our growers were hit by a record freeze, devastating citrus, strawberries, blueberries, sweet corn, vegetables, and other specialty crops that are vital not only to Florida's economy, but to the nation's food supply. These are hard-working producers who operate on already very tight margins and face risks that are often outside their control. This bill takes an important step forward by investing in better tools to manage their risk. It includes direction to develop a temperature and frost index insurance policy for specialty crops, Helping ensure that when disaster strikes, growers have a reliable, timely way to recover and keep producing. Just as important, this bill recognizes that federal support only works if it actually is there and and able to help uh distribute the assistance efficiently. The Farm Service Agency, FSA, is the front door for so many of these programs and too often our farmers are met with understaffed offices and delayed services. This bill pushes back on that trend and establishes a hiring floor for FSA and provides dedicated funding to bring on new staff while also ensuring the county offices remain open and accessible to the communities they serve. For states like Florida, where specialty crop growers depend heavily on timely assistance, this really matters. This bill also takes meaningful steps to protect small growers, packers, and producers from unnecessary regulatory burden. It includes common sense flexibilities and oversights, uh, designed to ensure that costly federal rules like food traceability requirements are implemented in a way uh that is workable and not punitive. We should not be putting American producers at a disadvantage, especially when foreign competitors are not held to the same standards. This bill helps strike that balance, protecting our food supply while supporting the rural communities that sustain it. Finally, the bill takes important makes important investments in agricultural research and extension programs which are critical to the long-term success of Florida or or American agriculture. Whether it's advancing AI innovations, greening resistance, improving automation for fruit and vegetable production, or educating farmers on best practices, these investments ensure that we we maintain competitive, resilient, and fed. For Florida, that means continued progress in fighting invasive disease, improving yields, and supporting the next generation of family growers. For the country, it means a safer and more plentiful food supply. At the end of the day, this bill reflects what we should be, what should be among the community's, the committee's top priorities, supporting the men and women who feed this I look forward to work with my colleagues, and uh as we move this bill forward I yield back.

Thank gentlemen for his remarks, gentlelady from California, Ms. Torres is recognized for comments on the bill.

Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. I rise in opposition of the bill. At home, I describe the Appropriations Committee to my constituents as being like the federal government. uh, checkbook or, uh, the Zelle account for some of our young staff. That, that the bills that we pass out of this committee reflect the priorities and the need that we have as a nation. So why are my Republican colleagues prioritizing a cruel two hundred million cut to the WIC program that helps moms and babies, access healthy food. Why is it a priority to strip away a hundred and forty million dollars in fresh fruit and vegetable benefits from nearly five point four million toddlers, preschoolers and moms? WIC is not only does not only help moms access free healthy foods, but also supports nursing moms. It provides nutrition, education and health resources. In my district alone, Wick helps twenty five thousand moms, babies and children each month. A constituent, Miss Martinez, a first time mom from Pomona told me that Wick became a lifeline during her pregnancy. Despite working, she struggled to make ends meet and couldn't afford basic groceries, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. Before we, WIC, those items were completely out of reach. The cash value benefit changed that, allowing her to finally buy the nutritious produce her body needed. During pregnancy, fruits and vegetables were often the only foods that she could consume. So the fresh food provided by WIC were a true lifeline that helped her survive the days that she didn't have enough money. to buy healthy foods. Cutting funding and benefits from WIC would hurt so many mothers like miss Martinez in the inland empire and across our country. Why is it that we are ok with a giving a blank check for the war in Iran?

Uh.

Why are we ok to give a forty billion dollar bailout to Argentina? Why are we ok to fund a ballroom? Why. are we ok to give welfare to the rich corporations but not ok to for funding wick food food which helps moms and babies survive with the high price of gas food and basic goods hunger is already on the rise that's not just in my district more low wage workers are lining up at food banks more people are being laid off These cuts would force WIC to turn away eligible families for the very first time in thirty years. I urge my colleagues to think through this and to oppose cutting fresh food to toddlers, moms and babies. And I yield back.

Thanks, gentlelady. The gentleman from New York, Mister Espio, is uh recognized for comments on the bill.

you thank you mister chairman um this farm bill could have presented an opportunity to feed the hungry uh in america back in my college days i had uh as a professor um the late and great michael harrington who wrote the other america a book that highlighted hunger and poverty in america and it was used as a blueprint by the kennedy administration to fight poverty and hunger across america and here we are decades and decades later and hunger still exist in america as we give argentina twenty billion dollars as we propose and are ready to give billionaires in gulf state billions of dollars in currency swap and yet the american people many american people are still hungry um my district has uh in the bronx part of my district uh there is a significant number of of people residents a hundred and four thousand of them including thirty percent of which are children rely on nutritional benefit to keep food on the table for their families. These are communities that continually face this investment and have been historically underserved. But it's not just my district, Mr. Chairman. If you go out of the rural part of America, even as they see the baskets of fruits and vegetables being sent out of their communities, there is hunger there. in many places across America. And here we are cutting SNAP. Now SNAP is uh just a little bit under seven dollars a person a day. Seven dollars under seven dollars a person a day. That's what food stamps are. And yet we're assaulting that minimum investment. Today's agricultural funding building committee and the farm builders that will be on the floor represent an opportunity to undo that we have already seen done by the devastating cuts in hr one and unfortunately this bill does nothing to address the food deserts that are also rampant across urban and rural america and takes food out of the mouths of women and children and infants uh so we i urge my colleagues to vote in the negative of this bill furthermore mister chairman grocery store owners, many of whom see thirty, forty, fifty percent of their business through food stamps, are getting hurt by the cut in food stamps. And they provide jobs, and they were there for us during the pandemic. The bodegas were opened during the pandemic, some of them twenty four seven. Some of their family members died during the pandemic. Right in urban America, they were the only place you can go to to get food. In the middle of the worst crisis we've seen in our lifetimes, the pandemic. They were there for us. And some of those businesses make fifty, thirty, forty percent of their business comes through the food stamps, and the people that go there. And these cuts are devastating those small businesses. Those bodega owners or grocery store owners. in rural and urban settings. This is not just a New York City story, this is not just an urban narrative, this is across America. And so, in a district like mine of a hundred and four thousand residents, thirty percent of which are children, rely on on these nutritional programs. And one in four Bronx residents face food insecurity. This is at a time Where mainly in Argentina got twenty billion dollars. And where the states in the Middle East now that are facing economic trouble because of this war want a currency swap. They want our money. They want our tax paying money. And yet we don't wanna give a child, a woman, an infant Under seven dollars a day, what can you buy with seven dollars a day? I don't know. We got a bunch of stuff here, look that fruit basket and everything that's on this table that we eat on a daily basis and probably get obese on it. It's over seven dollars a day. Clearly over seven dollars a day. The food that we get in the other room three or four times a day when we have one of those hefty meals that we get there individually for us is over seven dollars a day and yet we can't give that to people in urban settings and in rural settings across america i strongly urge you to vote down this bill this bill is un-american and i yield back

thanks gentlemen the general lady from the bottom of the sleeves recognize for comments on the bill

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, ranking member, and the staff. I rise today in support of the report language recognizing the state's legal role when it comes to regulating prediction markets. If you went into prediction market right now, uh, you could bet on who wins a basketball game, who will win the best picture at the Oscars next year, who will launch a political campaign, us strikes on iran or if jesus christ returns before twenty twenty seven no matter how you spit it betting on these outcomes is clearly gambling states and tribes especially in my home state of nevada have jurisdiction over gaming but prediction markets are trying to sidestep those regulations nevada is known around the world as the world class destination for gaming and entertainment Our tourism industry was responsible for nearly a hundred billion dollars in economic activity, more than four hundred and thirty-six thousand jobs, twenty-four point four billion dollars in wages, and nearly one-third of our state's general fund revenue in twenty twenty-four. The money from gambling licenses and taxes go towards our schools, public safety, and essential services across Nevada. And Nevada is the gold standard when it comes to gaming regulation. Our comprehensive licensing, enforcement, and consumer protection systems are designed to specifically address the risks associated with sports betting. And we can't allow large corporations to avoid these regulations, especially when it means they're taking money away from our schools our police and our communities. As prediction markets expand and evolve, we must ensure oversight and regulation of such markets that align with established federal, tribal, and state frameworks. State and tribal governments must be actively involved in the conversation when it comes to regulation of prediction markets. And Washington should not steamroll states and tribes and take the side of big corporations who profit from avoiding state laws. I'm grateful that this bill recognizes states' necessary involvement in the process, and with that, I yield.

Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman, excuse me, the gentlelady from Illinois is afterwards recognized for remarks on the bill.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I strongly oppose the fiscal year twenty twenty seven agriculture rural development FDA appropriations bill that we're considering today. Once again, Republicans are turning their backs on hungry families, rural communities, and public health. Uh-oh. Um, this bill raises costs for families, betrays our farmers, threatens food access for hardworking Americans, and endangers the health and well-being of our children and communities. This bill leaves the American people behind. Remember, don't listen to what the Republicans say. Watch what they do. Republicans say they want to make America healthy again, but this bill tells a different story. What they are doing is flat funding the WIC program, even as costs continue to rise. This bill slashes the cash value benefit for fruits and vegetables, snatching healthy foods from the plates of pregnant moms and babies in their most critical years. In matter of Republicans had their way, a toddler's fruit and veggie benefit would be lower than it was last year. That means it will be even harder for families to afford groceries. Let's be clear, this is not saving money. in the long term. When we deny healthy food to pregnant moms and kids, we increase the risk of preterm birth, developmental delays, and chronic illnesses. That results in more hospital visits, higher Medicaid costs, and worse outcomes for families. That's not efficient, it's just irresponsible. And it's not just families who suffer. These cuts hit small farmers too, the ones without high-powered corporate lobbyists, the ones just trying to feed their neighbors and keep their head above water. This is certainly not saving money long-term. This is not efficient. And this most certainly is not making America healthy. You don't balance a budget on the backs of babies. I am also disappointed that this bill does not include full funding for the Protecting Animals with Shelter or PAWS Act which helps domestic violence survivors and their families find safe temporary housing for Despite the limited funding it receives, this program saves lives. Most domestic violence shelters are not equipped to accommodate pets, but many survivors understandably don't want to leave behind their beloved pets in a violent situation knowing that abusers often harm pets as punishment. Research shows that when people can't bring their pets with them, they often stay in dangerous situations longer. with tragic consequences. The manager's amendment restores half of the funding that was cut, but that's only half of what survivors need and deserve from all of us. Friends, Republicans will say that these are, quote, tough choices, but somehow the tough choices always fall hardest on low-income moms and kids, never on the billionaires. And let's not forget the same people claiming fiscal responsibility Voke voted for their big ugly bill last year that added two point four trillion dollars to the deficit. Republicans say that they all care about farmers, but this bill guts support for small farmers. They all say that they care about families, but they're cutting food for babies. So I'll say it again. Don't listen to what what Republicans say. Watch what they do. Because what they're doing with this bill is cruel, it's cynical, and dangerous. I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on our families, our farmers, and our future.

Thank you, General Lady. The gentleman from New York, Mister Morelle, is recognized for comments on the bill.

Thanks uh so much, Mister Chairman. Uh I recognize that for our nation, true long-term fiscal security starts with meaningful investments in the food and housing, um stability of American families. And a big part of that effort is driven by the work we do right here in this committee. and the funds that make these programs possible yet uh as we did last year this proposal this bill cuts into the very programs uh that help working families put food on the table it short changes the programs that allow people access to a healthy diet and while this bill is bad enough on its own it does not stand alone the package comes after uh my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed a reconciliation package uh last year cutting snap benefits by a hundred and eighty seven billion dollars and as we speak uh you are now looking to lock in the billing cut through the through a flawed farm bill while openly talking about coming back for more snap uh cuts in future reconciliation bills yet the attacks on nutrition programs don't end with snap the bill also cuts two hundred million from WIC and fails to fully fund the fruit and vegetable benefit under the program it's estimated that the proposed cuts would take away over a hundred and forty one million dollars in fruit and vegetable benefits from nearly five point four million toddlers preschoolers and pregnant and postpartum wick participants three hundred and sixty six thousand participants in my home state of new york this quite simply as an outrage the bill cuts other critical programs including slashing food assistance abroad reducing investments in rural communities and cutting the various staff that help farmers access the programs that they depend on We cannot pretend these are isolated decisions. They are part of a broader, coordinated effort to weaken nutrition programs first through reconciliation, now through appropriations and then uh the farm bill. And let's be clear about the consequences. When you cut, snap, when you underfund WIC WIC you are not just trimming a budget, you're taking food off the tables of working families, seniors and children. And we need to stop pretending these are separate conversations. They are not. They are two sides of the same coin and that coin is being used to give tax breaks to billionaires. Instead, we're being asked to accept a bill that moves us backward, one that increases hardship while doing little to address the real economic challenges American families face. So I urge defeat of it and I if I may also wanna raise a narrower issue um and also a thank you uh to uh staff here, I wanna share a story about a fifth generation family owned small business in my district zweigels they make red and white hots and other meat products they have a hundred year history in my hometown of rochester new york they proudly produce all their products in the state of art a state of the art manufacturing facility in rochester and they make sure anyone buys their products know it says on the labeling made in rochester on their packaging that wasn't till recently when the united states department of agriculture changed their labeling requirements to no longer allow them to use made in rochester why because the pigs that are raised in arkansas probably in mister walmart's district or someone like that so even though every other aspect of manufacturing and producing these are in rochester because the pigs which ultimately become hot dogs um are are are raised somewhere else can't do it it's mystifying to me the usda is spending their time making marketing decisions that have nothing to do with public health or public safety uh that affect companies around the country so i do wanna thank the majority for including uh my requested report language to direct the food safety and inspection services to provide technical assistance for small businesses who are struggling to implement these burdensome new requirements for marketing labels although i would just assume those marketing label requirements went away altogether i think this however is the first step to ensure small businesses are not heavily impacted by onerous requirements but more more more needs to be done uh to insure these companies are thrown into disarray and waste time energy money profits and customers so again want to thank the majority for their help on this and uh and and respecting our request to include this in the report uh with that i yield back mr. chairman

thank the gentleman for his remarks i regret that mister walmart was not here to defend his pigs but this gentleman makes a good point uh

Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Bishop. Uh, thank you for this really robust conversation around this, uh, mark-up. I rise in opposition to the bill which cuts funding for critical nutrition programs like WIC and SNAP at a time when families across the country are are already stretched thin by high food prices and economic uncertainty. Challenge is only worsened by H R one. SNAP and WIC are not abstract line items in a budget. They are lifelines. Working families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities rely on programs like SNAP to put food on the table each month. I've met with many of my constituents who are in great need and now in greater need as a result of these cuts. And we've already seen the damage. After the Big Ugly Bill cut one hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars from SNAP, the largest cut in the program's history, more than three million Americans lost their benefits. This bill doubles down on that harm. It cuts mandatory SNAP funding by six point two billion dollars, furthering the damage caused by the majority's Big Ugly Bill. It also cuts five billion dollars from SNAP's contingency reserve. the very funding that proved indispensable during the government shutdown. And then there's WIC. The majority is proposing a two hundred million dollar cut, jeopardizing access to vital nutrition program support that supports women, new mothers, young children, during the most critical stages of development. We should be strengthening these programs, not chipping away at them. These cuts might look like savings on paper, but in reality reality they are just shifting costs elsewhere. onto families, communities, and our health care system. I'm also concerned with the majority's decision to cut funding for the emergency food assistance program by five million dollars, despite the president's budget maintaining level funding in recognition of its importance. Why would we cut here? Tfap provides critical nutrition support for low-income individuals and families through the state and local networks, that are often the last line of defense against hunger in many communities. At a time when food banks are reporting increasing demand, this cut moves us in the wrong direction. Even a five million dollar reduction has real consequences. The President's budget rightly recognized that current funding levels are necessary just to keep pace with demand. This bill fails to meet that baseline, and instead imposes a cut that will be felt by real people and real families. With that said, I want to point out something I was pleased to see included in the report language related to PFOS In my district and across this country, our communities are dealing with the toxic legacy of PFAS. These forever chemicals persist in our water, soil, and in our bodies and bloodstream. I commend FDA's efforts to measure PFAS in the American food supply and help states understand whether food grown in contaminate are contaminated areas are safe to eat. I also am pleased to see that the bill acknowledges the challenges facing farmers with PFAS contaminated soils and providing funding for research on PFAS solutions in our food systems. This work is more important than ever, given this administration's deregulatory agenda and general affinity for corporations. Still, on balance, while I do see some good things here like the PFAS provisions, I do hope that others will join me in opposing this bill that will hurt American families. Thank you and I yield back.

Thanks, gentlelady, for remarks. Uh, gentleman from Indiana, Mister Rivann is recognized to address the bill.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, ranking member. As we come together to consider the appropriations for the Department of Agro-cultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related a- agencies, I believe it is important to frame this conversation in the context of the challenges farmers and the community they support and serve are facing today. Last summer the Republican majority passed legislation that imposed historically devastating cuts to the domestic social programs namely, the supplemental nutritional assistance program in order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. New eligibility requirements for entitlement programs have left working people with limited options while making the cost of living less affordable. This week the house will also consider the twenty twenty six farm bill. The farm bill has history. historically been a bipartisan effort that combines the investments in farming, conservation, nutrition, and trade programs that sustain domestic producers and feed families. Regrettably, the legislation we will consider on the floor departs from the tradition that ensures people who need it most do not go hungry. For fifteen years as a local elected official, I saw firsthand how the missed, how a missed bill or an inability to buy groceries could impact a household. i work closely with our local food bank to connect people experience food insecurity with benefits such as snap these dollars allow the state and local government community organizations and local communities to come together to encourage pathways to economic opportunities and self-sufficiency the hunger safety net is being held together by an emergency and charitable food organization like the northwest indiana food bank These organizations, which rely on the TFAP commodities and donated food, are being asked to bear more and more of the burden in addressing food insecurity. SNAP not only provides nine meals for every meal an emergency food organization is able to provide, but in an economic multiplier. Local economies rely on SNAP as a driver of the retail sales and job growth. To make matters worse, TFAP, the administrative fund's essential funding for safety to the store and distribute the food are being decreased in this bill. This program has yet to be fully funded at the authorized level of a hundred million. This is unsustainable. Food banks cannot withstand the growing number of food insecurity insecure households without a strong safety net. We must do more to support the domestic agricultural and this farm bill falls short. This is why, as we consider appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year, and the farm bill in this coming days i urge my colleagues to put the pressing needs of our agricultural industry first and vote now with that i yield back

thank gentleman for his remarks uh seeing no other members wishing to address the bill uh then i would like to recognize chairman harris to offer a manager's amendment

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have amendment number one on the desk and ask unanimous consent to consider it. Right?

