Business meeting to consider an original bill entitled, "Agricultural Act of 2026".

To order today's business meeting of the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to consider an original bill, the Agriculture Act of two thousand twenty six what I'd like to call farm bill two point O. Before I begin my formal comments, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell. who continues his recovery and is unable to join us at today's business meeting. I spoke with Senator McConnell yesterday. I know how much he would have wanted to be here to advocate for Kentucky's farmers and rural communities. Throughout his career, Senator McConnell has been a steadfast champion for the bluegrass's state's agricultural producers, advancing policies that expand opportunity, strengthen rural America, and enhance the competitiveness of American agriculture. He's served on this committee his entire tenure in the Senate, and this is the eighth farm bill he has helped shape. Few members bring the depth of experience and institutional knowledge that he does, or better understand how important this legislation is to America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. His leadership has helped deliver meaningful solutions for the men and women who work every day, to feed, fuel and clothe our nation. We wish them a full and speedy recovery, and we look forward to welcoming them back to the committee soon. During this journey of drafting a new farm bill, I've visited with many states while I was in North Dakota with Senator Hoven, a good, as you all know, a good friend of all of ours. A woman told me that we need to put more farm in the farm bill. That statement stuck with me and it served as a mantra during this process. Last year we answered the call for more farm in the farm built through the Working Families Tax Cut Act. Those improvements delivered meaningful support to producers by strengthening commodity programs, expanding access to affordable crop insurance, improving disaster assistance, investing in a ma- in uh animal health programs, and making farm programs more responsive to the risks that farmers face every day. The bill before you today, farm bill two point O, is a sincere attempt to finalize our work for the farmers, ranchers and producers in rural communities that are the backbone of our nation and give them the five year farm bill they deserve. Beyond that, this legislation, once we adopt the end block amendment, represents the best and final offer I can make to address the concerns of the minority that they have raised on the supplemental nutrition assistance program. I wanna be clear, a two year delay does not have the support of the majority in Congress or of the White House. The offer before you is the best and it's the final offer. Should this legislation be defeated today, current law will remain in effect and states with poorly administered SNAP programs will begin to pay for the portion of the benefit cost next year. We've worked very hard to provide a one-year extension. In return we've gotten it's two years or nothing. And by the way, we don't even discuss the farm bill until you give us two years. How's that taking care of hard-working families trying to make a living in farm country? In the last year, Arkansas has had more farm bankruptcies than the last four and a half years combined. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Fischer, Thune, Capito, Daines. And again, many of you around this table, uh people like uh Senator Grassley, you know, everybody's worked so hard to get an opportunity to have your real around E fifteen. Today. Uh. Because of the hard work of Senators Fisher, Thune, Capito, Daines and Grassley and many of you on this side. Again, I I don't wanna I'm not gonna start pointing everybody out, but I know how hard you all have worked also and certainly Amy's been right with that group. But we got a chance today to pass after the first time out of committee, the legislation that will authorize the blending of E fifteen year-round. I'm proud of the bill we put together. It builds on the House-passed-Farm bill. This is the best opportunity to do good things for our farmers. rural communities, and the future of agriculture. This bill incorporates more than a hundred bipartisan bills and priorities from my colleagues, with feedback from farmers, ranchers, and rural community leaders. We took great effort to craft a bipartisan product that reflects the needs and ideas for uh producers from every region of the country. In Arkansas, producers are facing extraordinary difficult circumstances just like everyone is throughout the country. I've heard first hand from farm families whose roots in agriculture struck back for many generations. Today, many are being forced to decide whether to continue operating at a loss or close their operations for good. I know every member of this committee has heard similar stories from farmers back home. These are families who rise before dawn every day to grow the food, fuel and fiber that sustain our nation. They aren't asking for special treatment, they're asking for the certainty and support they need to keep farming. They're looking for us to act. They're looking to us for hope. This farm bill provides that hope. It gives producers the tools and the confidence they need to keep farming, keep investing and keeping It's such that they feed America. This legislation is about far more than agricultural policy. It's about ensuring family farms remain viable, rural communities remain strong, and future generations have the opportunity to carry forward America's proud agriculture tradition. We built a farm bill for the people who feed America, and today we'll see who talks about supporting farmers and who's voting to help farmers. I now recognize the ranking member for any comments she may have.

