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

I call the business meeting to consider the Agriculture Act of twenty twenty-six, out of recess, from August sixth, and back into session. We will hold all remarks, including my own and ranking members until after the vote.

Chair, I seek recognition.

Yes.

Mister Chairman, I seek recognition, I call up Ernst first degree number one, which I timely filed before the August fourth deadline.

The deadline for filing amendments is passed. We agreed at the beginning of the business meeting on August sixth to consider amendments title by title. We've closed all out all the titles and moved to reporting the legislation.

Mister Chairman, this is not a new amendment. Ernst first degree number one was filed by the August

We disagree. The clerk will call the roll.

Senator Klobuchar.

I I appeal.

No, she's going.

Senator Klobuchar.

I appeal the ruling of the chair.

Senator Sen

I need a ruling from the chair.

The clerk will call

Senator

I need I need a ruling from the chair.

Senator Smith. Senator Durbin.

I need a ruling from the chair.

Senator Booker.

I need a ruling from the chair.

Senator Lujan.

Well, the ruling from the chairman right now is, it's out of order.

Mister Chairman,

We're gonna call the roll.

parliamentary inquiry, if the chair is ruling that my timely filed amendment is not in order,

Obitur.

Oh, sure.

Senator Bennett.

if so, would the chair state the procedural basis for that ruling?

Yes. Senator Durbin.

And I do a motion to table. I don't know what this is.

Senator Booker.

And

I appeal the ruling of

Chairman, what is the rule?

Senator Hahn.

We don't we don't know what the vote is.

Senator Warnock.

The vote is to

Senator Ben Ahman.

if it's to sustain the ruling of the chair, is that the vote?

Yeah.

Senator Welch.

The vote

Hold on. Hold on just a second. The vote is on the motion to approve. Mm-hmm. I didn't expect this. The. The question is on reporting the Agriculture Act. The question is on reporting the Agriculture Act of twenty twenty six as amended as an original bill, that Clark will call and roll.

No. No. No. Senator Durbin. No. Senator Booker. No. Senator Lujan. No. Senator Warnock.

No, by proxy.

We come back for four more minutes. Senator Welch.

No.

Come back for four more minutes. Senator Fetterman. We could go fast.

No.

Senator Schiff.

No, by proxy.

Senator Slotkin.

No, by proxy.

Senator McConnell.

No. Aye.

Senator McConnell.

Aye.

Senator Hoven.

Aye.

Senator Ernst.

I haven't done that yet. I would like to call.

Call up.

Mm-hmm.

Um, and I'd like to,

Senator.

I'd like to make a statement, Mister Chairman, Ernst Ernst's first degree amendment number one was Your timely filed by the committee's August fourth deadline. The committee recessed rather than adjourned. W- welcome, you're welcome to speak.

Senator Hyde-Smith. Senator Marshall.

Oh, good.

I therefore maintain that Ernst's first degree

Senator Tuckerbell.

Good.

number one is in order and properly before.

Senator Johnson.

Senator Brans-

Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley?

Good.

S- Senator Thune. Senator Fischer. Senator Fischer.

Aye.

Senator Moran. Aye.

Yeah, call Senator Ernst. You can call Senator Grassley.

Senator Ernst. Aye.

Aye.

Senator Grassley. Aye.

Two twelve.

The ayes are eleven.

Go.

The ayes are twelve, excuse me. Chairman Bozeman.

I was gonna wonder. Aye.

The ayes are twelve, the noes are eleven.

The ayes are twelve, the noes are eleven. The Agriculture Act of twenty twenty six will be reported. I ask for unanimous consent in preparing this legislation for reporting. The staff will be authorized to make technical, clarifying and conforming changes as appropriate. Seeing no objection, I'm sure.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. Um, Mister Chairman, while I may not agree with uh or vote with the Senator from Iowa on her asking to overrule the chair,

The time is over, still. Yeah.

procedurally, the Senator from Iowa is recognized there's procedure here that is supposed to protect the voices of colleagues to raise issues that matter to us in our state. And so I Again, reserving the right to object here, I,

You know.

I just don't understand that one there, Mister Chairman.