Without objection, reading of the amendment w- uh is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.

This is the bipartisan manager's amendment, which includes bill and report language additions from members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate ranking member Bishop working with us on this amendment. Uh, it inclui- it goes uh through various things like pet shelter programs, pet food donor liability relief, uh water access to colonias and two other report language amendments on colonias uh so again i would ask uh for the support of the committee yield back

thank you gentlemen for your remarks the gentleman uh from georgia mister bishop is recognized for addressing that

thank you mister chairman uh rise in support of the amendment it contains non-controversial technical changes agreed to by both sides uh we worked uh collaboratively uh with the chairman mister harris uh to try to include uh the uh meaningful uh discussions that i i think that led to good faith efforts to accommodate the request from the various members on both sides of the aisle. i think it improved the bill and uh thank chairman harris and the staff for their hard work in that and i supported the option of the amendment in yieldback.

thank you gentlemen for his remarks gentlemen from north carolina mister edwards is recognized to address the management

thank you mister chairman on behalf of farmers in western north carolina i rise today in strong support of chairman harris's manager's amendment particularly the provision that prohibits imposing any recipient cost share on the usda specialty crop block grant program for districts like mine in western north carolina this really matters specialty crop growers are the backbone of our agricultural economy from apples and tomatoes nurseries, Christmas trees, and other value-added producers who keep our rural communities working. There are, these are high-value crops, but they also are high-cost and they're high-risk. Growers are already navigating labor shortages, volatile markets, and rising input costs. The last thing that they need is a new financial barrier standing between them and the tools that the specialty crop program provides. A cost share requirement would hit small and mid-sized farms the hardest. In my district, many of these operations are family-run, multi-generational, and they operate on tight margins. They don't have grant writing teams or spare capital to meet a match requirement. What they do have is ingenuity. grit and a deep commitment to feeding our communities and strengthening rural economies. This amendment ensures they can continue accessing the resources Congress intended without being priced out. Chairman Harris's provision keeps the programs accessible, keeps it fair, and keeps it focused on supporting the growers who need it the most. For Western North Carolina's agriculture community and for specialty crop producers across the country, this is the right approach. Thank you, and I urge adoption of this amendment.

Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from Florida, Miss Wasserman-Schultz, is recognized to address the manager's amendment.

Thank you. Thank you.

The chair- thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of the manager's amendment, which includes key bipartisan wins. I wanna specifically thank Chairman Cole and Chairman Harris, Ranking Member DeLoreal and Ranking Member Bishop, for including one and a half million dollars in funding for the emergency and transitional pet shelter and housing assistance grant program or the pause program and i also wanna thank representative underwood for her partnership on this incredibly important issue uh i'll point out that in the uh subcommittee mark up the uh secretary of agriculture when i asked her why the administration had proposed to defund the pause program tried to tell me that the program wasn't in the department of agriculture and of course it is in the department of agriculture so here we are making sure that we can ensure this vital funding helps women who are domestic violence victims not be forced to stay with their abusers for fear of them abusing their pets or having to leave their pets behind this this bill is commonly referred to as the pause act it is a lifeline to the countless domestic violence survivors and their pets There's no reason why someone should be trapped in an abusive home because they're afraid of what will happen to their dog or cat. If they left. We should not force people to pick between leaving an abusive situation or staying, because they are scared the shelter won't let them bring their pet. And this is the reality for many victims of domestic violence and too often these fears are justified. The studies are bleak. Up to fifty percent of women in shelters say their abuser also harmed their pet. And nearly fifty percent of of survivors said they delayed leaving their abuser cause they couldn't bring their pets with them. No one should ever have to face that situation. Thankfully, we chose a better path and demonstrated to the American people that politics does not need to get in the way of a proven program that works and saves lives. I always enjoy working with Chairman Harris. We have numerous issues, despite uh duking it out here occasionally. We have numerous issues on which we agree and we've been able to partner, and I appreciate his support. The million and a half dollars for the PAUSE Act included in this manager's amendment will help empower victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers, and seek safety. And I will continue to push for full funding as we work through the appropriations process, in support of the Manager's Amendment and yield back.

Thank you, gentlelady, for comments, gentleman from California, Mister Valadez, recognized for comments on the Manager's Amendment.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to note a provision included in today's Manager's Amendment, which would ensure that a no cost sharing or matching requirements are imposed under the specialty crop block grant. program for fiscal year twenty twenty seven specially crop block grants are an important tool for farmers and producers across the nation these resources support a wide range of commodities from tree fruits uh nuts uh and legumes and other specialty crops to help feed families nationwide in california central valley growers have used these grants to develop innovative irrigation techniques improve soil management and research new disease and pest control methods These investments help farmers become more efficient, conserve resources and stay competitive.

Oh.

Specialty crop block grants are also used to promote commodities both locally and across the country developing new market channels which increase consumer demand and encourage the consumption of fresh American grown fruits and vegetables. Specialty crop producers continue to face real challenges including rising input costs and ongoing labor shortages. As I know from speaking with many of my colleagues who represent specialty crops, uh, that we must continue to do everything we can to support these farmers. And I want to thank Chairman Harris, the subcommittee, staff for working closely with me to include this language in the manager's amendment and I yield back.

Thank you gentlemen for your comments. Gentlemen from Texas, Mister Cuellar is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, you're so kind and I wanna thank you and the ranking member, Delora, and I wanna thank uh my good friend uh, Doctor Harris. and the ranking member, mister bishop, and the staff for adding two provisions that i think are are important. We want to make sure we have two. Uh, first of all, uh, the one, uh, dealing with performance-based budgeting, uh, the one, uh, looking at, uh, reviewing, uh, regulations that are outdated. Uh, the one that's looking for efficiency without cutting surfaces. This is the second committee that's added this provision, and i think it's important that we add it in every, uh, committee from now on because it it it does add agencies, what's your capacity to review outdated regulations? What's your capacity to look at performance-based budgeting? If we spend one dollar, are we getting one dollar for that uh for that one dollar that we invest in? And I think it's important to look at that. And uh finally, you know, everybody talks about efficiency, everybody talks about accountability, everybody talks about effectiveness of the federal agencies, and especially we have a, what is it, a one point seven trillion dollar discretionary funding and i think this will get us uh to that part where we can truly find out which are the efficiencies the effectiveness uh in the accountability measures that we need to have in place so thank you for the do that uh chairman and ranking member the second one has to do with colonias colonias are really third world conditions uh they don't have the water they don't have the sewage they don't have the electricity and i know there is resources that we have added the problem is they can't access it because you don't have they don't have the resources to hire their lobbyists or their grant writers so how can you have resources out there but then the very areas that need to access that they don't have the capacity to do that so extending the technical assistance from usda to get that monies in those low property areas are very important so again thank you for providing that bridge uh uh chairman and ranking member and again for those uh two amendments that you added and i rise in support thank you and i uh uh yield back the balance of my time

thank you gentlemen very much for comments gentleman from wisconsin mister buchan is recognized to address the manager's amendment

thank you mister chairman i rise in support of the manager's amendment and would like to thank the subcommittee chair and the ranking member and the staff on the subcommittee uh for including language in this package on a very nonpartisan but important issue uh ridgeland farms is a dog breeding and research facility located in my district in wisconsin it currently houses about two thousand beagles and many of the dogs bred at ridgeland farms are used to uh for biomedical research pharmaceutical testing and toxicology studies last year the wisconsin department of agriculture trade and consumer protection cited ridgeland for three hundred and eight counts of mistreating dogs these violations included significant deficiencies in veterinary care sanitation housing conditions and overall treatment of the animals. There were documented instances of stagnant waste and poor ventilation, so severe that it made inspectors physically ill. Multiple cages with rusted or broken wires caused cysts and infections. And dogs were often subjected to removal of their vocal cords, and in certain instances, allegedly without anesthesia or pain management. Following the investigation, the facility agreed to a settlement to surrender its state commercial dog breeding license by July first of this year. Even though this facility was cited for hundreds of violations, demonstrating systematic and ongoing animal mistreatment, this facility was allowed to maintain its USDA class A breeder license. Months after the facility was cited with hundreds of violations, and agreed to surrender its state dog breeding license, the USDA conducted an inspection of the facility and determined it was still qualified as a class a usda licensing facility so this license allows the breeder to supply animals for tax payer funded research purposes including nih labs and you may remember we had that conversation with secretary kennedy uh he said he wants to stop this practice in fact he thought it wasn't going on and i appreciated the comments he had that day uh but this amendment includes language that directs the usda to review the federal licenses of breeders that have lost equivalent state level breeding license and take action if it's clear that they are no longer eligible for their federal license either. Honestly, this should be an automatic thing. If a breeder is turning in their state license due to code violations, the USDA should at least take a look and see if they should be allowed uh to continue to have this privilege. And this situation is so nonpartisan that even Laura Trump and Laura Loomer have spoken out against what's happening at Ridgeland Farms. interesting bedfellows um so i'm glad that we could do a little good here today i know my constituents are grateful and uh again i appreciate the inclusion of this and i urge adoption of the manager's amendment and a yield back

thank you gentlemen first comments do any other members wish to address the manager's amendment general lady from washington miss press

chair um i rise to speak uh today on two priorities in the manager's amendment the first is a parotry um wreaking havoc on and in farming equipment the Calary or the Bradford pear. Um these pears were introduced to the US in the nineteen sixties as a popular landscaping tree um and since then it has cross-pollinated it was initially thought to be sort of infertile. It's cross-pollinated and has taken over large swaths of what was formerly ag or um uh native land hindering forest management and agriculture. Um some states like Virginia and Ohio, Massachusetts, South Carolina have already banned these trees from being sold or created phase out plans. that introduce native plants in their stead.

Cool.

Unfortunately, my state, Washington State, um, has a massive stand of these on their capital grounds. And I'm glad to see the um amendment urging APHIS to take the necessary steps to designate calorie pair as a federal noxious weed. Um, I hope this is the first of many in eradicating this invasive shrub and reinvigorating native habitats. The other issue that I was thrilled to see in the manager's amendment, um, was, re- relates to the food our kids eat in schools. or or they don't eat um i think we all remember being presented with a really gross um red delicious apple in school cafeterias um maybe you like them if you do you're wrong um but red delicious as we know in washington state are an inferior apple and you know then people argue that the kids just aren't eating fruit cause they don't like it and it's like well yeah if you gave them an old boot leather to eat they wouldn't eat that either uh apple is grown it's really it's not about um you know it it's important that we offer quality fruit um that is can compete with

it's real fruit

cheetos or whatever kids are eating these days and thank you debbie um and uh i think

you're welcome

by expanding the list of permissible um varieties uh that are available for school programs to purchase we can make apples competitive again um we can ensure that the varieties that grow well where we live like cosmic crisp are um eligible for inclusion in this in in this list um and with that i will yield back thank you so much mister chair

thank general leahy uh for her remarks are there any other members

thanks

that was a serious one wishing to comment

i'm like i've

i have to say i've been here a lot of years i don't think i've ever seen so many effusive comments on a manager's amendment um what an explosion of support i mean i can't imagine anybody would even have any problem with the bill but i guess we'll deal with that later um i wanna recognize uh doctor harris for one minute to close

uh thank you i appreciate all all the comments and uh i ask for the support

i thought you'd at least take a victory lap i mean that's pretty pretty modest uh with that uh the question is on the amendment all those in favor say aye

aye

all those opposed say no amendment is adopted gentleman from georgia mister bishop is recognized for the purpose of

Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to the desk and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman has recognized remarks on his amendment.

Uh, this amendment restores funding for critical rural water and waste infrastructure and energy assistance programs to the levels that were provided in the fiscal year twenty twenty-six bill. Uh, these programs are essential for communities that still lack reliable access to clean drinking water, to wastewater treatment and affordable energy. Uh, rural water and waste grants help small and disadvantaged communities build and maintain basic infrastructure that most Americans take for granted. In many areas, aging or inadequate systems pose serious public health risk and limit economic development. Uh, the base bill uh cuts this program by forty- four percent. Uh the amendment further supports the high energy cost grants, which help rural households, particularly in remote areas, to manage disproportionately high utility costs. Uh the Republican bill eliminates funding for this program entirely. Uh without this assistance, many families are forced to choose between paying for energy and meeting other basic needs. At a time when costs remain elevated, reducing these investments will only deepen the hardship in already vulnerable communities. The amendment treats the additional funds as emergency funding so that we don't exceed the already insufficient allocations that the subcommittee received. If the committee decides we don't find this accessible, then I would urge the majority to increase the agriculture three O two B level. Uh surely we can divert some of the one point five trillion dollars on the defense side of the ledger to ensure that rural America has safe and clean water. Uh we must put America first and certainly rural America first. There's no reason that a simple procedural hurdle hurdle uh should stop us from maintaining these important investments in our rural communities. It's practical, it's a practical investment in public health, an economic opportunity and a basic quality of life for rural America. So I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.

Thank you gentlemen for your comments. Uh, the gentleman uh from Maryland, Doctor Harris is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Uh, we all understand and appreciate the need to support USDA's water and waste disposal. Uh, certainly we make use of those programs in my uh rural uh as well as the need for energy programs for rural america however the bill already provides seventy eight million for waste and water disposal grants and loan increases for the electric programs and without an offset for these funding increases the ag bill will be over allocation and uh you know the use of emergency funding is a reason i think uh is just insufficient so for these reasons i must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment

i thank the gentlemen uh there are others wishing to address the amendment Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that many of the necessities that we take for granted, like clean water, are out of reach for so many communities across rural America. In the grand scheme of things, this is not an astronomical amount of money. For that, we will look to the defense bill.

Right.

We should not let

thank you gentlemen the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia all those in favor say aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

Any chair knows, have it. Roll call has been uh been um requested.

Pass the roll call.

Sufficient number of hands have been raised. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Adderhall.

No.

Mister Adderhall, no. Mister Aguilar.

Aye.

Mister Aguilar, aye. Mister Alford. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amadei. Misses Bice. Mister Bishop.

Aye.

Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert.

No.

Mister Calvert, no. Mister Carter.

No.

mister carter no mister case

aye

mister case aye mister siskamani

aye

mister siskamani no mister klein

no

mister klein no mister cloud

no

mister cloud no mister kleiburn mister kleiburn aye mister kleid mister kohl

no

mister kohl no mister kvejar

aye

mister kvejar aye mister dean

no

mr. loro

aye

mr. loro aye mr. diaz-ballart mr. diaz-ballart no mr. edwards mr. elzey mr. elzey no miss escobar mr. espiat

aye

mr. espiat aye mr. fleishman mr. alvin miss frankl aye miss frankl aye mr. franklin mr. franklin no mr. guest

no

mister guest no mister harter aye

aye

mister harter aye doctor harris

no

no

no

doctor harris no mrs. hinson

no

mrs. hinson no mister hoyer

aye

mister hoyer aye mister ivy

aye

no mister ivy aye mister joyce

no

mister joyce no miss captor

no

aye

miss captor aye mister lolota

no

mister lolota no miss lee

aye

miss lee aye miss letlow mister levin

aye

mister levin aye miss molloi no miss molloi no miss mccullum aye miss mccullum aye miss ming we have a five minutes left miss ming aye mister molinar mister molinar no mister moore mister morelli

aye

mister morelli aye mister mervan

aye

mister mervan aye mister newhouse

no

mister newhouse no miss perez aye miss perez aye miss pingree

aye

miss pingree aye mr. pokan

aye

mr. pokan aye mr. quigley

aye

mr. quigley aye mr. reichenthaler mr. rogers mr. rogers

no

mr. rogers no mr. rutherford

no

mr. rutherford no mr. shreve

no

mr. shreve no mr. simpson

no no

mr. simpson no mr. strong mr. strong no mrs. torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mr. valadao miss washington schultz

aye

miss washington schultz aye mr. valadao votes no

their names now

mrs. watson coleman

aye

mrs. watson coleman aye mr. womack

no

mr. womack no mr. zinke

no

no

mr. zinke no

are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote gentlemen from nevada

so i put mr. corby as a no

mister amity votes no

general lady from oklahoma

Mr. no

mrs. bice no

gentleman from tennessee

mr. chairman no

mister fleishman no

no

general lady from texas

aye

miss escobar aye

gentleman from north carolina

no

mister edwards no

general lady from pennsylvania

aye

miss dean aye

are there others wishing to record or change their vote seeing none the clerks will tally

this one is wait it stopped dropping i'll get it i'm still not sure if it's gonna be the total of five so we'll take it on the it's like

on this vote the ayes are twenty eight the no's are thirty one the amendment is not adopted gentleman from georgia mister bishop is recognized for the purpose of an amendment

thank you mr. chairman i have an amendment to the desk and i ask in adamant consent that the reading be dispensed with

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized remarks on his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which would ensure that the Snap contingency fund has the resources needed so that states aren't left scrambling to issue benefits during a government shutdown. But let me be clear, this is not optional funding. As we saw last November, the administration was mandated by law to use the Snap contingency funds to issue during the government's shutdown. And yet, instead of doing so, the administration took this all the way to the Supreme Court, even after lower courts made clear they had the authority to act. When we included the language for the contingency fund, it was drafted with the intention to specifically address government shutdowns. And at the moment when families were counting on basic food assistance, that decision created needless uncertainty where there should have been stability. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.

Thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill is drafted fully replenishes the SNAP contingency. In normal times and in the absence of a shutdown, FNS has nine billion available in the contingency reserve. We should be getting bills done, not preparing for shutdowns. We could do this throughout all the appropriations bills. We could set up a TSA uh reserve account. We could set up all kinds of reserve accounts. That's not what this committee should do. We, this committee should not be in the business of abdicating our duties and putting programs on autopilot. Instead of thinking about the next shutdown, Congress should do its job and fund the government. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. General Leidy from Connecticut. Mr. Lohr is recognized to address this.

thank you mr. chairman i rise in support of the ranking members amendment um uh although let me be clear the the the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment

ok

um i believe this is an important issue and i thank the ranking member for providing us with the opportunity to discuss it there are more than forty two million americans including sixteen million children eight million seniors four million people with disabilities one point two million veterans and over three hundred sixty thousand people in connecticut nearly thirty one thousand in my hometown of new haven who rely on food stamp assistance uh that is to be able to put food on their table last year the administration went out of their way to block this assistance from being distributed they did it they did that for purely political purposes. They fought so hard to withhold food stamps from hungry families that they went all the way to the Supreme Court to deprive families and children of food.

Why?

They were told by not one but two separate federal judges that they were breaking the law by withholding this assistance. They appealed those rulings all the way up to the highest court in the land. President Trump's signature piece of legislation, the one big beautiful bill, cut funding for food stamps by one hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars. It got this funding explicitly to help offset the four and a half trillion dollar cost of tax cuts that benefit the very wealthy and the biggest corporations. Stripping away assistance for hungry families is not a by-product of this administration's agenda. It is their agenda. Congress explicitly sets aside funding to cover the cost of these benefits in the events of an emergency like, for example, a government shutdown. Yet during this exact circumstance, the Trump administration refused. They refused to distribute the aid in the contingency fund because they believed it would help them politically. The funding we passed for the contingency fund is bipartisan. It is passed by Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate. Interestingly enough, the uh uh chair spoke about nine billion. Last year it was six billion. The number changes. There is the need for nine billion dollars. If the Trump administration can pick and choose when it wants to abide, by the laws that Congress passes,

Mm-hmm.

even when it comes to something as serious

Mm-hmm.

as the ability of hungry families to feed their children, then we, this body, has abdicated our authority in the legislative branch. We will have given up the power of the purse. The contingency fund existed last year. The administration refused to use it. They even spread misinformation that it was the shutdown that was holding back the funds. Not true. The contingency dollars were there to be used. And they went all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to deprive children, families of food. I do not believe it is in anyone's interest, Democrat or Republican, to concede the power to the presidency. At a time when the Trump administration is requesting reportedly hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funding for his war of choice in Iran, it is shameful that they continue to defund domestic programs that support American families in need. I thank the ranking member for offering this amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I yield back.

Uh. Thank you, General Lady, for her remark. General Lady from New Jersey, Miss Washington Coleman is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I stand and speak in support of the uh representative bishop's amendment.

My name is Michael Morris.

Government shutdowns are happening more often and highlighting the need to protect our constituents in a time of party polarization is certainly uh front and center in our thoughts. SNAP is a major food and nutrition program that is at risk of not being able to cover benefits during a shutdown if it's not adequately funded to account for this political climate. During the longest government shutdown in history just last year forty two million Americans were at risk of losing access to SNAP benefits. eight hundred and twenty seven thousand two hundred new jerseys or nearly ten percent of new jerseys rely on snap more than sixty four percent of the percent of the snap recipients are families with children a higher rate of households rely on snap in rural america than in metropolitan areas mmm yet they face more barriers to access disruption to the reliability of these programs puts an extra burden on hardworking families

mmm

our constituents deserve stability not their benefits being held hostage with millions of dollars cut from snap by my republican colleagues ensuring that those who still have access to this critical program during a shutdown is crucial and so i urge my colleagues to support the ranking members amendment and thank you i will back i yield back

ok

thank you general lade for comments are there other members wishing to address the amendment

need to get it set myself

seeing none the gentleman is oh i'm sorry general lade from ohio miss captor is recognized to address

thank you mr. chairman a snap exists to protect the most vulnerable

always

and the basic assistance it provides often makes a difference between having enough food to eat or going hungry It's our responsibility to ensure that the program is going to be there when people need it. I'm perplexed as to why this administration fought so hard to block benefits last year. I hope that we can work together to ensure that the SNAP program will always be there for those who need it when they need it. A hundred people should not be the victims of political fights, and the department should execute the law uh in contingencies such as the government shutdown. um i hope we can get this done and i withdraw my amendment and you're back

mmm

um let me uh to uh my good friend from georgia i failed to recognize the gentlelady from ohio my mistake i apologize for that i wanna give her the opportunity to address the amendment and if you want to reconsider or still withdraw that would be your choice of course i will reconsider my withdrawal that's fine uh general lady from ohio has recognized

ok

i thank the chairman and ranking member very much i rise in support of the ranking member bishop's thoughtful and and prudent amendment uh fundamentally uh the bishop amendment instructs us to be prepared i just happened to find out that uh congressman bishop was an eagle scout i didn't know that and that reminds me of

this guy's awesome

the uh motto of be prepared Uh, all of us have to be concerned about preparedness, including in this program. We're coming off the longest US government-wide shutdown in our nation's history. The forty-three day shutdown occurred under the President's watch last October and November. And when a shutdown occurs, or an unexpected crisis arises, the last thing we need is for food insecure workers and families to become even more vulnerable or lose their lifeline, their access to food. they need to stay alive and live healthy and uh make it through whatever it is we're facing as a country and that's exactly what happens when shutdowns or political pressures disrupt regular snap funding and that is why this program operates with a contingency reserve and that reserve must be meaningful and replenished when it is drawn down setting aside any debate about the use of contingency funds during a shutdown the contingency fund is about ensuring snap participants and other support when disaster strikes and disaster snap is activated. This year alone we are witnessing a record setting number of federal disaster declarations. Twenty-two have been approved since January, exceeding the five year average. Nearly every congressional district has experienced at least one federally declared disaster in the last fifteen years. The district I represent has had five. At this moment, disaster snap programs are operated in Michigan, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Guam. And my state or your state could be next. And when that happens, God forbid, we must be prepared, so USDA must have the contingency funds to meet that moment. That's what this amendment is about, preparedness. So let's take a page from scouting. Let's be prepared. Please, vote for Mister Bishop's amendment to show us that we all not only really care, but that we are ready. And I would Yield to the gentleman.

Yield to the Mister Alright.

Certainly will recognize the gentleman from Maryland for the remarks he cares to make on the amendment.

Uh, I wanna just make a comment. Because we are in a very long shutdown. That shutdown is because we have a disagreement, a substantive disagreement on two agencies. And as a result, we've shut down all the other agencies that are within the Department of Homeland Security. an irra- an irrational uh thing to be doing a shutdown is irrational it costs a lot of money it's a stupid policy and the gentleman from Maryland uh is absolutely correct uh on the sense and i and frankly i i would vote for this amendment if it were gonna be um because we ought to have

mmm

provided for this separately in a vote that we've all all agreed upon because we wanna feed people uh but uh a number of people have provided resolutions where federal employees can get paid or this section of government will go on automatically and i just uh uh uh mr. harris wanted to join you in saying to the extent we make it easier to shutdown the government i think we undermine our responsibility i yield back

thank gentlemen very much for comments chair's gonna recognize himself quickly to address this amendment before i recognize the gentleman to close um i just wanna say a word in defense of the president on this it was not the president that shutdown the government it was the congress that shutdown the government

mmm

now we can debate that back and forth but the president did everything possible to extend funding for both wick and snap he pulled the rabbit out of a hat a couple of times for the american military so we can argue back and forth but let's recognize who shutdown the government it was not donald trump and frankly it was not over anything related to appropriations

mmm

it was over unrelated items medicare important issues medicare premium support what have you but not appropriations issues so it was a decision of congress or parts of congress to use the appropriations process to achieve an unrelated goal um i regret that i've seen both parties do it i don't think it's forever wise my party has certainly done it you were lectured pretty sternly your party has certainly done it and uh i think you you should be lecturing pretty sternly about that we're in a similar situation now but again regardless of that regardless how bad anybody feels about it the president did not shutdown the government

yeah

uh and he he worked hard to to try and frankly fund programs for some of our most vulnerable citizens and certainly keep our military paid with that i yield i certainly yield to my friend

uh i just wanted to i agree with the chairman and frankly it's a it's it's somewhat people who

Right.

uh are sustaining the adverse consequences of what we do as to who shut it down.

That's right.

And both sides have shut down. We take the position that we're gonna take the government hostage if we don't get what we want. Um and what I think Mister Doctor Harris was saying is that, look, we need to do our duty and get things done. And where we can't agree, we ought to take those out. and not have the consequence of adversely affecting everybody else in this case the department of homeland security uh we have a difference of opinion it is a legitimate honest difference of opinion on how ice and cbp ought to operate but that should not affect coast guard should not affect uh uh customs or secret service or other agencies that are not involved in that dispute and i think as i said it's it's stupid very costly uh um some of the surcharge we have cost have now cost us forty billion dollars that's not counting the present shutdown

thank you my chairman

i thank the gentleman for his uh remarks and if there are no other members wishing to address the amendment i recognize the gentleman from georgia to close

as uh prepare to withdraw my amendment i do wanna point out that it really should not matter why the government shuts down uh But the people who are the recipients of SNAP uh should not uh be collateral

Right.

damage in in the political disagreements that we have and for that reason, we really should do our jobs and we should make sure that uh this contingency fund uh is executed. Uh it uh it really didn't matter if the president or the congress shut it down, but the department had funds available in the contingency fund that congress put there for that particular purpose. if there was a contingency where the the the funds had run out. And all they had to do was execute their duty, uh, rather than going to the Supreme Court and dragging it out, and making the recipients be collateral damage. With that, uh, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment.

I wanna thank the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks, I think we're good. and honestly, all of you for the debate and discussion. I thought it was an important one to have. Uh. and just looking down the road before we resume here uh i have been thinking i'll talk to my friend the the ranking member and certainly a number of other you we might ought to look at this problem when we get our bills done there's a number of of uh uh pieces of legislation going around that deal with government shutdowns whatever my friend from maryland makes a very good point about we don't wanna make it so easy that we end up with an internal cr and i know that's

right

a concern but i've actually started talking just to advise you down the road we wouldn't do anything about this until we get our bills done got plenty of time uh but uh it might be something we should think about because this committee is the most impacted uh when something like this happens and uh i'm very proud of this committee it did its work as well as it could under very difficult circumstances last year and it did that because it cooperated in a bipartisan way and uh uh we certainly wanna continue that but if there's things we could do as a committee uh to help put us in a situation where we can deal with these things better that's something maybe we should explore and i would wanna proceed i don't have a partisan plan here in a bipartisan way what would institutionally be something for us to do again you know senator johnson has an idea senator langford has an idea there are probably some ideas over on this uh side of the rotunda as well but that might be something we should talk about and think about my be a useful exercise because uh sadly there's always the chance we could be here for the whole government again come september thirtieth and that's something i very much uh want to avoid i know uh all of you very much want to avoid as well

but you're you're you're wiser

so

chair

uh no i was pretty wise we wouldn't had a shutdown last year so i must not be that smart so uh but i do think we ought to think about it a little bit more because as uh uh you know my friend suggested uh from both georgia and ohio uh we find ourselves in these situations more than we should and more than we would want to as an institution and we need to see if there are some creative ways we can deal with this and if there's gonna be a pain involved it is on the congress maybe not the people of the united states uh there's everything from staying around till we get our work done to all sorts of things that have been proposed but they're worth exploring uh that i'm sorry i took a soft bait uh now recognize the gentleman from the other gentleman one of the other gentleman from maryland uh chairman harris to offer a republican unblock amendment

mr. chairman i have amendment number two the republican unblock at the desk and i ask an adamant consent to dispense with the reading

without uh any objection uh the amendment is dispensed uh the reading is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment

thank you very much uh this is a short republican unblock amendment amends the definition related to specialty crops that adds millet to the definition of a specialty crop extends the time line for a water project as well as including two new report language items relating to micro-algae farming with data centers and requesting the fda to develop a framework for electronic prescribing information for healthcare professionals. I ask for your support for the unblock amendment.

I thank the gentleman, gentleman from georgia is recognized to address the amendment.

i rise in opposition to the amendment uh i'm concerned that these items are rushing processes that encourage investment and abrupt changes without fully understanding the implications i'd like to see additional analysis before we move forward on both of these items unfortunately the majority added language uh at the last minute to help get votes on this morning's rule which obviously is suffering uh the farm bill and faisal language were put in on down block Uh, unfortunately, uh, that's not a good way for us to proceed and I oppose the amendment. Uh, and you're back.

I thank the uh gentlemen. Do any other members wish to address the amendment?

I'm sorry.

Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.

Thank you very much. And uh, you know, addressing the two late additions, uh, one is very simple, just adding millet to a specialty crop definition. The other one is actually a bill that everybody has voted for already in term with with regards to the uh uh arkansas water project so with that i would ask for support of the unblock amendment

thank you gentlemen the question is now on the amendment all those in favor say aye

uh aye aye

all those opposed say no

no no no aye

this is gentleman requesting look i'm gonna rule in favor of the no's if you guys can't say aye

uh uh i'm sorry eric eric uh aye

ok i scared them like a dog you did scare them maybe you woke them up uh and i thank you for that so i'm gonna rule in favor of the aye but gentleman wants a vote that's certainly in order

yes

if not the amendment is accepted gentleman uh from michigan mister molinar is recognized for an amendment

uh i have an amendment at the desk and i request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading

without objection the reading of the amendment is

Thank you. My amendment would strike section seven six two of this bill, which would prohibit funding from being used to enforce surplus broiler egg regulations currently in place. The FDA's egg safety rule requires producers to follow certain preventative measures to prevent the growth of Salmonella. This section would negatively impact egg producers and potentially allow unrefrigerated hatchery surplus eggs which are a salmonella risk to enter the food supply creating a potentially dangerous scenario for consumers the f. d. a. found that unrefrigerated eggs could carry salmonella even if they are pasteurized the agency's risk assessment carried out during the first trump administration projected over thirty five hundred additional salmonellosis cases per year if unrefrigerated eggs were allowed into the food supply. While I remain concerned about this section, I will ultimately be withdrawing my amendment in order to allow us more time to work together on a solution to ensure our producers are not hurt and eggs remain safe. And, uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Uh, thank the gentlemen. Um, the gentleman from, uh, Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to amendment

uh thank you very much uh mr. chairman i yeah i appreciate my colleague offering to withdraw the amendment the issue is over uh the whether or not uh we're gonna allow into the into uh the the use of food uh eggs that are uh left over from a breeder farm uh that are not sent to a hatchery for various reasons they're not sent to a hatchery uh the the uh data that uh with the fda relied on is an old data that actually used modeling data and not a real study They changed the rule, and subsequent to changing the rule, there was no difference in the number of uh p- of uh batches that were that uh, failed pasteurization. So actually the real world data, actual sampling data shows that there, that that rule was not effective at uh changing anything, uh that pasteurization in fact works.

Mm-hmm.

However, I note the concerns being raised, I'm happy to work with the gentleman uh on this issue as we move forward in the process.

Well, alright, so, so, so, so, so, so. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so,

Thank you, gentlemen, gentlemen from Arkansas is recognized to address the issue.

Yeah, thank you, Mister Chairman, and um and my thanks to Mister Molinar for his um offer to with you all. Uh, I rise in opposition uh to such an amendment that would strip a straightforward bipartisan provision allowing broiler chicken producers to sell surplus eggs to the breaker market where they're pasteurized and mixed into everyday grocery products like pasta, salad dressing, and the like. Now currently during uh due to an FDA rule finalized in two thousand and nine, commonly known as the shell egg rule, these surplus broiler eggs must be discarded due to the lack of immediate refrigeration. Now just think about that. Hundreds of millions of eggs discarded as a result of this rule. It completely disregards the difference between table eggs, which are raw products that need refrigeration and breaker eggs, which are pasteurized and safe for mixing. Because of this misguided rule, chicken farmers throw away nearly four hundred million perfectly good eggs each year. To add insult to injury, table eggs that test positive for salmonella are allowed to be sent to a breaker facility to be pasteurized and then mixed into these grocery products. Yet surplus broiler eggs that are salmonella negative are not allowed to be sold to breakers just because they weren't refrigerated. This double standard didn't make sense when it was implemented and it doesn't make sense now. This amendment would undermine Arkansas farmers and producers' hard work and continue to waste their chickens' by-products eliminating a potential revenue stream that is beneficial to all parties. Every good chicken farmer and producer loves to use the whole bird. Adopting today's amendment, if it persisted, uh, would contribute to this gross food waste, stunt economic growth, and uphold an unfair double standard that harms our chicken farmers who help feed America. So again, I appreciate Mister Molinares' a request to withdraw the amendment, but I wanted to weigh in on the subject because I think it's that important, uh, in case this subject were to resurface. And I yield back.

Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to discuss the amendment? That, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.

Sure.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and, uh, I would just note, uh, I my understanding is, and I look forward to working with the chairman on this going forward, um that if refrigeration did occur then it everyone would be treated by the same standards so um i look forward to working with you uh going forward and with that i withdraw my amendment

thank you gentlemen i'll just note while i'm waiting for what's next uh mister walmack you were not here to defend your hogs but you were here to defend your chickens and your eggs so i i just want the record to note that they'll explain it to you later

uh yeah uh yeah

ok uh i recognize my my good friend the ranking member of the full committee mister laurel for the purposes of an amendment

what came first the chicken or the egg anyway mr. chair i have an amendment at the desk and i ask it that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with

without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment

I rise to offer this amendment to prohibit the implementation of tariffs that would increase food costs on American consumers who are dealing with a cost of living crisis. Food costs have already risen nearly twenty-five percent in the last few years, stretching budgets for families across the country. President Trump's chaotic tariffs have made trips to the grocery store even more expensive. Everything from coffee to fruit to the to the packaging of our food rose in cost, thanks to universal tariffs that he applied to our our closest trading partners. According to the um Tax Foundation, President Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike since nineteen ninety-three. They cost each American family nearly seventeen hundred dollars in additional costs last year, That's according to the Yale Budget Lab. Early on administration, early on the administration scrambled to try to fix its mistakes, including USDA increasing egg imports in hopes to bring costs down. And on November fourteenth of last year, President Trump issued tariff exemptions for various U. S. food products, including beef, fruits, spices and coffee. But over half of all U. S. food imports were still subject to even after this reversal. This included bread and other baked goods, that's ten point three billion dollars in imports, fresh fish fillets, seven and a half billion dollars in imports, and crustaceans, like crabs and shrimp, seven billion dollars in imports. And shoppers felt it at the checkout counter, grocery prices increased by over three percent from Very good. Mm-hmm. February twenty twenty five to February twenty twenty six, Very good, yeah. higher than the overall pace of inflation, beef and coffee, two goods that were highly affected by tariffs, saw huge increases since last year, going up fourteen percent and eighteen percent respectively. But not only did American families lose under this tariff policy, so did small and medium-sized grocers who struggled to absorb these costs. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs were illegal and big corporations are lining up to demand refunds. The Trump administration is being forced to return nearly one hundred and sixty-six billion dollars in tariffs collected from American companies, who passed many of those costs onto the American people. All of that chaos and disruption only to end up sending money back to big companies while the American people are worse off. We cannot let anything like this happen. I know the the president has never had to manage a food budget,

Yes.

or worry about making ends meet. But for Americans living paycheck to paycheck, the uncertainty his tariffs bring has caused panic and fear for parents just trying to put food on the table. Proud to propose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, General Levy, for your remarks. Gentlemen from uh Maryland, Doctor Harris is recognized to respond to the amendment.