Thank you very much, Chairman Bozeman, and I appreciate our long and i'm hopeful that while we don't have complete agreement today uh we are making the bill better with some bipartisan um amendments that will be uh voted on initially today um and that uh those will be helpful but as you know there is still work to do on snap as you referenced and the in the end uh given the effects of the tariffs on families across United States. Given the effect of the war in Iran, um and the effect that it's had on the price of gas and diesel, it is impossible for us to believe that we can't, when seventy billion dollars um has been requested for the war in Iran and another seventy billion dollars was added to ICE, uh that we can't find a way uh to do uh this extra year um to help states across the country and this is not uh just blue states at all it's also a whole bunch of red states. I saw this coming uh with this problem when I wrote an op-ed back uh in July in the Washington Post and that is that three hundred ninety-eight days ago HR one went into effect carrying with it a hundred eighty-seven billion dollar cut to snap the largest cut in history to the nation's foremost anti-hunger program. This also coincided with the tariffs, as I mentioned, that have raised the prices of groceries as well as other household goods. Since that bill was enacted, at least four point five million people, including one point five million children, are without SNAP. The legislation also created this mandate that pushed tens of billion dollars and costs onto the states. As I noted in the op-ed back in July, despite claiming to prioritize the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse, which are goals that I fully support, H R one, because of some last minute legislative manipulation to get a vote of the senator from Alaska, rewarded high error rate states with an unfair formula that left mid error rate states as the losers. And all we are asking for here is equal footing for states like Pennsylvania, so that they are on the same footing as states like Alaska or states like Georgia. Now, the states with the high error rates are being rewarded still, and I do appreciate the chairman's acknowledgement of this problem for the one-year change. But for that second year, the high error rate states are still being rewarded at the expense of all states, with mid error rates, including my state, where this will go directly to the counties on county taxpayers. In the dead of the night a year ago, Republicans decided to give states with the highest snap error rate special treatment. This was not a decision made based on sound policy. I've never seen anything like this in my years in Congress. where high error rate or the biggest problems were rewarded. They made this to get the vote of the senator from ex uh Alaska. And now, under the original proposal, Alaska with an error rate twice that of Minnesota would get off scot-free for two years, while Minnesota and any mid-error state, including Arkansas, Kansas and Michigan would have to find tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in their We have seen this ill-fated policy play out this year. Take the state of Florida, for example. Florida successfully lowered their error rate this year, their reward being saddled with a nine hundred million dollar penalty, nearly doubling their state's budget deficit. On the other hand, another state actually increased their error rate and will now be exempt from paying six hundred fifty million dollars. Democrats have made clear that every state should get equal treatment in reducing their error rate. We share the goal of reducing error rates. States and counties need the time, but it's not just about the time, it's about the equal footing. And while again I appreciate that one year has been included in this bill, exactly it is a band-aid because one year from now again you're gonna have the same thing play out. with a high error rate states up there in their pristine position, not having to have any cost shifts while the rest of us suffer. The one year delay under discussion today would allow states like Alaska to keep their two year delay, while states like Minnesota, Colorado, California and Oklahoma would be in a worse position if they cannot bring down their FY twenty twenty eight error rates to the magic six percent. which begins next fall. So why is Alaska with an error rate of forty twenty-three percent still eligible for the two year delay and Minnesota at twelve percent is not? But beyond nutrition, I appreciate that this bill includes many provisions with bipartisan support. The bill, as the chairman noted before us today, increases farm loan limits. a provision that Senator Hoeven and I have worked on together. Great entry moment. Uh, it increases, uh, resources for trade promotion and, of course, as the chairman noted, includes year-round E-fifteen, something that I have been leading on on our side with various Republican senators and with Senator Durbin uh and Senator Smith, and Senator Slotkin. and others for years i can't tell you how important this is and whether it is in this bill as we continue to negotiate it over the summer um for the remaining month or whether it is on a floor vote on e fifteen something i discussed last night uh with senator schumer and have discussed in the past with senator thune um we need to get e fifteen done and the house did do a stand alone vote on this and can do the same, but I'll I'll obviously the preferable way to do this is to reach an agreement on