Uh, thank you very much. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Attempting to blame the Trump administration for trade deficits and food costs is just unrealistic. Look at the facts. The Trump administration left office in twenty twenty with a record six decades of a trade surplus. The Biden administration left us with a record agricultural trade deficit of nearly fifty billion. Already our constituent is seeing the benefit of the administration's trade policies. Egg price is down forty four point seven percent from March twenty twenty five.

Hmm.

And just last month, eight of fifteen food at home categories saw price declines. Uh, the bottom line is that for - for American farmers, short-term uh, tariffs may - may harm, but long-term they're beneficial. Uh, these trade deals, America has to regain its uh, its uh, positive trade balance and it's - and it's beginning to do so as a result of - of uh, tariff agreements uh, that have been made and trade agreements. This amendment handcuffs the administration on his signature America First trade policy, a move we cannot support. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Thank you, gentlemen, for his remark. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.

Uh, Mister Chairman, uh, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment is about protecting American families and farmers from policies that drive up food costs. It ensures that no funds in this bill can be used to implement tariffs that make groceries more expensive. Families across the country are already facing elevated food costs, and they cannot afford additional price increases driven by policy decisions. USDA data shows that food prices rose significantly in recent years placing sustained pressure on household budgets. Tariffs that increase the cost of imported food are agricultural inputs, are often passed directly on to consumers. They can also raise costs to producers who rely on imported equipment, on fertilizer and other inputs. The Trump administration's tariff policies have already created volatility in agricultural markets and contributed to higher costs across the supply chain. When retaliation follows, American farmers lose access to key export markets, compounding the damage.

Mm-hmm.

High input costs, reduced market access, puts additional strain on producers who are already operating on tight, tight margins. This amendment draws a clear line. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to implement policies that raise food prices for American families. It's a straightforward, common sense protection at a time when both consumers and producers are feeling the economic pressure. We should be focused on lowering costs and strengthening markets, not taking actions that move in the opposite directions. I support the amendment, I commend the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I yield back.

Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from Florida, Miss Washington-Schultz, recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, thank you, Mister Chairman. I rise in strong support of the ranking members' amendment. On Monday night, I held a town hall with my constituents to talk about affordability the affordability crisis that's gripping our communities. The number one question that I received was what is Congress going to do to lower my grocery bill? This is not new and it is getting worse. Families across Florida are squeezed at the grocery store every single day. They watch more of their hard-earned paychecks get eaten up by climbing costs, and much of it traces directly back to President Trump's senseless tariff policy. tariffs are taxes that's exactly what they are they get passed down to the consumer and they increase costs for everything in fact the data shows that trump's tariffs are far and away the number one driver of grocery inflation look at the numbers since trump took office just over a year ago prices for everyday household items are surging orange juice is up twenty five percent kind of important in florida ground beef is up seventeen and a half percent coffee prices are up nearly thirty percent these are not luxury these are not luxury these are not luxury these are not luxury these are not luxury these are up thirty percent these are not luxury these are up thirty percent these are not luxurious these are up thirty percent these are not luxury these're up thirty percent these are not luxury these are up thirty percent this is not luxury this is up thirty percent this is up thirty percent this is up thirty percent this is up thirty point this is up thirty percent this is up thirty percent this is not luxury this is up thirty percent these are not luxury this is up thirty percent these are not luxury

i don't think so you're tariffable

families must pay a penalty imposed by this administration on the food that they buy for their children there's a reason that most state sales taxes exempt essential goods like groceries because we decided as a country that you shouldn't be taxed on the basics unless you're Donald Trump and families are feeling the difference right now in stores across this country people stand in the grocery aisle doing math in their heads then too often they're putting items back on the shelf they skip fresh vegetables and proteins and reach for whatever is cheapest usually the less healthy processed foods all just to make ends meet that is the reality that's what tariffs do to the people that we represent every single day This amendment says enough is enough. It draws a line and declares that we will not allow tariff policy to take food off our tables and healthy food out of the mouths of our kids. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense amendment, on an amendment that would make life more affordable for our constituents, and I yield back.

Thank you, General Leidy. Are there other members, witnesses, gentlemen from uh Maryland to recognize or address the amendment?

Uh, thank you very much, I rise in support of the amendment, but also rise to respond to the observations of the gentleman from Maryland the subcommittee

i think

chairman uh and he said

we were eating my will

that this would handcuff the president supreme court of the united states handcuffed the president said he was doing things that he did not have the constitutional ability to do and he didn't care and so uh we stood by while again one more time uh we failed uh to protect uh our constitutional responsibility and authority. This was on tariffs. Which the constitution clearly says we're responsible for. Now we gave some emergency authority uh clearly there was no emergency in the sense that the congress contemplated uh and then what happened uh it happened i think in the first administration as well as this administration the president then took money uh to pay it to farmers who had been hurt by his policies so that here we are uh allowing our authority to be undermined, to have a collective judgment as to whether or not these tariffs were appropriate or i- tariff A, tariff B, tariff C, you name your tariff, was appropriate, and if so, what the consequences of doing that would be. And as I said, and reiterate, what we did, we tried to offset the adverse consequences

thank you gentlemen for your remarks gentle lady from new jersey

thank you Mr. Chairman i rise to support the amendment um i'm very much uh touched by things that

thank you

my colleagues have said in terms of these tariffs on the impact of our families to feed our families no matter what you call it and no matter who you gonna hold responsible for it because the president is responsible for it but so were we for not doing our job and accountable in ensuring that we are the checks and balances that the constitution provides for. And if you listen carefully to the King of England, he reminded us that there are no kings in anywhere that don't have to respond to some checks and balance. At the end of the day, we should be very concerned about whether or not our families can afford to feed their families, and whether or not they can afford to buy nutritional items for their families. If food and other costs are rising directly because the tariffs are taxes, and those taxes are passed down to the consumer, then we must confront the reality of the situation and not say that it's something that it is not with a straight face knowing well that we're not portraying the honesty of the situation so with that I do support this amendment I do support Congress doing its job, I do

thank you gentlelady for remarks gentlelady from ohio miss captur is recognized to address the amendment

i don't wanna hear it

uh it's a cold rain here tomorrow right today

mike mike

tonight oh thank god yeah thank god i'm sorry

i have that off i don't know

it's in the wrong place Anyway, uh, ranking member uh, uh, chair Cole, ranking member DeLauro, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. The trade battle and the trade deficit battle is why I ran for office. This country hasn't had a balanced trade account since nineteen seventy. It's one of the reasons for the upheaval in this economy. And tariffs don't make it any better, it makes it worse. It also is bad because we don't deal with yet. And we don't deal with the uh, differential in how other countries with their value-added tax compared to us. It's a long-storied history and one in which we're not winning. Um, so I rise in support of this because tariffs are regrettable, especially at this moment. They're terribly harmful. And rising costs reflect that. I was shocked. I went into the supermarket when I went back home the other day, and a piece of beef this big, I saw it, it was on an end counter, that minute it was on sale. forty eight dollars this much beef and i thought that's the bargain how can american families even support their own family much less their their additional relatives anyway uh the tariffs are rising are causing food to rise all over this country and they put people against the wall credit card debt is skyrocketing across this country everyday i even hear from farmers uh whose costs are driven right fertilizer all the inputs that they have much more expensive this year they're not gonna break even friends they're not gonna break even the latest available data indicates that tariffs on agricultural inputs are gonna cost american producers eight billion dollars more than last year and the um premiums on their health insurance are becoming so expensive our farmers can't afford their health insurance this is gonna be a hard year so these tariffs unwarded tax on american producers and america's families squeezing their already thin margins so where do you stand on the cost of living crisis we stand with the people and we have to roll back these tariffs they're working backwards they're not helping us they're hurting the american people so i urge my colleagues to vote for the delauro amendment but way beyond the delauro amendment this country has to ask itself why we have not had balanced trade accounts since nineteen seventy and why that has

Thank you, General Lady. Uh, are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the General Lady is recognized for one minute too close.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I wanna say a thank you to my colleagues uh for really sharpening the debate on this on this issue. You know, I have to agree with one thing that the chair of the subcommittee said and that we have seen the results of the president's uh trade policy. Yes, we have seen it. It is a disaster, total disaster. Tax foundation, president Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hikes since nineteen ninety-three. Seventeen hundred dollars uh for an additional cost last year for families. Um, I I'd rather remind everyone and and and and Congresswoman Wasserman she also talked about her her uh uh town hall meeting. Uh, it may be the issue of affordability and cost of living, doesn't penetrate with uh President Trump. He's never had to deal with that issue. But the single biggest issue that comes up in any gathering of constituencies, um, uh, what are the costs that they're dealing with? The ho- affordability, cost of living is not a hoax. It is a reality. And the Congress needs to understand that that is the reality. And the two items at the top of that list are groceries. And now, because of a war of choice, we are looking at gas prices. So we better focus We are focusing on the on this side of the aisle. I I I suggest to all of you that you need to do that, uh, as well. They're dem- people are demanding help with the cost of living. We hear it over and over again. The last thing that the administration should do is engaging in reckless inflationary trade wars putting universal tariffs on everything from eggs to produce especially after being so thoroughly rebuked by the Supreme Court. the american people need help with the cost of living and this amendment gives it to them urge my colleagues uh to vote for the amendment i yield back

thank you general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from connecticut all those in favor say aye

aye

aye aye

all those opposed say no

no

depending on the chair of the no's have it role call has been requested sufficient vote has uh support has been demonstrated clerk will call the roll

mister adderholt mister adderholt no mister aguilar no what aye mister aguilar aye mister alford mister alford no mister amadei no mister amadei no mrs. weiss mrs. weiss no mister bishop no

aye

mister bishop aye mister calvert no mister calvert no mister carter no mister carter no mister case no mister case aye mister siskamani no mister siskamani no mister klein no mister klein no mister cloud yeah mr. cliburn

i don't think we need green so

mr. clyde mr. clyde no mr. cole

no

mr. cole no mr. cuellar miss dean

aye

miss dean aye mr. loro

aye

mr. loro aye mr. diaz-villart

what's a cattle herd voting about

mr. edwards

no you know working

mr. elzey mr. elzey no miss escobar

they apparently don't

mr. espeat mr. fleishman

no

mr. fleishman no miss frankl

why

miss frankl aye mr. franklin miss mr. franklin no mr. guest no mr. guest no mr. harder ok doctor harris

no

doctor harris no mrs. hinson mrs. hinson no mr. hoyer

aye

mr. hoyer aye mr. ivy

aye hi

mr. ivy aye aye mr. joyce miss captor double i miss captor aye mr. lolota oh

mmm no

yeah mister lolota no miss lee really lolot very nice miss letlow mister levin mister levin aye miss milloy uh-huh uh-huh yes miss mccullum aye miss mccullum aye miss ming yes miss ming aye mr. molinar

no

mister molinar no mister moore

no

mister moore no mister morelli

aye mmm

mister morelli aye mister mervan

yeah aye

mister mervan aye mister newhouse

no

mister newhouse no miss perez miss pingree

aye

miss pingree aye mister pokan mister pokan aye mister quigley mister quigley aye mister raschenthaler mister rogers

no

mister rogers no mister rutherford

no

mister rutherford no mister shreve

no

mister shreve no mister simpson

no

mister simpson no mister strong

no

mister strong no mrs. torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mr. valadeo

no

mr. valadeo no miss wasser-mitchelts

aye

miss wasser-mitchelts aye mrs. watson-colman

yes

oh sorry

mrs. watson coleman aye mr. wellmark mr. wellmark no mr. zinke mr. zinke no

are there any members wishing to record or change their vote gentlemen from south carolina

mr. kleiburn aye

gentlemen from california

aye

mr. harter aye

gentlemen from new york

aye

mr. espeyot aye

gentlemen from texas

so we are voting now

aye

mr. cuillier aye

gentlemen from north carolina

mister edwards no

gentleman from ohio

no

mister joyce no

gentleman from florida

no

mister diaz-ballart no

gentleman oh gentlelady from uh utah

miss molyneux no

mr. peter oh yes mmm oh yes we have robert

ok oh gentleman from texas

mister cladsmen mister cladboats no

yes mr. peter

are there

mr. alright we do roberts

ok are there others wishing to record or chat those who have changed their vote seeing none the clerks will tally

stand for anything that's good i guess this one

thank you very much on this vote the ayes are twenty six the no's are thirty three the amendment is not adopted uh gentleman or gentlelady excuse me from connecticut the ranking members recognized for the purpose of amendment.

Thank you very much, uh, Mister Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask any of us consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.

Thank you. Uh, this amendment adds report language that would help strengthen our nation's infant formula supply chain, and insure policymakers have the information In twenty twenty two, the US experienced a severe shortage of infant formula following Abbott Nutrition's Sturgis, Michigan plant closing due to safety concerns and a recall due to a chronobacter contamination. Um, at the time, the Abbott Sturgis plant was producing roughly forty percent of the formula uh infant formula in the country. The outbreak exemplified how desperately reform was needed and how concentrated the infant formula market is in the United States. And thankfully Congress acted in the wake of this outbreak, but it is clear that so much more needs to be done. The recent outbreak of by heart infant infant formula due to botulism contamination has again highlighted the need for additional reform. This outbreak sickened at least fifty-one infants with infant botulism across nineteen states. A one-year-old Portland baby is still battling infant botulism after drinking contaminated by heart baby formula last November. This is the article uh that appeared. Portland baby still battling infant botulism months after contaminated formula uh outbreak. He has been hospitalized twice. He's scheduled for surgery in early May to get a permanent feeding tube, uh, uh, placed. Babies should not be getting this sick from infant formula in the United States. About seventy-five percent of U. S. infants consume formula by six months of age. We must do more to protect the safety of infant formula in our country. This report language, it's report language that would require comprehensive testing by infant formula manufacturers for pathogens and microorganisms in both the facilities and in the finished product,

Mm-hmm.

including setting a minimum testing requirement, a mandatory reporting process, and notification to Congress. It also requires record retention by manufacturers of all positive test results. and additional congressional notification of any inspections of infant formula manufacturing facilities that are classified as indicating the need for official action. Interestingly enough, uh, when the, uh, uh,

Mm-hmm.

uh, the, uh, uh, contamination was made public, um, the, the company refused to do a voluntary recall. It really had to be pressured into doing, uh, a - a rec- recall and continued selling a product that was, uh, was c- contaminating babies. Uh, they finally did, uh, a deal with a - with a recall. The bill also, um, uh, uh, uh, well, the measures are common sense. They strengthen the testing regime with clear deadlines and reporting requirements. It gives our health agencies and the Congress the information we need to act in an emergency. I think we can't let the health of our nation's newborn children be taken for granted. Uh, infant formula is essential so that it must be safe. Imagine you buy a product with your, you know, you with your treasure, your newborn, and you buy the formula and - and you're thinking you're doing the best for your - for your baby, and what you're doing are putting them into harm's way. It should not be the case. We can and we should do something uh about this. I yield back.

Thank you, General Lady. The gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the General Lady from uh Connecticut for bringing the issue before the uh subcommittee. Uh, certainly the infant uh safety of infant baby formula is an important topic. Uh, it's absolutely right. We can and should do something about it. The question is how Congress should be should be doing something about it. Uh, you know, the FDA is obviously gonna be tasked with coming up with

Thank you.

a solution to the problem, but I think it's important enough that we get it right, that it goes through the regular process, which is energy and commerce, which is my understanding, having a hearing on this today. uh, we'll discuss the issue, we'll do do things the way Congress should be doing it. I mean, I first saw this amendment yesterday. This is a pretty prescriptive amendment. I'm not sure this is the right way, this is the right way to tackle, this is not this is not my minor of expertise, it's not baby formula. Energy and Commerce Committee, that that is their oversight of FDA and their statutory uh, statutory guardrails that they can put in are, I think is the appropriate place. They are taking this issue. So I would say this is not the way uh we should be doing this. This is an ur- this is an issue with urgency, but Energy and Commerce realizes that. Uh, so I would urge that we don't adopt this amendment today, uh, that we work with uh with the FDA and with and with our colleagues in Energy and Commerce to make sure that they are dealing with it,

Mm-hmm.

and I will uh yield back the time.

Thank you gentlemen for these remarks. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment would direct FDA to improve infant formula safety in the United States. It will require comprehensive testing in facilities and formula products and require mandatory reporting. After the infant formula crisis in twenty twenty two, an additional outbreak, this is an issue that we need to find solutions to. Protecting our nation's babies, our most vulnerable, should be a top priority. Because of that, I support the adoption of the amendment, congratulate the General Lady for offering it, and I yield back.

Thank you gentlemen for these remarks. The General Lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, I rise today in joyful, and I thought it was hopeful, support of ranking member DeLauro's infant formula amendment, wishing we could come to an agreement here in this body about it. And I thank the lady for her beautiful amendment. It's a critical and long overdue step toward ensuring the safety and reliability of our nation's infant formula. The facts are clear and concerning. In just the past few years, we've witnessed multiple cases that put Our most vulnerable population, our babies, our infants at risk. From the twenty twenty-two contamination that triggered a nationwide shortage, to a recent outbreak linked to contaminated formula that sickened dozens of babies, these incidents underscore a systemic failure that cannot be ignored. At its core, this legislation is about accountability, prevention, and trust. Parents should never have to question whether the food they are giving their newborn is safe. here in America, having to worry if the formula is safe. Yet under the current system, gaps in testing, inconsistent standards and delayed reporting have created unacceptable risks. We have an obligation to learn from past failures and act decisively.

Right.

This legislation does exactly that. It strengthens oversight, restores confidence in the system, and prioritizes the well-being of families across this country. On behalf of all of our kids, all of our babies, and I will slip in my seven grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to take an important step toward ensuring that every parent can trust the safety of the formula in this country. I yield back.

Thanks, General Lady, are there others wishing to uh address the amendment? If not, there is a uh at the desk an amendment in the second degree offered by the General Lady from Oklahoma, Miss Weiss. General Lady uh request their amendment be read or would you

suspend the reading of the amendment uh mr. chairman ask unanimous consent to suspend the reading of the amendment

yes

uh uh ok without objection the reading of the second degree is dispensed with and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her second degree amendment

thank you mr. chairman and i wanna thank the ranking member for highlighting this important issue i have been working on this almost since i got to congress uh because of the original infant formula shortage and now this issue that has come up most recently. That being said, I think that the original amendment that the ranking member put forward was a little too prescriptive. And as we have heard from uh the chair of the subcommittee, this is an issue that is also being uh discussed in the Energy and Commerce Committee today. And so I ask that uh my amendment be passed in a substitute of Mister Lora's amendment, which gives a little a little more flexibility to the FDA. This is an important issue, no doubt. Uh, we need to make sure that formula is safe, and let me be clear, formula is safe. Uh, our moms across the country, um, you know, can can rest assured that this is an issue the FDA is is concerned about, and that they are looking at. Uh, but I think more could be done, which is why I would ask my colleagues to consider adopting this second degree amendment uh, and I yield the balance of my time.

thank you general lady the uh gentleman from georgia mister bishop is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree

i have no objection to the amendment

uh gentleman from maryland

you're back

thank you gentleman from maryland doctor harris is recognized to address the amendment

uh thank you mr. chairman i have no objection to the uh second degree amendment i think this uh makes it clear that the committee is interested in this topic we want

thank the gentleman the gentlelady from connecticut uh miss delora is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree

thank you very much mr. mr. chairman i i wanna say thank you to uh my colleague uh congresswoman uh abise um i was here to it it was really a tragic experience watching of families go from town to town just frantic that they were able to be able to get um and in that case to get infant formula in that case it was the failure of the company who sold the contaminated product and of the fda for uh not addressing it as quickly as they should have so i appreciate and was happy to work with your team uh i rise to support uh the second degree amendment it preserves the essence of the amendment. Uh, I thank you for your willingness to work together. Um, our baby's health is not a partisan issue. It really isn't. There are ideas of how to improve the safety and resilience of our infant formula supply chains. So I welcome the healthy, healthy debate on this, uh, of - of this topic. The amendment is a compromise. I'm glad that we could reach it. Um, it's not everything that I wanted, but you know, that's - that's the way life is. Uh, but it provides a bipartisan path forward on a critical issue. And I would just say this, And I just say this to you, Mister Chairman, we have oversight um uh uh overspending here. We have a right to direct agencies that we find when they should be continuing to tackle um uh babies. Babies can't wait. You know, we can't wait. I hopefully E and C is gonna do what they're doing, but we have jurisdiction in this area as well, and we can and we should act. So um I wanna urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

thank the gentlelady the chair feels compelled now to point out the gentlelady does get a lot of what she puts her mind on that she wants to get it's amazingly effective um gentlelady from uh oklahoma is uh recognized for one or are there any other members wishing to speak on the amendment seeing none gentlelady is recognized for one minute too close

thank you mr. chairman i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield

Thank you, gentle lady, the question is now on the second degree amendment offered by Miss Weiss. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

I think this is

For now. We will now return to the amendment offered by Miss DeLauro as amended. Gentle lady want to quote? OK.

Support it.

Alright. persuasive um do any members see recognition speak on the amendment as amended seeing none the question is on the amendment offered by miss Ballora all those in favor say aye

aye aye

opposed opinion of the chair the ayes have it the amendment is as amended is adopted

yes

adopted thank you very much uh general lady from maine miss pengrish recognized for an amendment

yes can i move to dispense with the reading of it

without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment

thank you mister chair uh this amendment is about the deep concerns i have about staffing levels at the usda particularly staffing in those offices back in our home districts um my amendment would restore the staffing levels at the usda before doge and the drps and the rollins reorganization went into place Staff has been decimated at the agency, but not just the staff in DC, we're talking about county offices, the boots on the ground, the people who work directly with farmers, uh, the people who we all are deeply concerned about having sufficient numbers of back in our home districts. In Maine, our NRCS staff lost five engineers. Hiring new engineers is very problematic because the salaries offer offered are are usually substantially less than in the private sector. The lack of engineers means that producers are reluctant to even sign contracts, concerned that they will not get timely information to be able to complete their practices. Currently, it can take weeks to get an answer to a simple question about an engineering practice. This is frequently happening when contractors are on-site or planning to be on-site, and these delays are costly and can even have an agreement making making an agreement with the NRCS impractical. Farmers are also concerned that their contracts will suddenly be terminated, terminated, which is what happened last year. In one of our county offices, they have a district conservationist and that's it for the entire county, no other staff. I have one farmer who applied for the new regenerative agriculture pilot program and has been waiting months to hear back. I've heard that there's another FSA person in Maine, that there's only one FSA person in Maine who can approve loans, which takes to six months to get an answer and by that time the growing season is often over and the farmers had to make that decision. Our farmers don't need more uncertainty. They look to the federal government to provide certainty and support so they can farm successfully and feed our country. But they are encountering more uncertainty which is highly stressful, expensive, and not at all supportive of our American farmers. So I urge the members to support this amendment and I yield back.

Thank the uh gentlelady for her amendment. And gentleman uh from Maryland, Doctor Harris is recognized to address the amendment.

Uh, thank you very much uh Mister Chairman. I uh rise in opposition to the amendment. Uh, in an era of unrelenting two trillion dollar deficits, I applaud the Trump administration for working to right-size the federal government, focus agencies on core mission areas, and save taxpayer dollars. Our constituents sent us to Washington to ensure that we're spending their taxpayer dollars wisely, to look over the federal government, and to make sure that uh we are uh we are right-sizing the federal government, not locking in uh the bureaucracy to where it was. And to do that, we need to give the administration flexibility to continue to optimize those staffing levels, not freeze them into some uh again bureaucratic size that was here a couple of years ago i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment

thank gentlemen for his remarks gentlemen from georgia mister bishop is recognized to address the amendment

thank you mr. chairman i rise in support of this amendment this amendment ensures that usj has the workforce that's necessary to carry out its responsibilities to farmers to rural communities and to families across It withholds a portion of funding for the office of the secretary until staffing levels are restored to where they stood before the Trump administration reductions. Over the past several years, USDA has experienced significant staffing challenges that have weakened its ability to deliver programs effectively. When staffing levels drop, service suffers from delayed assistance to farmers, to slower processing of applications, and reduced technical support. These impacts are felt most acutely in rural communities that depend on USDA programs for conservation for housing and economic development. The Trump administration's approach to workforce reductions and disruptions has contributed to these capacity challenges. Congress has a responsibility to ensure the tax payer-funded programs are administered efficiently and effectively. This amendment provides a clear incentive for the department to rebuild its workforce and restore operational capacity. It does not permanently reduce funding or impose arbitrary cuts. It simply conditions a portion of funding on meeting a reasonable staffing benchmark. Strong staffing levels are essential to implementing the programs that are funded in this bill. And it ensures that resources reach the people that they are intended to serve. Without adequate personnel, even well-funded programs cannot deliver results. This is a common sense accountability measure to make sure that USDA is equipped to do its job. I support adoption of the amendment. Congratulate the young lady for offering it and a year back.

Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? General Lady from Ohio, as Miss Capter's recognized.

I thank you, Mister Chairman, and I rise uh in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend uh Miss Pingree. And um the first question I wanna ask is what does Elon Musk know about agriculture in any part of this country? OK, so let's start with that question. The bill proposes a nearly a twenty percent increase for the office of the secretary here in washington and uh at the same time it reduces funding uh for the individuals who work with our farmers on the ground the people who really know what's going on in different regions of the country just in ohio the net effect of this uh if we don't pass her amendment we already lost two hundred and sixty one usda employees at and ohio is a big agricultural state That's sixteen percent of our state's Department of Agriculture workforce. Now think about this. The um input costs are rising. We face in our region of Ohio uh the future of something called Lake Erie and over in New York, Lake Ontario, they're the two most uh troubled lakes out of the Great Lakes system, the largest body of fresh water on Earth. We have to have new a crop cover we have to have new a farming techniques to help us get through and preserve our life source really we need experts to help our farmers do this and it's quite complicated i'd love to lecture for three hours on what it takes but um our weather events are getting worse we had a couple of years of drought we're not totally recovered from that if we don't get rainfall eighteen inches down uh we don't have a good crop this year and there are questions about that this takes very careful tending of land you just don't write a bill in washington and think it's gonna work in places that we represent. The costs of production are rising, and uh, just to remind everyone, farm suicides are at record levels all across our country. Why would you cut the people who are really uh the uh front-line workers to help what's left of American agriculture, Well, that's what um, um, what I was thinking, why would you cut them? I guess, we we could do a different And the farmer bankruptcies, look at any chart, look at any uh our farm bankruptcies are skyrocketing. across the country, it's a really precarious situation that we face. So, I support the gentlelady's amendment. It's just sensible. And why would you increase, well I could tell you stories about the Department of Agriculture here in Washington, when we tried to open the farmers' market several years ago on their property. Our biggest enemy was the US Department of Agriculture in Washington DC. And we said, we're trying to create farmers' markets all around the country, so we can sell our local produce and help our farmers survive. The day we dedicated it was brutal, it was a hundred degrees, and we had all these customers coming from off the mall, who were buying the food produced by Virginia and Maryland farmers. And all these USDA employees were looking out the window, I'll never forget, up there on the top floor. And I looked, I said, " You are our worst enemies, look at this." I said, " Look at the business here for our local farmers." So, I don't think USDA sometimes here in Washington really understands the connection between their funding and what actually happens on the ground.

So I support the gentlelady's amendment and urge strong support.

Back to gentlelady. Are there other uh members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.

Mister Chair, and thank you to everybody who has risen in support of this, and I I know this is a bipartisan issue I've served many years on the Agriculture Committee. And one of the things that we hear most often from farmers, from others who testify, is there's never enough boots on the ground. If we really want our farmers to be able to take advantage of the grant programs, of the opportunities we provide them, they need those engineers, they need the people to make the loan decisions, they need the people in the offices to do the work. So, I would say this should be a high priority of this committee, making sure that we have the staff available, and that it's not randomly cut whether it's by Elon Musk or the reorganizations that are going on there now. Uh, the chair and his opposition to this said that we have big deficits and we have to spend our money in other places. Well, we're here discussing the USD appropriations bill, the agriculture appropriations bill, and I think we should be thinking about American farmers. And if we're gonna talk about where to spend our money, we shouldn't be talking about a forty percent increase to the defense appropriations bill, or spending up to twenty-five billion dollars already in a war of choice in Iran. We need to put that money to American farmers so they can grow food here in America. I urge everyone to support this and I yield back.

put america first

i thank general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from maine all those in favor say aye

aye

aye

all opposed say no

no no

paying share of the no's have it role call has been requested sufficient support has been demonstrated the clerk will call the roll

mr. adderhall

no

mr. adderhall no mr. aguilar

i

mr. aguilar aye mr. alford mr. amity

no

mr. amity no mrs. bice no mrs. bice no mr. bishop

aye

mr. bishop aye mr. calvert no

mmm no

mr. calvert no mr. carter no mr. carter no mr. case

aye mmm

mr. case aye mr. siskamani

no

mr. siskamani no mr. klein mr. cloud

no

mr. cloud no mr. kleibern mister kleibern aye mister kleid

i agree

mister kleid no mister kohl

no

mister kohl no mister quayar

aye

mister quayar aye miss dean mister loro

aye

mister loro aye mister diaz-ballart mister edwards mister lz mister lz no miss eskibar mister espayat

aye

mister espiat aye mister fleischman mister fleischman no miss frankel

no

miss frankel aye mister franklin

no

mister franklin no mister guest

no

mister guest no mister harder

aye

mister harder aye doctor harris doctor harris no mrs. hinson mrs. hinson no mister heuer

aye

mister heuer aye mister ivy mister ivy aye mister joyce

aye

miss captor

aye

miss captor aye mister lolota

no

mister lolota no miss lee miss letlow mister levin mister levin aye miss molloi

aye no

miss molloi no miss mccollum

aye

miss mccollum aye miss ming

aye

miss ming aye mr. molinar

no

mister molinar no mr. moore

no

mister moore no mister morelli mister mervan

aye no

mister mervan aye mister newhouse

no

mister newhouse no miss perez miss pingree

aye

miss pingree aye mister pokan

aye

mister pokan aye mister quigley

aye

mister quigley aye mister russenthaler mister rogers mister rogers no mister rutherford

no no

mister rutherford no mister shreve

no

mister shreve no mister simpson mister simpson no mister strong

no no

mr. strong no mrs. torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mr. valadao mr. valadao no miss wasserman schultz

aye

miss wasserman schultz aye mrs. Watson-colman

aye

miss Watson-colman aye mr. womack

aye

mr. womack no mr. zinke

no

mr. zinke no

are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote gentlemen

mister diaz-ballart no

gentlemen from virginia

no sir

mister klein no

gentlemen from ohio

mr diaz uh no i don't think it's him

mister joyce no

gentlemen from missouri

no

mister alfred no

gentlemen from north carolina

no it's mr diaz

mister edwards no

gentlelady from pennsylvania

miss dane i

gentlemen from new york

it's the home i reported mr. day i reported him

i do not believe gentleman is recorded

i recorded him

mister morelli aye

you you both did not record

are there other members uh wishing to record or change their vote seeing none the clerk will tell them

i wasn't here so i'm mmm

i don't know if this is true but i think it's true so i'm just gonna keep it cause i don't know if this is true i think the clerk voted

on this vote the ayes are twenty five the no's are thirty three the amendment is not agreed to general lady from maine miss pingroup is recognized for the amendment

the desk and i move to dispense with the reading

without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment

thank you mister chair um this one i can make pretty simple uh it doesn't cost as much money it's really just to ask for a study it's because i'm deeply concerned about the cuts to the energy programs of reap and the high energy cost grants um along with the usda reap peat freeze are impacting energy costs for rural small businesses and farmers. So we all know that energy costs are very high right now, and farmers are particularly impacted by this. And these programs that are now being targeted and cut are uh extremely important to helping producers to bring down the costs. We've heard from so many producers in main rural businesses about the value of these programs. I just wanna give you a couple examples of what some of the things have been done through REAP in our state. there was a hundred and seventy thousand dollar grant for eagle industries a small metal fabrication business in hollis that installed roof mounted solar it generated eight two per eighty eight percent of their business energy use last year uh saving them a considerable amount of money forty eight thousand went to farmer's kev's organic an organic vegetable farm located in west gardner to install ground mounted solar the system generated a hundred percent of their business energy use last year and there was a three hundred and seventy six dollar three hundred and seventy six thousand dollar grant to cedarworks a wonderful manufacturer of children's playground equipment you also use your phone solar generates an enormous percentage of the business energy use last year and it means that we're burning that much less coal and using that much less energy mind boggling to me that the usda currently has frozen reap awards in a time of high energy cost. So I'm merely asking for a study so that we can all better understand how this impacts our farmers and how it is increasing their costs and making it increasingly difficult for farmers to stay in business. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, young lady, for her remarks, the gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, recognized to respond to the amendment.