SNAP, um, since we have some other disagreements, Mister Chairman, but for the most part a lot of the work has been done on this bill. This bill includes other bipartisan provisions that I support, like strengthening the farm and ranch stress assistance network to help farmers struggling with stress in these tough times, as well as efforts to expand pathways to careers in agriculture. culture through community colleges. The bill also includes several items I have championed with Leaderthun, like the new fertilizer price reporting system and parts of our proposal to improve and add flexibility to the conservation reserve program. I want us to get to a bipartisan agreement. I think people know that that is how I have operated in this place, and that's what I wanna get done. That includes working together to make improvements to provisions in this uh including conservation that will benefit our farmers. But first and foremost, that includes addressing this ridiculous situation where still in year two, the high error rate states get off scot-free and the mid error rate states are left to have all this money put on their state taxpayers, or in my case and a few others, their county taxpayers. Congress should be doing so much more to tackle the challenges facing our farmers in rural towns. We should be providing resources for states. We should be working on supply chains. And we should be doing things that are um some in this committee's jurisdiction with economic development but also outside of it. Like what's been happening with rural hospitals because of these uh Medicaid cuts. Because of what's been happening because of the decision not to extend the tax credit for to bring down the insurance premiums under the individual marketplace plans which are inordinately used in rural America, um and all over in every state, but particularly in rural America. Eight million people through the Medicaid cuts and through the decisions on the Affordable Care Act tax credit premiums reductions have lost their health insurance and again it has inordinately affected rural America. hr one has been in effect for three hundred ninety eight days. And again, I believe we can still reach agreement on this bill. But this big bill has been out there for six days. That's how long it's been in public. And while I appreciate uh Senator Bozeman's most recent conceptual draft and that it incorporates feedback to the original draft after we met with him in June we got this less than a week ago. There still needs to be work, and we have narrowed our areas of negotiation like you would do in any negotiation, to some key provisions. And of course, the most important thing for us, as we said in our letter in June, every one of us on this committee, from very different ideological stands and very different states, have made it clear that we're not going to allow this situation to continue to exist for a year extra where states are treated differently and are not on equal footing. I appreciate the effort to bring us closer to an agreement, and I hope that when all is said and done today, we do not leave divided. Instead, we leave united in our plan to find a compromise that will bring the votes to get this done. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, before proceeding to legislation, Without objection, letters to sent to the committee regarding the legislation we are considering today will be included in the record. Without objection, members will be committed will be permitted sub to submit their statements regarding today's legislation for the record. Finally, without objection, we will consider all amendments by title. The committee will now proceed to consider the Agriculture Act of two thousand sixteen. I'm pleased that after over the last week we have been able to incorporate a number of additional member priorities in the form of an unblock package uh that include the following amendments. Bozeman number one, technical amendments plus the CART Act plus Fertilizer Transparency Act clarification. Bozeman number two, nutrition. Choice of error rate fiscal year twenty-six or seven. savings reinvested into tfap uh justice number one hot rotisserie chicken in snap Moran number one food for peace Hoven number one prairie dogs Hyde-smith number one cool seafood uh Hyde-smith number four ROPS Hoven Number three, State Fl- Conservation, Justice number two, the Flood Act. Uh Justice number three, Farm Credit Rural Housing Study, GRASI number one is modified fertilizer. GRASI number two, CFTC whistleblower. Fisher number one, Conservation, Countries of Concern, Tuberville, Timber Block Grants, Thune, Two with theme two second degree voluntary update. McConnell one, White Oak NRCS initiative. Lujan farmer to farmer. Federman chip EBT cards. Bennett sixteen RUS. Shift eleven with shift two second degree healthy lungs. Uh shift nine CREP. Shift twenty, specialty crop definition. Shift nineteen, National Clean Plant Network. Warnock number ten, eighteen ninety centers of excellence, Warnock number one, David Scott scholarship program. Durbin number eight, Shawnee lands update and technical correction. Slotkin number two, cyber security risk assessment and emergency simulation exercise. Warnock number eleven, uh Ayers property, Warnock number two. Benton McKay, Trail Study. Smith, fourteen, Community Facilities Lending. Welsh, tier one, DMC. Booker, number ten, Office of Small Farms. Slotkin, number five. Uh FFR Funding, Luhan, eight, Modified LPA. Without objection, I move that these amendments be adopted on block.

Miss, Mister Chairman.

Yes.

Um, thank you for your work and our staff's and your staff's work on this, and there are a lot of amendments included in this unblock that I support. Um, increased funding to food banks who are working to meet record demand, thank you for that. Funding local food purchases from small and mid-sized farms. Investments in the foundation for food and agriculture research. Assisting our small dairy farmers with free basic coverage under the da- dairy margin coverage program. making sure small farmers have a seat at the table, uh, allowing for hot rotisserie to be purchased with snap dollars. Uh, this is popular and affordable option, and I'm glad that this amendment was included. Uh, there's also an amendment in this from Senator Thune allowing for a limited expansion of base acres, something I know we care about very much. Finally, I share a desire for the USDA to succeed in operating Food for Peace with Senator Moran. and others and his language is a strong start in giving the usda the authority it needs and congress the information and oversight roles that it requires uh but it's not quite there yet and while i am supporting this overall package i ask that chairman bozeman and senator moran commit to continuing to work with senator schaheen uh at her request uh and me on a bill that we can all agree on that will set up the food for peace program to succeed and save lives around the world But as we proceed on that, um, I am supporting this amendment, even though it is by voice vote. Thank you.

No. Uh, thank you very much, and I agree, I think you summed up the food for peace issue very, very well. We're committed to working out some kinks, but uh, I think we're in the process of getting there. So we're gonna do this by voice or,

Yeah.

OK? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. And it is carried.

Thank you, Senator Moran. I'd like to be recognized.

Senator Moran.