Thank you very much. And of course, everybody's, uh, concerned about the high cost of energy, but a lot of that has been due to some of the green energy policies that uh that insist on installing energy that's just very expensive to uh uh to produce so in i rise in opposition to the amendment you know i i go home i drive down route fifty to ocean city i urge all of you it's pretty close come through the district and drive and almost every single month i drive down there's another field that used to be growing corn and soybeans to feed our chickens it now is covered in silicone that's it it's silicone panels Solar panels, prime farmland. And the US government was responsible for that because we subsidized it and we paid for it and we removed prime f- prime farmland out of production. What a shame. Because on the eastern shore of Maryland, the economy depends on whether or not we can grow the corn and soybeans to feed our chickens because if we don't grow it here we can't afford to cuz you folks in the Midwest grow it pretty pretty well. But you, we gotta transport it to Maryland. And if we add the transport cost, it no longer, it will destroy our poultry industry. So I applaud Secretary Rollins for taking the bold position of saying, we're not gonna subsidize putting solar panels on prime farmland. That is the right policy for our farmers and our agricultural community. If we want to reduce our agricultural trade deficit, we better not be taking agricultural land out of production. especially prime farmland and that's exactly what we were doing under the policies of the biden administration we were taking prime agricultural farmland out of production and subsidizing it because ladies and gentlemen if you don't subsidize that solar up until a couple of years ago it didn't pay you had to subsidize and in fact we heard in uh advocating for this amendment the general lady from maine mentioning rooftop panels I urge all of you to go and Google what the levelized cost of energy is for various production methods. The highest levelized cost of energy, that is, it takes into consideration all the other things besides the solar panels. So, for instance, you have to hook up to a grid, you have to have reverse uh, the ability to reverse flow to a grid. Um, you have to take into account subsidies that occur, the highest means of producing energy is rooftop solar. And here we have the US Department of Agriculture spending money on rooftop solar. If we wanna help rural communities, let's advance the development of small modular reactors. Let's bring those types of energy developments into rural communities. Let's stop the restriction, like we have in Maryland, of burning clean natural gas to produce energy, because ladies and gentlemen, that's the that's one of the lowest costs, levelized costs of energy. Burning clean natural gas, and we have we have people from Pennsylvania and they say, " Thank you very much, Pennsylvania. You produce a heck of a lot of natural gas. You produce it very cheaply, and we can produce cheap energy." What this amendment does is let's go back and look at those failed let's go back and look at those failed programs and let's let's study them a little more. They did fail because they were grants to buy very expensive sources of energy. That's not what our rural communities need. Our rural communities need rational policy on burning fossil fuel, for instance, in the United States. They need rational policy on advancing small module reactors for rural communities. That's what they need. This amendment would only create a lengthy and costly evaluation, unlikely to provide clear or useful benefits for near-term decisions. And I specifically disagree with it looking at the restrictions the secretary has put on prime farmland. I know our farmers Look, they're under stress. They look at the economics, and because of the subsidies provided that industry, a lot of them made the decision to put solar panels on that farmland. We can't be encouraging that decision. We have to do whatever we can to strengthen our farm community and to keep the land in production and to make sure that l- we are lowering energy costs by - by allowing the development of the lowest cost methods of energy or sources of energy. Again, whether it's natural gas, we're blessed with, whether it's clean burning coal, these are the things we, the, we should be doing. USDA already evaluates this kind of information as it reviews the health and oversight of its portfolios. Congress does not need to direct a duplicative, wasteful expenditure of resources, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Bishop, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you. I I agree with uh the chairman that the right policy is what we need to have. But I must caution and lay out to the committee that reasonable minds can disagree on what the right policy is. And what this amendment does is it allows a professional look at what is the right policy. And I rise in support of this amendment because it ensures that Congress can get a clear independent assessment of how the recent power decisions are affecting energy costs in rural America. It erects the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the impacts of these proposed cuts to the Rural Energy for America program, the reductions in the high energy cost grants, and USDA's freeze on the solar energy projects. It doesn't just assume or take for granted that this is true. We want to find out. We want to get the facts. These programs have long helped farmers and rural businesses to lower their energy costs through efficiency improvements and renewable energy investments. When those investments are scaled back or halted, producers and small businesses like those in my district in Southwest Georgia are left with higher operating costs. Energy is a significant expense in agriculture. It affects everything from irrigation and processing to storage and transportation. For small rural communities and businesses, higher energy costs can mean tighter margins, reduced hiring, and even closures. The Trump administration's decision to freeze or reduce support for these projects has created uncertainty, and it has disrupted planned investments. Even some businesses that had made loans anticipating the support for these projects. At the same time, many rural communities already face disproportionately high energy costs compared to urban areas. These combined factors raise serious concerns about affordability and economic viability in rural America. This amendment does not prejudge the outcome. It simply asks GAO to provide an objective, data-driven analysis. That information is essential for Congress to understand the real world impacts that these policy choices will reveal. If costs are rising as a result of these actions, we need to know and we need to respond accordingly. This is a common sense oversight step to ensure accountability and to inform our future decisions. I support the adoption of the amendment. I congratulate the lady for offering it. and uh you're back

thank you gentlemen um mr. Laura i believe you uh wanna be recognized please you're recognized

thank you very much i i rise uh uh to support this amendment uh electricity costs nationally have risen by nearly ten percent in the past year diesel prices have also spiked forty six percent since the president launched his war of choice in iran at the end of february these increases hit rural areas even harder a recent study from the national association of state energy officials found that the energy burden for rural households was about thirty three percent higher than the national average three point three percent of household spending largely due to higher in higher home heating and cooling costs and longer commutes requiring more fuel this difference in energy burden is even more drastic for low income rural households who spend an average of nine percent of household income on energy. There is no relief in sight. Average annual residential electricity prices are predicted to rise by over five percent this year according to the Energy Information Administration. The war in Iran has continued to spike fuel and fertilizer costs. We need serious investments in our energy grid, particularly in rural areas, to address these costs. uh this amendment prioritizes funds for those projects directly lowers the cost for rural households and small farms this could include installing solar on barns poultry houses and other small businesses or helping farmers to install more energy efficient systems

mmm

such as replacing diesel engines with electric motors that that is why it's worth noting again that this bill cuts back loans under the existing rural energy for America program by half. While eliminating all grant funding, more than twenty-five thousand projects have been funded through the program, helping people across all fifty states reduce their energy costs,

Mm-hmm.

and over two-thirds of grants have gone to Republican-led districts. More than twenty-five percent of all REAP grant funding has gone to just twenty congressional districts, and eighteen of those districts are represented by Republicans, including all of the top five highest reap grant recipients three hundred and seventy two million dollars in reap funding went to republican districts last year that is funding that directly helps the constituents with energy costs in which they are preparing to cut in half this amendment would help rural communities this bill is preparing to leave behind we need to bring down energy costs full stop this amendment is designed to help the communities who need it bur most i urge your support and i yield

thank you thanks to the indulgence committee with that the uh gentleman from california is recognized to address the amendment

thank you mr. chairman i rise in strong support of the amendment and i i wanna state some basic facts about the rural energy for america program and i ask everybody just keep an open mind this is a long-standing bipartisan farm build program reauthorized under presidents of both parties that has provided billions in support to tens of thousands of farms ranches and rural small businesses it's a cost share program that requires significant private investment often a majority share it's not a handout it's private capital being unlocked in rural communities in recent years yes a large majority of those funded projects have been solar But those solar projects were chosen, chosen by the farmers and the small businesses themselves, based on what works economically. REAP primarily supports on-site distributed energy projects, not utility scale development. So claims about paving over farmland are aimed at projects that this program simply does not fund. America is losing farmland every single day, and that's driven primarily by development and by economic pressure. Programs like REAP Actually, and I've spoken to farmers myself about this, they help keep farms viable by lowering energy costs and diversifying income. Demand for REAP consistently exceeds available funding, reflecting strong interest from rural communities across the country. A substantial share of funding goes directly to agricultural and resource-based businesses. That's the backbone of rural America. And compared to overall energy subsidies, REAP represents a pretty small investment that puts assets directly on farmers' balance sheets. The emerging agrivoltaic practices, as they are called, show that energy production and agriculture can and do successfully coexist on the same land in many cases. So at a time of rising electricity costs, we should be doing all we can to support practical cost-saving energy solutions rather than kneecapping things that will actually bring costs down. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Capter is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you. Uh, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, uh, and uh, I spent a lot of time on the energy issue and I sort of agree with a lot of those that have spoken on both sides of the aisle, but the most important thing we have to do in this country is to have competition in energy, or else prices won't go down for our people, and we also need innovation. There's no question that one of our biggest problems is old grid and uh getting on the grid, off the grid and what we've provided as a nation to supply that new grid is very small. And so we're going to see problems across the country on the energy front because we haven't moved moved fast enough, working with the private sector in order to move into the modern age in this new uh in this new era. Competition is very important in order to provide the new grid and science is needed. We've talked about uh nuclear, uh very small uh systems. They're being invented. They're not completely ready yet. Uh yes, natural gas, as uh uh Chair Harris has mentioned. Uh we have an unlimited supply at the Ohio um Pennsylvania border. Uh they're all parts of an energy system that we're trying to make more competitive, but we can't turn our back on innovation i represent the glass center of america we're very proud of the solar systems that we are developing uh we were the home of thomas alva edison and now we're the home of harold mcmaster he will be the thomas alva edison of this century and uh we are growing these new technologies as a country we can't turn our back on any one of them

still

and i would have to say when you go out into these areas of the country one of the real problems is and i think chairman harris is right uh let's solar panels in a certain place where there's prime farmland well the local zoning authorities and the county zoning authorities have to deal with that they can't let prime farmland just be frittered away um they have to find a way to protect the best lands in the country that isn't something that our great grandparents faced in this country or our great great great grandparents but we truly are destroying agricultural platforms that should never be destroyed how we get that to between the federal government and the localities i'm not sure all i know is it's not happening in a very intelligent manner uh right now it's purely a market driven you know buy that land and somebody wants to sell the land but you give away irreplaceable farmland um in addition agriculture is changing a lot of fruits and vegetables are now grown in four season facilities that are hundred acres or more in size i represent some of them they need forty percent of their bottom line and now fifty percent is power. We've got to work on perovskites, we gotta work on different kinds of inventions to bring that new technology to American agriculture, and uh to industry across this nation. So um I think that uh uh we can't ignore any sector, but we have to make them available uh intelligently. And I'll end with this story, in a place called Pioneer, Ohio, I was part of the ceremony, where mayor and council decided in this little town of about five thousand people at most that they were going to buy some extra land adjacent to the municipality they did that they used their municipal power to create solar and it will take about ten years to pay off the uh loan that they took out but they will lower the bills of the people living in this area they will attract industry because of that particular use of solar power it didn't take any prime farmland By the way, the Mayor is Republican, and I love the guy, OK. Uh, he really did do something that no one else in the region has done in one of the most remote areas of Ohio one that was the hardest to settle so this American, they're geniuses, I mean they're figuring things out at the local level and I just think that um, this particular amendment will go a long way to help advance that kind of innovation and that's where we need to be making intelligent decisions at every level. So thank you so very much.

i support the amendment and yield back

thank general lady for her remarks are there others wishing to address the amendment seeing none the general lady is recognized for one minute to close

sure i just wanna remind people again that if there's a controversy or a difference of opinion around this this is merely to ask for a study so that we can better understand how this these cuts in the freezes to reap and um the high energy cost grants will impact our farmers because i think we all agree that in rural areas energy costs are high and anything we can do to help small businesses and farmers to cut those costs it would also allow us to deal with facts uh the chair stated that solar power is the most expensive form of power i've never heard anyone say that in fact in many studies it's cited as the lowest cost of power and i'm a believer in all of the above and we're just talking about taking one more opportunity away um when we talk about using prime farmland uh for solar power i don't i'm not in favor of that either most of these are rooftop solar or small uses of it on farms that are chosen by the farmer and usually a farmer is using land that's not adequate for something else or they're doing agrovoltaics so they're able to graze under the solar panels or grow other crops that are compatible so i just urge you to go along with this amendment support this study and we'll all have more information going into the future and i yield back

thank you general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady for maine all those in favor say aye

aye aye aye

all those opposed say no

no

no no

being the chairs of no habit a roll call has been requested sufficient support has been demonstrated the clerk will call the roll

mr. adderhall mr. adderhall no mr. aguilar

aye

mr. aguilar aye mr. alford mr. alford no mr. amadei mrs. bice mr. bishop

uh no no aye

mr. bishop aye mr. calvert

no

mr. calvert no mr. carter

no yes

mr. carter no mr. case

no

mr. case aye mr. siskamani

no

mr. siskamani no mr. klein

no

mr. klein no mr. cloud

no

mr. kleibern

uh-huh

mr. kleibern aye mr. clyde

negative

mr. clyde no mr. cole

no no

mr. cole no mr. cuellar

mr. cuillier

mr. cuillier

yes obel aye

mr. cuillier aye miss dean

aye

miss dean aye mr. loro

thank you thank you aye

mr. loro aye mr. diaz-ballart mr. diaz-ballart no mr. edwards

no no

mr. edwards no mr. lz mr. lz no miss eskebar

aye

miss eskebar aye mr. espiat

bye

mr. espiat aye mr. fleishman

i cannot hear you

miss frankl

i

miss frankl aye mr. franklin

no

mr. franklin no mr. guest

no

mr. guest no no mr. harter

aye

mr. harter aye dr. harris

no

dr. harris no mrs. hinson mrs. hinson no mr. hoyer

aye

mr. hoyer aye mr. ivy

aye

mr. ivy aye mr. joyce

no

mr. joyce no miss captor miss captor aye mr. lolota miss lee oh i don't know what that miss lee aye miss letlow

right

mr. levin

aye

mister levin aye miss malloy no miss malloy no miss mccullum aye miss mccullum aye miss ming aye miss ming aye mister molinar

no

no mister molinar no mister moore no

no

mister moore no mister morelli no mister mervan

excuse me i'm sorry

mister mervan aye mister newhouse no mister newhouse no miss perez aye miss perez aye miss pingree aye miss pingree aye mister pokan aye

ok

mister pokan aye mister quigley aye mister quigley aye mister rassenthaler mister rogers mister rogers no mister rutherford uh mister rutherford no mister shreve so we don't have to vote for this one

no

mister shreve no mister simpson

no no

mister simpson no mister strong mister strong no mrs. torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mister valadeo

no

no miss washington schultz

aye

miss washington schultz aye missus Watson Coleman

aye

missus Watson Coleman aye mister waumack mister waumack no mister zinke mister zinke no

no

are there any other members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote gentlemen from tennessee

mr. chair i wish to be recorded is it oh please

no we're still in we're still in mister fleishman no

gentlemen from new york

am i recorded mrs. chair

i do not believe the gentleman is recorded

mr. morelli aye

where oh general ladies from oklahoma

i guess we will have to have a vote

missus bryce no

uh

good guess uh any other members wishing to record their vote or change their vote

i don't know anything about the pool

seeing none the clerk's Italian

anything about what's happening on the pool

uh rule failed

no it it isn't no i thought

yeah they took the farm bill out i mean just recently

yeah they agreed they're not taking farm bills it's the we they're gonna have it back to where it is farm bills

ok ok

so they should be trying to do that fine so

ok i saw an

any budget resolution

they they took they took the farm bill out on the floor no and then it stayed in the room

hmm

but they but they're not gonna

yeah and it's the farm they agreed not to back to where it is so that's good

but they agreed oh ok

what are we doing what about on the floor and on this vote the ayes are twenty eight the noes are thirty oh the amendment is not adopted

i'm sorry so does it applies to the the budget

i didn't think we'd uh we gotta do but the but we do have to go the general lady from new jersey miss Watson coleman is recognized for the purpose of amendment

ok yep ok

chairman i do have a uh amendment on the desk and i seeking an innocent consent to consider it already read

without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the general lady is recognized for

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would reinstate the USDA household foods security survey and subsequent report which the bill under consideration today eliminates for the second year in a row. The survey has existed for thirty years through both Republican and Democratic administrations, yet it was the Trump administration that cut funding for being, and I quote, redundant costly politicized and

mmm

does nothing more than fear monger

mmm

Whenever my career did I think that I would have to stand up to remind my colleagues that being food insecure is scary

yes

mmm

not knowing where your next meal is coming from or how you are going to feed your family is frightening the republican big ugly bill has cut a hundred and seventy eight billion dollars from snap leaving three million people to worry about their next meal or if they're going to go to bed hungry in my state of new jersey thirty thousand people have lost access to snap many of my colleagues across the aisle represent states that food insecurity that are above have food insecurity above the national average which we only know thanks to recent data by this survey. Further cuts would hurt their constituents disproportionately. You know, here are some of the numbers that we should be thinking about as we entertain this amendment and our work going forward. Sixty thousand people in Oklahoma lost access to SNAP thanks to the big ugly bill. And you know, Mr. Mr. Cole and Miss Weiss, your districts are involved there two hundred and one thousand in texas representative carter representative cloud and representative elsie those are your districts i'm talking about fifty thousand in louisiana representative leloe there you go twenty two thousand in mississippi representative guess that's mississippi three and so as you can see this hurts both our republican districts as well as our democratic districts let me not leave out representative womack because in your district is eleven thousand uh uh um arkansans and last but not least in my little litany here representative rogers uh hundred seventeen thousand in Kentucky. So as I close, I wanna remind my colleagues that gas is at its record high, utility bills are skyrocketing, housing is unaffordable, and now Republicans are forcing hardworking families to choose between buying groceries or keeping the lights on. Pretending that food insecurity does not exist because data is not being collected, does not make you go away, and ignoring the needs of our neighbors is antithetical to our purpose in congress. I urge my colleagues to consider the harms occurring nationwide from the lack of data collection on food insecurity. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to reinstate the household food security survey, the gathering of information, and help guide nutrition and food policy for decades to come. thank you Mister Chairman I do yield back

thank general lady for her remarks gentleman from Maryland Doctor Harris is recognized to address the amendment

uh thank you very much Mister Chairman you know wealthy states and uh we have representatives from some very wealthy states I think actually the offer of the amendment is uh from one of the wealthiest states in the nation they can do their own food surveys they could actually pay for food programs They might actually offer to cost share with the federal government for SNAP programs. What a novel idea. Just like they cost share for Medicaid, maybe they should cost share for SNAP programs. They are the wealthiest, among the wealthiest states in the nation. But as part of the effort to right-size the federal government, shrink the bloated bureaucracy, improve the efficiency of USDA programs, the Trump administration cancelled this one national survey. That's it. The data previously collected in the household food security survey also happens to be collected in ten other national surveys. So is the eleventh survey the the the one that counts? Is the twelfth survey the one that counts? Why would we be duplicating the work that's done in ten other surveys? And by the way, which rich states could do on their own.

The one that

Because what the rich states are doing is asking the poor states to pay for surveys. It's not the way it should be. Rich states should pay for their own surveys. And, honestly, they should have a little money left over to pay for some of the poor states too. So just because the USDA stopped the publication of this one survey does not mean the federal government is no longer collecting data on food security. Their survey was canceled because it's duplicative of other surveys at USDA and across the federal government. And past surveys tended to be anything but objective. The f- household food survey dates to the Clinton administration, and really has just served as little more than political cover to increase spending. Now, how do we know that that might be true? Because the rates of food insecurity in the US remain stagnant, the p- despite the fact that Snaps' spending has more than doubled between the fiscal year twenty nineteen and fiscal year twenty twenty three. Yeah, we stopped doing the survey because it was showing that food secu- food s- security is stable oh by the way we've doubled our snap spending and food insecurity is still stable so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment we don't need an eleventh national survey on food insecurity and i strongly suggest that rich states should do their own surveys yield back

thank you gentlemen the gentleman from georgia mister bishop is recognized to respond to the amendment

I rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of this amendment. Uh, this amendment restores a core federal responsibility, measuring food insecurity accurately and consistently across the country. It requires USDA to reinstate the household food security report and coordinate with the Census Bureau to resume the food security supplement. This is the gold standard. Uh, it's the most report, re- uh, repeated, the most respected, the most relied upon tool. Uh, these tools have long been the gold standard for understanding hunger in America and informing policy decisions. Without them, Congress and the public are left without reliable, comparable data on food insecurity trends. This admiss- uh, this administration has repeatedly tried to shut down access to information that would inform our policies so that they could pretend that many of the problems that we try to address do not exist because we no longer will have the data which they have ceased collecting. This is especially concerning at a time when many families are still struggling with high food prices and economic uncertainty. The USDA's most recent available data showed that millions of households experience food insecurity every year including the households with children. Eliminating or delaying these surveys make it harder to track whether the conditions are improving or getting worse. The Trump administration's decision to cancel or disrupt this data collection, it undermines transparency and it undermines accountability. We cannot effectively target nutrition programs or evaluate their success, if we do not have accurate information. This amendment ensures continuity by requiring USDA to use the same methodology and content as in their prior reports. That consistency is critical for identifying long-term trends and making informed funding decisions this is it should not and is not a partisan issue it's about maintaining the basic data infrastructure that supports sound policy making I support the adoption of the amendment and I yield back

thank you gentlemen for your comments are there other members wishing to address the amendment seeing none the gentlelady from New Jersey is recognized to close

interesting, great.