Mr. Chairman, uh, in in in response to Senator Klobuchar and and others, let me first bef before I express uh what she wants to hear, which I will, I wanna thank you and uh your staff for working with me on this amendment to transfer food for peace from USAID, from the State Department to the Department of Agriculture. Uh, this language is a product of months of work with members of staffs on both sides of the aisle, authorizers and appropriators alike, all committed to preserving this historic and valuable program. I also wanna thank the Department of Agriculture for their extensive technical assistance they provided throughout this process. Their expertise helped shape the language today. Uh, food for peace is on a temporary basis. uh, in a sense on loan from the State Department to, uh, the Department of Agriculture under an agreement that both Secretary Rubio and Secretary of Agriculture both support. Uh, and, uh, this program is important, I hope, to all of us, uh, all of us in this room and all of us in the Senate. Uh, its creation came years ago at a Farm Bureau meeting in St. Francis Kansas on the Colorado and Nebraska borders, where a farmer said, " Look at all this grain we have sitting here, and there are hungry people around the world." Uh, and it was worked its way up, the process, and became legislation and passed into law, signed by President Eisenhower, uh, now a long time ago. Uh, it is well-regarded in our state and I assume well-regarded in yours. It demonstrates the generosity of Americans. It's the best of American agriculture. It's why I tell farmers that they have a noble profession. feeding a hungry world. In one of my numerous midlife crises, I decided I was going to use my time in the United States Senate and my time in the United States House uh being involved in the hunger caucus, both domestic and global. And I wanna make sure that this program uh fulfills the needs. It benefits farmers and ranchers, but it fulfills the needs of hungry people. And I wanna make sure that my uh moral commitment to seeing that that occurs continues to occur. It gener generates, it it demonstrates, excuse me, the the generosity of American agriculture in our nation. Um, wheat grown in Kansas, rice grown in Arkansas, a fact just delivered yesterday under the current program uh to Africa. Uh, it is examples, but it's it's commodities in everyone's states. not just those. And it has fed millions of people while creating markets for our producers. The success of this program depends upon the American farmer, and it seems to me no one knows the American farmer better than USDA, as far as a federal government agency. And over the past year, under an inter-agency agreement, the Department of State, USDA has demonstrated that it has both the expertise and capacity, the capability, to deliver commodities to countries around the globe. The language, this language provides what USDA currently doesn't have. The certainty to ensure the program continues to operate effectively and efficiently for years to come. The farm bill, this farm bill represents our uh opportunity to provide that stability. Leaving this program in a temporary arrangement will create uncertainty for producers, implementing partners, and the millions of people who rely upon American food assistance. Congress has an opportunity to provide a permanent home for this program and I believe it's our responsibility. I thank my fellow congressmen from Kansas, Tracy Mann, Senator Hoven in his his appropriation role, uh and others here, Senator uh uh Welch, uh Senator Booker, uh and I've had extensive conversations uh with uh my colleague in appropriations and the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Shaheen. We had a recently a recent conversation, as recent as yesterday, And I made to her a commitment that we will continue to work. There are a couple of things that are broader issues in here that we have some disagreement on, but nothing that should stand in the way of missing the opportunity for us to add this legislation to a farm bill, and particularly a farm bill that I hope that becomes law soon. So thanks to to um we've also I should I should not fail to mention Senator Risch uh as well in the Foreign uh Affairs Committee. So, I appreciate the working relationship that I have with all of you. And, Mister Chairman, Food for Peace represents the best of American agriculture, and it's the best of in American's leadership around the world. And if any of you have seen the people who line up to get our the benefit of our bounty at a time in which the agriculture's producers are struggling and a time in which there's hunger, extensive hunger around the world, uh, I encourage you to take pride in what we're doing here today, to advance the cause of the continuation of food for peace. Transferring this program to USDA will strengthen both, both those who need food and those who provide food. And I thank you, Mister Chairman and Senator Klobuchar, and I yield back.

Uh, thank, thank you. Uh, we will now begin considering amendments by title. The committee is open to any amendment to title one. Who seeks recognition?

Mister Chairman?

Yes.

Mister Chair, I ask to be recognized to call up my amendment, Lujan five, and have it considered for a vote.

Yes.

Uh,

Is that

Mister Chairman, I wanna start by thanking Senator Slotkin and Schiff and for all of the offices that we were able to have conversations with about the importance of specialty crops. Uh, Mister Chairman, I'm reminded that Every one of us in all of our states, we have specialty crops,

Yes.

um and and we all love the specialty crops that that we raise and we often try to share them with one another. Um, today I brought a a few pecans around and so I I hope to continue to to share them, as well with others. Now, this amendment is important because my home state of New Mexico produces many of the specialty crops that um many of us love and uh some of us eat on a daily basis from a world famous chili to the onions that dress up our plates a little bit to the pistachios and pecans that I share with a lot of you here in Washington DC. Now, Mister Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work that you and the staff did to include language that will create a framework to provide specialty crop producers across the country some support. The reason for this amendment, though, is the language currently in the farm bill stops at that, it creates a framework. But there's no requirement for that framework to be utilized down the road, and there's no funding. And the last time that President Trump uh moved funding for producers across the country some twelve or thirteen billion dollars, about a billion dollars was set aside for specialty crop producers. But most of that went to one specialty crop, and then the rest of our specialty crop producers, they just didn't get that kind of support, and any of you that have talked to them or visited them, You know they're having a hard time. And so this, this idea here would help us in places like Mississippi, blueberries and pecans, West Virginia with apples, Alabama with those delicious strawberries, Tommy, uh, California grapes, and of course the famous Georgia peaches, my friend.

Yes.

Um, in fact, every state in this country, as I said, has a specialty crop footprint. So from the rising costs of oil and gas to, you know, especially that diesel, that that is just pushing so many folks right now. This amendment provides five billion dollars in farmer assistance, requires the USDA use the specialty crop emergency framework created by the farm bill, common sense policy to help our farmers and ranchers across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I now move that Luhan number five be voted on.

Mister Chairman.

Yes.

Um, just briefly, um, I don't even like calling it specialty crops specialty crops. I think they should be called food we eat. Um, uh, but these crops have been hit especially uh trade wars and the tariffs both in terms of the impact on lost market shares and the impact on high input costs and while these farmers receive some assistance we appreciate this through the assistance for specially cropped farmers program um the structure of the program should be streamlined to make it easier for farmers to access and i support this amendment and appreciate uh senator loohans and others work on this i urge my colleagues to vote yes

Mister Chairman.

Then a shift.

Thank you, Chairman, uh, before I address the amendment, which I fully support, I want to uh, thank you Mister Chairman and your staff. Uh, it's been a pleasure working with you and I appreciate the way you conduct this committee. Um, I'm new to the Agriculture Committee, but have spent a lot of the last two years traveling the state and meeting with farmers and have just extraordinary appreciation and respect for the hard work they do, many of them multi-generational families. Um, and I certainly appreciate the inclusion of a number of provisions that are important to specialty crop farmers, uh, and California farmers more generally. I share my colleague's concern, though, over the deep, uh, cuts to food for families, uh, in the SNAP program. Um, California is particularly hit hard by these cuts and, um, delaying the imp- the imposition of the cuts, but not ameliorating them or giving California a chance to reduce uh an error rate while states with higher error rates get a break. Uh, it's just not something I can support. It will shift billions of dollars away from California and we're already a donor state. Uh, we already provide a lot more state to the federal, uh, f- funding the federal government that we get back. But I hope we'll continue working on this. I desperately want a foreign bill. I think we all do. Um, and hopefully we can get there by addressing this deficit that was created in the big, beautiful bill. that is leaving millions of people, including children, without food. Um, in terms of the specialty crop amendment, uh, that I joined my colleague in offering, um, California number one ag producing state union, certainly number one in specialty crops. Uh, our farmers have been asking for, um, five billion in funding. The one point six billion is simply not enough to help these farmers, uh, get through these difficult times. Um, I'll talk more later about the disaster assistance, but the specialty crop farmers in California has simply gotten very little from the federal government. Uh, most of the agriculture money goes to the Midwest and the South, and most of it goes to very big farms. Uh, we have a lot of small farms and some big ones in California too. Um, but uh, they need more assistance than was provided in this bill, and I support my colleague's amendment. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does anybody else seek recognition? Uh, hearing none, the ayes and nays are ordered. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.

Senator Klobuchar.

Aye.

Senator Bennett.

Aye.

Senator Smith.

Aye.

Senator Durbin.

Aye.

Senator Booker.

Aye.

Senator Lujan.

Aye.

Senator Warnock.

Aye.

Senator Welch.

Aye.

Senator Fetterman. Senator Schiff.

He's down there.

I'm sure. Aye.

Senator Slotkin.

I vote proxy.

Senator McConnell.

Uh, no by proxy.

Senator Hoven. Senator Ernst.

No.

Senator Hydes-Smith.

Yeah, that's better.

senator marshall

no

senator tubberville

no

senator justice

no

senator grassley

no

senator thune

no

senator fisher

uh-huh

senator moran

no

chairman bozeman

no

the i's are eleven the no's are twelve

the i's are Eleven and the nays are twelve. Uh the amendment fails. Is anybody else recognized with uh title one?