I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

Interesting conversation coming from, uh, the chairman of the party. I mean, the chairman of the committee, same thing. Um, you know, uh, just for your information, we already spend a lot more than we get, um, from the state of New Jersey and states like that.

Why?

But our concern just, not just about what's happening in wealthy states, or states in which wealthy people are getting wealthier and poor people are getting poorer. But we care about everybody. We're simply asking for the collection of information, accountability, transparency, patterns that don't exist in this administration, and patterns that the president doesn't want, and patterns that you all

Mm.

are so easily giving in to him. So I simply ask you, why don't you want to know what the truth is? Why don't you want to know what really is? in this country to families that are struggling every single solitary day in the wealthiest country in the world. And why do you care about whether or not uh this information and this request is coming from a wealthy state or a poor state? It probably helps your state. I know it helps this country. And I think that we should consider what's best for the country, and not what's best for Donald Trump. With that I yield.

close

mmm well let's just stop doing it extra

thanks general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from new jersey all those in favor say aye

aye

aye

all those opposed say no

no

no

opinion of the chair of the know as habit

surprise

and the amendment is not adopted general lady from new york miss ming is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent that its reading be dispensed with.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.

For too long our government has looked the other way while industry has put harmful chemicals and dyes into our food. These dyes have been linked to serious health harms, such as behavioral impacts, inattentiveness, impaired memory and restlessness, including in our children. This is an issue both Democrats and Republicans have led on. Ranking member DeLauro, I worked with you and other members under the last administration to ban Red Three. I wanna thank you for your leadership on that issue as the chair of the Congressional Food Safety Caucus which I'm a proud member of. This is an area with where I agree with some of this administration's efforts too. Last year, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced he, and the fda would work together to phase out petroleum-based dyes from our food supply which i think is a great idea that's why i introduced my ban harmful food dyes act which would codify a ban on those dyes and would welcome support from my colleagues in this room for that effort even other countries have banned these dyes or place stricter requirements on their use than we do for example the king was here yesterday the uk has totally banned red forty yellow five and yellow six concerning the fda and hhs have been pulling back from their commitments in a letter earlier this year to the food industry not consumers the fda said it would loosen enforcement of food dye labeling but planning toxic petroleum-based dyes is popular with the american people and many of our constituents that's why states led by both democrats and republicans are leading the way from california to west virginia texas to my home state of new york more than twenty five states are considering or have passed legislation to ban synthetic food dyes and other food chemical additives shown to be harmful my amendment would simply request a report on the steps the fda has already taken to phase out the exact same dyes it already committed to phasing out it's the same exact list Congress shouldn't let the FDA off the hook for the promises it made to phase out these harmful food dyes. I urge my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to please support this effort. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

I thank General Leidy for comments. Uh, gentlemen from Maryland, Doctor Harris is recognized to respond to the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I ch- thank General Leidy from New York for for bringing this to the to the attention of the committee. And, uh, you know, I've spoken with um, uh, Commissioner McCaffrey, specifically about this issue he is on board with uh making sure the fda investigates these uh make sure that they uh they come to a conclusion about what they should do for your list as well as the list that they've already banned uh so with that in a kumbaya moment i would suggest we accept the amendment

ooh good job ooh that's a good job that's a good job

minor miracles do occur you know

you're welcome

uh absolutely gentleman my friend gentleman from uh george is recognized

Uh, this amendment would um This amendment would direct the FDA to report any actions the agency's taken to phase out and assist states in phasing out certain food dyes and petroleum-based additives. And of course, as you've heard, last year HHS and FDA announced a voluntary plan to phase it out. Uh, that process is ongoing and it's not complete, and while the efforts uh have been made by the current and previous administrations to help eliminate the chemicals, uh, we need to get an update on where we are. glad the committee is working on it glad we're having discussions and hopefully that process will go forward uh you're back

thank gentlemen the general lady from connecticut which delores is recognized to address the amendment

uh all i wanted to just say is i wanted to thank the general lady from new york for introducing this and it's um been accepted and we have worked together on red dye in the past thank you for being part of the food safety caucus we will continue onward thank you you're back

Back to gentlelady, gentlelady from Florida, Miss Wasserman-Chilts, recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I'm also really pleased that uh Chairman Harris is accepting this amendment. I just want to illuminate a couple of things about the seriousness of needing to make sure that we can have transparency when it comes to these food dyes. I know many of you know that I'm a breast cancer survivor and someone who really going through eighteen months of intense treatments and surgeries um really started looking at what i was ingesting and putting in my own body and what my children were i have a higher risk because i carry a genetic mutation uh that makes cancer more likely to begin with um and so it really opened my eyes to making sure that i focus on healthy eating and eating clean you know the least processed food possible um which isn't easy. Um, so when you're trying to avoid foods that contain synthetic petroleum-based food dyes, like red forty and yellow five, those are linked to major health risks. For example, red forty and yellow five are associated with tumor growth in animals, hyperactivity in children, and gastrointestinal uh intestinal issues. And here's the thing, most Americans have no idea that these dyes are in their food. So when a family picks up a box of mac and cheese or a bottle of salad dressing, at the grocery store they're not thinking about synthetic dyes they're just trying to feed their kids and right now the fda does not require restaurants to disclose when their menu item items contain these ingredients and that's a problem because you don't want to as a parent unknowingly feed your children uh food with dyes that can cause them health problems cumulatively cumulatively as they ingest these things down the road so giving them accurate information about what goes into their food is really important so they can make better choices for themselves and their families. And I can tell you, Mm. I ca- I could see it generationally in my own family. Once I taught myself to cook, which I could boil water and scrambled eggs, scramble eggs, Mister Chairman, and that was it. Um, but once I once I knew I had to eat healthier, I I knew I had to make sure that I could ensure my children ate healthier. And we, you know, had Sunday night family dinner at our house every Sunday night, you know, since my kids were in middle school. And it taught them. to make healthier choices and also to learn how to cook, which is why you have some pretty special sourdough bread that was baked by my youngest daughter and she you know learned and focused and was interested in doing that and thought about it um thought about what she put in her body as well. Um so we need to pass this focus on the least processed chemically infused food as possible into our children so that we can make sure we raise the next generation of healthy Americans. Wow. thanks to general lady for the her amendment and the chairman for supporting it you're back

thank the general lady are there others wishing to address the amendment seeing none the general lady is from new york for us nice for one minute

well i guess i won't read my long list of arguments in support of the amendment thank you mister chairman um but this is evidence-based uh we know these dyes are harmful to our health our children's health other countries are already ahead of us it's a great bipartisan even maha issue um to make sure that we are taking care of the food that we are putting in our own bodies and for our children thank you i'll back

thank you general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from new york all those in favor say aye

aye aye

all opposed say no opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted

yay

a gentleman from new york mister espion is recognized for the purpose of

Same kind of treatment now.

Uh, do- don't count on it.

Let's let's I feel we're on a roll.

We can go, we can be courteous and polite. No.

Doctor Harris, are we in a roll?

No, I don't think you can do that. You can do it.

All right. Let's go back to reality. Uh, Mister Cha- Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as to dispense a reading of such.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, the gentleman's recognized for remarks on

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, food stamps are lifesaving benefits that serve more than forty million people across the nation. Not only is it essential in fighting food insecurity, but it also stimulates local economies across the country. Uh, when customers use food stamps in their communities, they are often supporting the revenue of a small independent grocer.

Mm.

In some cases, fifty percent of the revenue of these grocers can be attributed to the sale made using food stamps. In my district, many U New Yorkers rely on their local bodega to purchase their food. As I mentioned in my opening statement,

Mm.

my district has some of the highest rates of food insecurity in the nation.

Are you gonna

For many, these bodegas are the only source of reliable food in their neighborhood. Oftentimes

Word.

these bodegas are are run by immigrant families, by working class uh families, and they provide a vital

Yeah.

a vital importance to the neighborhoods. But this isn't just the case for urban environments like New York City. In rural areas, small family owned shops are the only place that offer fresh foods for miles. I seen the rippling effects uh of this practice on bodegas in my communities. When they close, families must travel to a farther grocer and a low income area, lose another source of economic output. The people employed by the grocers are out of a job. The closure of a business can send a sign to to many that the neighborhood is no longer worth investing in. These grocers and foodstuff recipients deserve to know how the three hundred billion cut in the republican reconciliation bill will impact their lives. This amendment calls for a study of the impact of this practice on local grocers, both urban and rural and I urge uh its adoption and support. A year back.

Thank the gentleman for his remarks, the gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris is recognized to respond to the amendment.

Uh thank you very much Mister Chairman, uh look I, In my rise in opposition to the opponent, I appreciate, you know, the the circumstances of businesses that depend in in the food

I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

food retail market generally, but the changes in the bill were work requirements, and we may have a disagreement that maybe work requirements shouldn't be required for welfare. On this side of the aisle we generally think they should be. We could have a disagreement. And program integrity. So, I'm not sure what we wanna reverse. Do we wanna reverse program integrity? Do we want people who actually don't qualify, who are on the program in two different states, et cetera, et cetera, to get it? Or do we want people who aren't willing to work to get it, to get that - to get that snap expenditure back up, that it would support those grocers? I would hold that we made the right policy decision in the one big beautiful bill. The work requirement is not unreasonable, and I have to tell you, when I go in my district, And and people ask me, well what did you do to this SNAP program, and we put a work requirement in. Oh, I like that. I think that's a good idea. You mean uh, you mean we didn't have one in?

No, it's not that.

And when I say, oh it's program integrity. We make sure people aren't cheating on the program, that they actually qualify for it. They say, oh you mean we weren't doing that before?

I did not.

Yeah, we weren't doing that before. That's about right. So I empathize with the retailers, but the solution would be to go back and remove what we did in that bill, which I don't think is good policy. I don't think it's fair for the people who work hard, for my hard-working uh constituents who pay income taxes and who expect when someone goes for what is in essence a welfare program, and they are able-bodied, they're not taking care of an of a sick adult, they're not taking care of children, they choose not to work,

Oh.

they don't want their tax dollars going there. Now we might get another, we might have to find another way to help those small businesses.

They wanna live more.

But the way to do it, I don't think, is to reverse good pro- good program policy.

Some people work in two or three jobs.

Uh, so for that reason, I think that doing this study, uh, again, I'm not sure what it would show. We might come up with other ideas to how to help those small businesses, cuz goodness knows small businesses in the country are the backbone, a lot of communities. Uh, but I don't think this is the way to do us urge, my colleagues, to oppose the amendment.

Thank you gentlemen for his remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Bishop is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you Mister Chairman. Uh, this is just common sense. Uh, we should be making decisions based on data, uh, not hunches. Uh, and we should want to know what the consequences of our policy decisions are. As I rise in support of the amendment, it addresses a critical but often overlooked consequence of snap cuts, whatever the cause of these cuts, the impact on our local grocery stores that serve as essential community anchors. It directs the USDA to analyze how the reductions, how the decisions that we are forcing them to make in snap benefits would affect independent grocers especially in rural and low income areas where there are few providers of grocery stores. Uh, in the many communities, these stores are only the only nearby source of fresh and affordable food. Uh, independent gross grosses do a lot more than sell food, they employ local residents and they support broader economic activity uh in those communities. SNAP is not just a nutrition program, it's a key driver of local economic stability. Uh, USDA has found that SNAP benefits generate economic activity, particularly in areas with limited retail options. For many small grocers, SNAP transactions make up a significant share of their total sales. In some low-income communities, that share can exceed fifty percent of revenue. Deep cuts to SNAP, like those proposed by House Republicans, risk destabilizing these businesses and reducing access to food. When a local grocery store closes, communities often lose their only reliable access to fresh food. That creates ripple effects, including job losses and increased food insecurity. The Trump administration and House Republicans have not adequately accounted for these downstream impacts. This amendment simply asks for clear, evidence-based assessment. so that Congress can understand the full consequences of these policy choices. Let's not put our heads in the sand. Let's understand what it is we're doing and what the expected and ordinary and probable consequences of these policy decisions will be. That's all that this amendment asks for. Let's get the facts and understand what damage we can potentially be doing and whether or not it is worth it i support the adoption of the amendment commend the gentleman for offering and i yield back

thank you gentlemen for your remarks are there others wishing to address the amendment seeing none the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute to close

mr. chair and thank you certainly i opposed uh the work requirements as i said earlier food stamps are equivalent to less than seven dollars a day per person. Imagine um what that combined. So it's really not a program that will necessarily uh provide uh healthy eating in a way in a way or fashion that families could lift themselves up from a food insecurity area, but it has helped nonetheless. And and uh what I'm what we're asking for through this amendment is simply a study of the impact of such practices. I oppose uh the work requirements, but this amendment is not referring to the work requirements, it's saying can we look at this practice and see how it impacts small independent grocers both rural and urban and as stated by by the ranking member uh the subcommittee uh the snap program it's an important program in our local food economy particularly in areas that are traditionally ignored or or cannot uh provide the kind of opportunities for families there that other communities do. So this is simply an ask to to study this i- this issue and see what kind of an impact it can have on the community and small business owners. It may very well be that the result is that everything is fine or that it leads to unemployment. That in fact when these cuts are perpetrated that people will be out of a job. It could very that these small independent grocers are closing down and that therefore is impacting the tax base of those community that's why we want to see the kind of impact that is happening on the local economy the other policy issues we can debate as well but this is not what this amendment is uh asking for and i uh still ask my colleagues to consider it and support its adoption i yield back thank you

i thank the gentleman the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york all those in favor say aye

aye aye

all those opposed say no

no no nice habit nice habit he hasn't ruled yet oh no oh no wait he hasn't ruled yet

and the opinion of the chair the no's have it

oh my god ok just nice habit

uh roll call has been requested sufficient support has been demonstrated the clerk will call the roll

mister adderall mister adderhall no mister aguilar

aye

mister aguilar aye no people are not allowed to talk about this mister alfred mister alfred no mister amadei

yeah here

mister spice

i can touch it cause you're not

mister bishop

aye

mister bishop aye mister calvert

ok

yes

no

mister calvert no mister carter

we're not allowed to touch the

yes

oh my god

mister carter no mister case

aye

mister case aye mister siskamani

oh my god no

mister siskamani no mister klein mister klein no mister cloud

no

mister cliburn

so it's negative alright

mister cliburn aye mister clide

negative

mister clide no mister kohl

no

mister kohl no mister cuillard

aye

mister cuillard aye miss dean

aye

miss dean aye mister loro mister loro aye mister diaz-ballart

no

mister diaz-ballart no mister edwards

no

mister edwards no mister lz mister lz no miss eskabar miss eskabar aye mister espayat mr. espayat aye mr. fleischman

no

mr. fleischman no miss frankl

aye

miss frankl aye mr. franklin

no

mr. franklin no mr. guest

no

mr. guest no mr. harder

aye

mr. harder aye dr. harris

no

dr. harris no mrs. hinson mrs. hinson no mr. hoyer

aye

mr. hoyer aye mr. ivy

aye

mr. ivy aye mr. joyce

no

mr. joyce no miss captor miss captor aye mr.

no

mr. lolota no miss lee

it's always miss lee i

aye

miss lee aye miss letlow mr. levin mr. levin aye miss malloy

aye no

miss malloy no miss mccollum

aye

miss mccollum aye miss ming

no it's always you

miss ming aye mr. molinar mr. molinar no mr. moore

no

no

mr. morelli

no

aye

mr. morelli aye mr. murvan mr. newhouse mr. newhouse no miss perez aye miss perez aye miss pingree aye miss pingree aye mr. pokan aye ok i'll go with mr. pokan mr. pokan aye mr. quigley aye mr. quigley aye mr. rechenthaler mr. rogers

mr. roger rogher

mr. rogers no mr. rutherford mr. rutherford mr. rogher

senate but um

no

mister rutherford no mister shreve

no

mister shreve no mister simpson

no good job

mister simpson no mister strong mister strong no mrs.

no

torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mr. valadao mr.

no

valadao no miss washington schultz

aye

miss washington schultz aye miss Watson colman

yes

misses Watson Coleman aye mr. womack mr.

no no

womack no mr. zinke mister zinke no

are there any members wishing to uh vote or change their vote general lady from oklahoma

uh i wish to be referred as a no

mrs. bias no

are there any other members wishing to change where where

you

he's standing on that

where where i voted

he don't vote ok in that case a clerk for tally oh gentlemen from west virginia

no

mister moore votes no

twenty seven thirty one

on this vote the ayes are twenty seven the no's are thirty one the amendment is not adopted

oh

General Lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean's recognized for purpose of an amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the General Lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.

Thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of my amendment, which restores the majority's proposed three hundred million cut to Food for Peace Title Two grants, and requires a comprehensive study on how recipient countries are selected for food. At a moment when global global hunger is rising, driven by conflict, climate change, and economic instability, this is not the time to retreat from one of our most effective humanitarian programs. Title two grants deliver lifesaving aid to countries facing acute food shortages, helping stabilize vulnerable regions before crises escalate into famine, mass displacement, or broader conflict. This amendment also comes at a critical inflection point. With the dismantling of USAID, as it was previously existing, and the transfer of Food for Peace to USDA, Congress has a responsibility to ensure this program remains effective, transparent, and guided by humanitarian need, not by politics. That is why the study requirement is so important. It ensures accountability in how recipient countries are selected, and helps safeguard the during the period of transition. We need these grants. Let's be clear. Title two grants are not just about assistance abroad. It's also a smart assistance right here at home. By purchasing US grown commodities, we invest in American farmers, we support ranchers, our our agricultural producers, strengthen rural economies, and reinforces our agricultural supply chain. And we know American farmers are already under real pressure, from this administration's tariff policies and the rising costs, uh, tied to the conflict in Iran. Now is the time to do more to support them, not less. This program advances our humanitarian values while also serving our strategic interests building goodwill with partner nations promoting global stability, and helping prevent the conditions that lead to conflict and to insecurity. Cutting three hundred million from this program sends the wrong message at the wrong time. It weakens our ability to respond to global crises, undermines our credibility as a reliable partner, and risks ceding American leadership to others. My amendment restores these critical funds and adds a layer of oversight to ensure the program is administered fairly, effectively, and in line with both our moral obligations and our national interests. I urge

Thank you, General Lee. For remarks, a gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to respond to the amendment.