Chairman.

Yes sir.

I'd like to call up uh I'd like to be recognized uh to call up my amendment, welch number seventeen and have it considered for a vote.

Without objection, yes sir.

Thank you. Um and first of all I think I wanna say something on behalf of all of us and that's a thank you to our

What exactly was the nightcap, sir?

It was it was bourbon.

Brunch.

it was from tennessee yeah um but the serious question that we are grappling with and we don't have all the tools we need to do it is the reality that american agriculture is really in crisis you know our farmers are in are creating an immense amount of wealth they're just not getting any of it and when i saw the a graph from the secretary of agriculture that eleven major commodities crops, is costing more to plant and harvest than it is the revenue that our farmers get. That is not a sustainable situation. Uh, and that's the existential challenge that I think we have in this committee, to restore the vitality of American agriculture. Uh, one of the things of concern to me is that some of the commodity programs, the support goes to people who don't drive tractors. senator grassley uh has been a leader on this and when i learned that ninety two thousand people in urban areas received about two point six billion dollars uh that's of concern to me cause i would like the support we provide to agriculture to go to people on tractors uh not in cities uh but my amendment is narrow in that it is calling for an audit uh of where the agricultural risk program uh coverage and the price loss coverage error rates breach six percent what my amendment would do is mandate an audit on any farming operation if there's more than one farm manager or more than three people are eligible to receive subsidy payments for that farm so basically this question of an audit in error rates that's something that is very much included uh when it comes to uh uh the snap program but the same principle that we're applying to the snap program should not that be applied uh to these payment programs uh that are going uh to the manager so uh that in some cases it's a so-called manager in other cases it's a legitimate farm operation uh so that's the thrust of my uh amendment.

Uh, Senator Grassley.

Yeah. Mister President, uh or Mister Chairman, uh this is the seventh farm bill I've been involved in since nineteen ninety two that I've been on this committee and this is the first one I can recall that we're not doing on a bipartisan basis. Now I have been talking with Senator Welch for months about several pieces of legislation along the lines of making sure just legitimate farmers get it and uh i'm sorry to say that since this is turned out to be a bipartisan uh partisan mark-up i can't uh vote for amendment that i agree with you on second mark yeah second page uh and i'm sorry to say that because i think you and i believe that uh people that uh are actively engaged uh ought to be the only ones receiving farm payments.

Yeah, thank you.

And we know that uh when we uh give uh seventy percent of the farm payments to ten percent of the biggest farmers in this country, we're going way beyond what the safety net for farmers has been s in the last ninety years. To protect people that can't protect themselves, just like in small business we have Main Street help through small business, we don't try to help John Deere's very much, or big corporations. Uh, ju the same way when we have uh big, big farmers, uh we shouldn't subsidize them to get bigger, so we'll subsidizing them to get bigger, uh so they can drive up the price of farmland, or they uh uh outbid young farmers that have to pay cash rent. Uh, that's what's wrong. But there's so many areas that I was working with Schiff and Fetterman, well Fetterman we got our bill in. I was working with Klobuchar on fertilizer legislation. But there's three or four pieces of legislation here, where we really would have improved this bill for the family farmers, if we had a bipartisan approach. And I'm just sorry that I can't vote for for amendment that you and I agree on. But uh uh maybe some where along the lines we'll be able to do it. Now I was going to do the same thing on the first reconciliation bill. And I was talked out of it by the chairman of this committee and Senator Hyde-Smith. I shouldn't have been talked out of it. I should have pushed it at that time. But I was told I could get help down the road. I haven't seen that help. And I'm irritated about that. But we can't have a partisan bill on the floor of the united states center we don't get anything done for the family farmers and there's so much we could have done along the lines of what you and i have been trying to do because uh we uh we should be helping those farmers that can't help themselves and when you're farming fifty thousand acres uh of farmland uh your we shouldn't subsidize you to get bigger we shouldn't subsidize your cash rent so you can squeeze out other farmers Uh we gotta be helping uh young people to get into agriculture. The average age of farmers in America is fifty eight years. We gotta encourage young people to get in. Your amendment would do it. Now if you can, on your side of the aisle, if you can get more uh cooperation for us to get a bill out in a bipartisan way,

Right.