Thank you very much. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill uh already provides nine hundred million dollars for the Food for Peace program. Uh, that's nine hundred million above the President's request. and reflects the committee's commitment to this important domestic commodity program. I appreciate the gentlelady's interest in supporting this program, uh, but the, we feel the bill already provides sufficient funding. Her amendment is improperly offset with emergency funds, adding three hundred million dollars in new spending. I, I will say that I suspect the Senate may take a different position from this, and uh, we'll go to conference and we'll, you know, figure out where we end up, uh, which is what happened last year. But without an offset, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Thank you gentlemen for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you Mister Chairman, I commend the gentlelady for her amendment and I rise in support of it. Uh this amendment will restore funding for Food for Peace to the fiscal year twenty twenty six enacted level, and will provide Congress with answers on the implementation of the program. Uh Food for Peace is a foreign aid program that consistently puts America first while helping those on the brink of starvation abroad. It supports American farmers, millers and mariners while delivering critical assistance to people facing famine worldwide. According to USDA, the US lost fifteen thousand farms in twenty twenty five. Arkansas, Georgia, Alva and Nebraska lead the nation in farm bankruptcies, which are this year up over forty-six percent. And I've heard from farmers that they're selling off land to make ends meet and pay their debts from last year. At a time when farmers are already facing rising input costs, tight margins and economic uncertainty, we should not cut programs off that help them. And our farmers are proud to contribute to a program that helps people, knowing that their commodities are making a global difference. I support the adoption of the amendment. I urge your support of it. And I yield back.

Thank you, gentlemen. Uh, the General Lady from Florida, Miss Wasserman-Chulch, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Deen's amendment. The majority on this committee paints the deep cuts to popular programs as the result of balancing what they call tough choices. This amendment is about a choice as well. Will the United States continue to lead with strength, compassion and common sense? Or will we walk away from one of the most effective tools we have to fight hunger, support American farmers and project our values around the world? To me, supporting food for peace is not a tough call, I've seen it in action when I've traveled around the world. It isn't some abstract program with a complex formula. It deploys American grown crops to stop hunger and save lives. It's that simple. There is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everyone on the planet. But hundreds of millions still go hungry every year, and this program helps to close that gap. This program rewards the hard work of American farmers, growers, shippers and longshoremen, leveraging their success into a force for global stability while investing in critical sectors of our economy. Food for Peace sends an essential message. The US government is not just an insurance company with the Navy, but a force for good and healing the world. For generations, America understood that feeding people wasn't separate from our national security. It's an essential part of it. If parents can't feed their children, desperation, instability, migration, extremism and conflict inevitably follow. For many people around the world, a bag of American grains is the only time they come face to face with an American flag. And in places where Americans don't travel, where nobody has met a US soldier or a diplomat, That sack of lentils leaves a heck of an impression. It tells them something about who we are. When there's someone in need, America shows up. Turning our back on food for peace while millions around the world face famine, conflict and displacement, and while American farmers get choked out of business by Trump's trade wars, is strategically foolish. Doing so, knowing that you're taking food from vulnerable children who will starve, is a moral outrage. Perhaps some of you remember when i spoke before this committee about what it when a child starves to death babies who are too weak to cry kids who can't stand up or speak because their muscles have dissolved away four year olds who will never grow tall with failing organs and sunken eyes when i offered that description last year three hundred fifty thousand children had been deprived of us food aid today that total stands in the millions millions of hungry children don't desensitize yourself to that to those numbers where is your outrage and i don't wanna hear ignorant comments about money being better spent here first off it is spent here the produce is brought is bought right here from american farmers and second republicans are cutting food systems to american children again in this same bill so let's be clear about the choice you make if you reject this amendment it doesn't just mean more children die from the slowest most painful death imaginable while their parents watch helplessly right next to them think about that it also means more pain for american food producers and more waste of taxpayer dollars from crops rotting in warehouses and here at home it means more volatility for american agriculture that will leave more american kids missing more meals this amendment offers a better choice sustain american leadership support american farmers cut grocery costs and address the root causes of instability and violence abroad we must fund food per piece and i'm glad to hear the chairman reference the conference process when our process functions well we end up making sure that we can come together and do the right thing i hope that happens in the conference committee at the end of this process i urge support of this amendment so we can buttress it from our point of view thank you so much i yield back

thanks general lady the general lady from florida miss

hello

oh

thank you mister chair um uh i rise in support of uh representative dean's amendment that would reverse the republicans proposed three hundred million dollar cut to food for beast returning to

come on come on

f twenty six levels and require a report on the program's effectiveness amid the transfer of responsibilities to usda ok anyway first i just wanna say this i love the farmers i appreciate the farmers and when i and i understand all the travails that farmers are going through today i wanna offer little different perspective here because um this is not should not just be obviously about farmers this was called this program is called food for peace p e a c e food for peace uh because it is part of a strategy to keep uh country's area stable so that we have peace uh and let's start with the reality we're facing there's probably almost seven hundred million people who are going to bed hungry every day it's not just a humanitarian crisis it is a national security issue um because hunger does not stay contained when people can't feed their families it fuels instability migration conflict and extremism and desperation becomes a recruiting tool uh governments become weaker and regions uh uh destabilized and and we know that those consequences don't just stay overseas they they reach our shores and that's why food for peace for the last seventy years has been one of our smartest tools to address uh this issue and it was a it is or was a humanitarian program with a strategic purpose uh feed people today so we don't send troops in tomorrow and food and i wanna emphasize this food assistance works best when it's paired with tools like clean water basic health care, nutrition support, even cash or vouchers, so families can buy locally and and recover. And and that's how this program worked when it when it was implemented by USAID. So this move to USAID uh is it's like it's like becoming simply moving commodities, uh losing the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively in ways that actually stabilize communities and so uh that's that's why i do think the request for report and for a study is so important so we can really think through what we are actually doing so you know we we can ask you know what what's the greatest need uh for where should we actually be sending these the surplus and instead of and prioritizing speed and flexibility and local uh because i'm very very concerned uh that we are by this transfer we're losing the experts we're losing the experts that that would understand all this so uh to me here little different point of view but feeding starving pill people and building resiliency should be the mission this program has always represented the best in american leadership our generosity our values and our understanding that preventing hunger prevents conflicts and really this to me this should have been a debate in yesterday's budget uh and uh obviously we're dealing with with something that the administration did without congressional consent i want i wanna emphasize again they transferred i mean this is like they transferred this program that was in the state department to now the department of agriculture without even talking to us hello folks we need to demand that the administration talks to us and some thought goes in to what they're doing anyway uh i do urge the restoration of the funding and that we we get this report so so we can really focus on what food for peace has done best and with that i uh yield back.

Thank you, General Lady, are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the General Lady is recognized for one minute to close.

Thank you, Chairman Cole, and I thank my colleagues for speaking so eloquently uh about this issue. You know, aren't we all critical of uh bogus names for legislation or for grants? But this is such a good, easy, understandable, well-stated, concise name. Food for peace. The connection is so present. Uh, if we continue to not do our job as leaders in the American wor in the in America, as an indispensable nation, if we fail to recognize starving people around the world, we are only walking ourselves into greater global conflict. Food for Peace is an extraordinary program. It not only, this amendment not only supports global security, our national security, it supports American farmers. How can we all not take that win-win? Uh, and I wanna echo what, uh, Miss Frankel just said. Are we not offended by the administration just shifting money that we appropriated that Congress passed and put into law, our article one section eight authority, and shove it over to USAID without the oversight and without the legislative authority? so i i wish that everybody here republicans and democrats would agree food for peace is a very important program we need to understand how it's working and how it is not i urge support of my amendment and i yield back

thank you general lady the question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from pennsylvania all those in favor say aye

aye aye

all opposed say no

no

can you chair the no's have it a recount a recount a um recorded vote probably a recount too in a minute but a recorded vote's been requested uh and sufficient sort support has been demonstrated call call the roll

mister adderhall

no

mister adderhall no mister aguilar

aye

mister aguilar aye mister alfred

no

mister alfred no mister amadei mrs. bice mrs. bice no mister bishop

aye

mister bishop aye mister calvert

no

mister calvert no mister carter no mister carter no mister case

aye

mister case aye mister siskamani no no mister siskamani no mister klein no mister klein no mister cloud no mister kleiburn aye mister kleiburn aye mister kleid negative

negative

mister kleid no mister kohl no

oh

mister kohl no mister kwayar aye mister kwayar aye mister dean aye mister dean aye mister loro mister loro aye mister diaz-ballard mr. diaz-ballard no mr. edwards

no

mr. edwards no mr. elzie mr. elzie no miss escobar

aye

miss escobar aye mr. espiat

aye

mr. espiat aye mr. fleishman

ok i'm going first

mr. fleishman

aye no

mr. fleishman no miss frankel

aye

miss frankel aye mr. franklin mr. franklin no mr. guest

no

mr. guest no mr. harder

aye

mr. harder aye doctor harris

no

doctor harris no mrs. hinson

no

mrs. hinson no mr. hoyer no work

yes

aye mr. hoyer aye mr. ivy aye mr. ivy aye mr. joyce mr. joyce no miss captor

aye yes

miss captor aye mr. lolota mr. lolota no miss lee miss letlow mr. levin mr. levin aye miss malloy aye

no

miss malloy no miss mccullum

aye

miss mccollum aye miss ming

aye

miss ming aye mr. molinar

no

mr. molinar no mr. moore

no

mr. moore no mr. morelli

aye

mr. morelli aye mr. mervan

aye

mr. mervan aye mr. newhouse mr. newhouse no miss perez miss pingree

aye

miss pingree aye mr. pokan

aye

mr. pokan aye mr. quigley

aye

mr. quigley aye mr. reichenthaler mr. rogers mr. rogers no mr. rutherford

no

mr. rutherford no mr. shreve

no

mr. shreve no mr. simpson

no

mr. simpson no mr. strong mr. strong no mrs. torres

aye

mrs. torres aye miss underwood

aye

miss underwood aye mr. valadeo

no

mr. valadeo no miss wasser-menschultz

aye

miss wasser-menschultz aye mrs. watson- Coleman

aye

mrs. watson- Coleman aye mr. womack

no no

mister womack no mister zinke

no

mister zinke no

any members wish to uh vote or change their vote seeing none court will tally

ok you're great ok

general eighty from nevada gentlemen from maryland

nicely bowtied uh a bowtie

thank you sorry

does bonnie wanna walk over the stage she's glad her ice cream is ready alright i can walk over the ice cream yeah i can walk over the ice cream hmm alright ok that's fine it's fine you can go i'm expecting i think it's still

i bet with more wood we have to do more amendments to make it look better I'm not We got it. We got it. I'm not un-handed, I just put words on the table.

On this vote, the ayes are twenty seven and the noes are thirty one. The amendment is not adopted. A gentlelady from Texas, Miss Escobar is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I ask unanim or I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for her mark.

thank you mister chairman colleagues i spoke on this amendment last year um but i will remind you about the conditions of what are known as colonias and in texas in the state of texas we have a significant number of them these are neighborhoods small communities generally in unincorporated parts of counties that have no water no waste water or sometimes failing septic tanks these are american cities american families and because of um the way that they developed they in many respects are like third world country conditions i am seeking a uh level of sixty million dollars funding The current funding level in the bill for uh the work that is needed to bring up the conditions is twenty million, a cut, a reduction in the normal appropriation. I am seeking your support so that we can help these families turn on their water faucet and they can get water, so that they can have functioning septic systems or functioning waste water access. And my community alone, we have fifty thousand US citizens who are living without this very fundamental service of water and wastewater. And my community is not the only one in America. And so the least we can do as one of the wealthiest countries in the world is ensure that American families are not living under third world conditions. Mister Chairman, thank you for the time. I yield back.

Thanks, gentlelady. Uh, the uh, gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to respond to the amendment.

Thank you very much uh, Mister Chairman. I I do rise in opposition to the amendment we we address uh, the need the uh, gentleman from Texas spoke about for these communities to actually be enabled to tap into the resources that are that are available. I appreciate, you know, the amendment's. uh water and waste disposal program uh which obviously uh serves important functions in rural areas including that rural area uh but we think the bill has already struck a balance and already provides funding for the program again we have uh in the manager's amendment adopted language that will uh encourage the department to uh connect these communities into the uh existing programs uh to take advantage of them uh the amendment is also not offset and would force us to go beyond our allocation So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Uh, this amendment restores funding for water and waste infrastructure in some of the most underserved communities in the country. Our underlying bill cuts this funding from sixty million to twenty million a reduction of two thirds. That's not a chum around the edges, it's a significant cut that will have real consequences on the ground. These funds support projects in Alaska Native communities, Native Hawaiian communities, tribal Native communities, and colonists along the Texas border. Many of these communities still lack reliable access to safe drinking water and adequate wastewater systems. In some cases, families are living without basic sanitation infrastructure that most of us in America take for granted. USDA has documented persistent gaps in water access in tribal and rural communities with public health implications. Cutting funding at this level will delay or cancel critical projects that are already in the pipeline. It'll also increase long-term costs as infrastructure needs become more severe over time. The Trump administration and the House Republicans are proposing to walk back investments in that can least afford it. This amendment simply restores funding to the level that Congress provided last year.

It's a substantial very substantial

It's a reasonable targeted correction that ensures

very substantial Mm-hmm.

continuity for essential infrastructure projects.

It's an essential

Access to clean water

Uh-huh.

amount of information.

is not optional.

It's a

It is a basic necessity and a public health priority.

really an essential

It is life. i support the adoption of the amendment and i yield back

thank you gentlemen the general lady from connecticut is recognized to uh address the amendment

i rise in support of the amendment and i urge your support uh let me also uh say today that uh we need to recognize today is the birthday of our vice ranking member of the committee mister morelli here so oh

mmm

not asking not asking for anybody's where is the crown where is the crown

mmm

where is the crowd wish you a great day and an evening uh vote yes and i yield back

i thought you were gonna sing happy birthday i think that's good

we can sing the song

we can we can yeah sing the song

ok let's go

which one's the first

which one are we doing the real one or the banner one

no it's a birthday song ok ok

the no the weiner one

banner one ok this is your birthday song it doesn't last too long hey

happy birthday thank you oh good

uh uh thank you very much uh the gentleman from hawaii uh mr. case is recognized to address the amendment

thank you uh mr. chair um i rise in full support of this amendment which i have cosponsored with my uh colleagues and i want to uh start just by reading directly from your committee report in describing this uh particular program and i quote rural areas continue to face immense needs and challenges in attaining safe and clean water and this program provides targeted and coordinated support for these communities and is essential for the delivery of safe dependable and affordable water and wastewater to rural america end quote i think that doesn't uh describe it any better than that i think we can all agree on that i agree with your committee report in that way um and in that light um this apt description uh describes why this invaluable program should not be reduced to start with um the overall reduction in this program is sixty point five million from four hundred and forty five million down to three hundred and eighty five million overall uh and that takes many many projects out of the mix

mmm

but but there is a subset of rural america a very unique subset that this amendment goes directly to where this reduction of sixty point five million is being felt disproportionately and this subset is especially vulnerable to the health safety and other crises from insufficient water and waste disposal capacities and i refer to colonias uh to american indian lands to native alaskan lands and to native hawaiian lands and this subset of sixty point five million is being born forty million to that particular subset and why is that why when this subset is the most needy of all of the lands in rural America, are they being asked to bear this reduction? Um, and their challenges arise from really a combination of challenges that face indigenous uh peoples and related peoples throughout our country and the particular conditions of the lands that they inhabit. And I use the Native Hawaiians as one example uh and this is both for the committee's education because sometimes Native Hawaiian uh issues are quite a mystery to many of you, uh steeped in history often unique to hawaii uh unique to the relationship between native hawaiians the social political trust relationship between native hawaiians and the federal government

hmm

but the history in this department uh goes back to nineteen twenty one some twenty three years after hawaii became a part of the united states and at that time native hawaiians uh were literally um on the verge of extinction as a peoples and as a culture and this congress adopted the very first a law that directly impacted native hawaiian is called the hawaiian homes commission act and what this law essentially did was to set aside two hundred thousand acres of hawaii for the use of native hawaiians to assist them with their housing to assist them with the maintenance of their culture and that law has stood for a hundred and five years and it has been enforced for a hundred five years and there is a long body of history and application and funding that goes along with these hawaiian homelands the dh lands. Now these lands, it was great news that they were set aside, but these lands were largely lands that were almost unutilizable for any real purpose. Uh, no roads, no water systems, no waste water systems, and yet today, hundred and five years later, they are critical, uh, to the Native Hawaiians and to our ability to provide for Native Hawaiians and for the trust relationship between Native Hawaiians and our country. and this particular program is critical to assisting native hawaiians on their lands with their water systems with their waste water systems and with their ability to utilize those lands and in that sense it is really no different i suspect from colonias from american indian lands from alaska native lands uh in their need to provide the basic capacity to live safely to operate uh effectively and to maintain their cultures and their customs and um their their interaction with the rest of our country and so this is this is not just about you know rural water and waste water this is about uh basically a social compact that we've carried uh for a long long time in the case of native hawaiians for well over a century on a very very specific law now i suspect the people that uh decided to cut this program had no clue about what i just described

hmm

let's just cut this program not worrying about it they probably don't even know what colonial are colonias or colonia are and they probably don't understand much of indian country also so i would expect and and hope that as this bill goes forward that this context is considered in in in future deliberations on what you do with this program going forward these are real people there's a real reason for this program to apply uh in this case i yield back

good job

Thanks gentlemen, are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Uh gentleman from Montana, Mister Zinke is recognized.

Will the will the gentleman yield from Hawaii? Just so I understand it, is it by treaty, or is it by law, or is it mandated spending, or is it discretionary spending? How how is it how is it structured?