I'm surely going to help you. But I can't help you move a bill where it's going we don't don't get any help from the other side of the aisle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Um, uh, Senator Bozeman, I just wanna thank uh, Senator Welch for his work, and I have worked as noted with Senator Grousey on these issues and he has long cared, uh, very much about farm program integrity and this amendment is a targeted provision, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Anybody else? Senator Grassley, we I am committed to helping you in working with this, regardless of whatever the rule is. I believe wholeheartedly, as you do, that the rules need to be followed. OK? I don't agree that this needs to be changed. Uh, I would ask Senator Welch, if this is so important, why is it that their programs don't have any actively engaged requirements? you don't have any actively engaged requirements. So you're asking us to do this with this particular sector, but dairy itself has no actively engaged requirements.

Well, you know, first of all

It has no payment, it has no payment limitations.

And on on on the uh first of all the the the the dairy farmers are on the farm. I mean they're in the dairy farm, it's unbelievable what's happened to dairy farmers. They're not only working on the farm, they're working off the farm. The only way dairy farmers

They don't have to be.

is that they're milking the cows and then one of the partners is out there working in the city uh to get uh uh for a for a wage job because they can't make it.

I No.

So, you know, bottom line here is that on the accountability question that should be a principle that we apply across the board, whether it's uh the SNAP program or it's a it's a it's a uh support program The intention of Congress is that the actual farmer get the money, or the actual person who's in need of nutrition gets the nutrition aid. So when it comes to this principle of accountability, I'm all in on any program. And it, by the way, should apply to the Pentagon as well. Accountability, where are you spending the money? Is it going to what it is we say? So, Mister Chairman, I'm in agreement with your point that what applies should apply across the board. I'm good with that. But, you know, Senator Grassley, I think, said it better than anybody, and of course he's got such credentials on the farm. The bottom line here is that all of us care about our farmers who are actually in the fields and on the tractors. That's who we care about. And so much of what they, wealth they create goes to so many others, they don't get any of it. And it's an incredible crisis. Uh, and and I know we all share that. OK, I mean this is one of the things about just being a bipartisan program. I mean the I've been uh to Nebraska and the farms out there, those people they're they're wonderful. Iowa the same thing, but that's true in Vermont. So I I I am gonna I do call for a vote on this, Mister Chairman,

OK.

but I hear your point and I appreciate it.

I

Oh wow.

Mister Chairman, again.

Yes sir.

Uh I I still haven't figured out this opposition to knowing where this money goes. And if it's going to somebody on Wall Street, that doesn't ever see the farm, never get dirt under their fingernails, I think it's pretty darn simple, we ought to know that. And that's something, if we had to buy parts of the bill outta here, this would be in there, what you wanna do. I can assure you of that.

Thank you.

So, Senator Welsh, right now, if you have a dairy farm of twenty, if you've got a dairy farm of a hundred, if you've got a dairy farm of five thousand, or ten thousand, uh the actively engaged requirements don't apply the payment limitations don't apply they're all the same there's no there's nobody looking over that

ok mister chair

so would you consider doing a secondary amendment and adding uh dairy to this

i would be absolutely open to considering the legitimate accountability principle that we're discussing here on everything including dairy i won't do it at this moment without having an opportunity to examine it. I mean my amendment has been out there, the the work that Senator uh Grassley has been doing has been out there. But the principle you're saying I think is a good principle to be applied across the board.

Well, for the dairy listeners, don't misunderstand, I don't want to do this to you. Uh and I would ask i- if nobody else has anything to comment I would ask that our members uh oppose the bill. The clerk will call the call the roll.

Senator Klobuchar.

Aye.