As you know, I work really hard to protect the rights of everybody here,

Yeah.

OK. Uh, all of the titles we agreed at the start that we would do it by title. We closed out all of the titles. They're all closed. So what we're doing is coming back from the recess that we had OK. and going head forward.

And Mister Chairman.

Rather than opening the bill up.

Mister Chairman,

If we did that.

I I understand that, but when the Senator was recognized and if in fact it's the decision of the chair to say someone's out of order, then every one of us reserves the right to challenge the ruling of the chair, which then could prompt a vote as well. And so because the Senator from Iowa was recognized and then just run over, that does not sound like the rights of those of us that sit on the committee were protected. And so again, while I may not vote with the Senator from Iowa here, I don't understand why the rights of the members to challenge the ruling of the chair things by nature would be preserved. I, you have the votes.

Mm-hmm.

Mister Chairman, the Republicans are in the majority, everyone's here today. You have the votes to move the bill forward. You're going to win the vote.

Mm-hmm.

I see that. I was just surprised by that. So, Mister Chairman, I reserve uh my my right to object on that. I just wanted to Ask that simple question.

Um

Thanks, Fenway.

Mr.

Miss and Mister Chair, I'd like to be recognized as well.

Mister Chairman?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. I was hoping that we'd get a chance to vote on a amendment very important to Iowa, the Packers and s- or the uh uh Prop twelve issue that Senator Ernst is bringing up. We're the number one producing state of the nation. Uh, California has prohibited some of Iowa pork products into California. Oddly enough, Californians are paying ten to fifteen percent more for their products as a result of that. And it's just uh s- uh stupid that we don't have a chance to bring Iowa's interest to this debate on the first farm bill that we've had in discussion. For uh now the third year, I was hoping after Senator Ernst got done to offer an amendment that was bipartisan by Grassley by Booker and by Schiff that would uh uh finalize uh the rules of the Packers and Stockyards Act we have a secretary of agriculture that has issued r regulations that or have delayed regulations that were put in place to protect the producers of a lot of meat products in the United States. And where those arrangements are between big corporations and family farmers, where the family farmers have uh maybe spent uh million, maybe two million dollars for houses for birds, uh maybe other uh agricultural animals as well. And uh, and uh, they haven't been uh have their contracts honored fully, the way they should be honored. And uh, now uh the previous administration put these regulations out to protect the family farmers or producers to make sure that the big corporations uh, carry out their responsibilities to deliver the birds and the feed and everything else, it's supposed to be. for the people that are putting all the labor for the corporations that are gonna make the money. And I was hoping to offer this amendment uh uh that would uh that I said was a bipartisan amendment between Booker and me and Shift to uh make sure that these rules that are now delayed would have been put in place uh uh as permanent legislation. So uh the the the the efforts that we've made to bring justice to these producers will actually be delivered as we intended in the law and the regulations. And now these regulations are delayed. So I just wanna express my irritation about the whole thing and uh uh just hope that somewhere along the line uh at least the Secretary of Agriculture'll wake up and and draw back her delays of these rules.

No, we appreciate that, uh, Senator, and as I said, we uh, went through the bill in August, closed out all of the things, you had the opportunity, we talked about you, uh, you know, entertaining different amendments, you chose not to do that. And so I think everybody was very clear that when we uh, decided not to adjourn But to make it such that we could have a recess and come back and vote again, once we had Senator McConnell and had uh Senator Tuberville t- in place, uh then we could vote again without reopening the entirety of the bill. And if we did, you know, your amendment, we did Joanie's amendment or whatever, uh the reality is we would have to start the whole committee, to be fair, uh and we're not prepared to do that, we weren't planning on doing, and uh in my opinion as Chairman, uh, that's the way it is.

Mister Chair.

Yes.

The committee recessed rather than adjourned, uh, title twelve, the final title that was under consideration. So, it does remain open, or it did remain open, for amendment and debate. The committee's last action was a failed motion to report the bill as amended. That failed motion did not close title twelve. The bill remained pending until it was forced on us to vote. So debate would have been in order until the bu- bill was reported. Uh, what committee action closed title twelve? Can anybody answer what action?

I can.

That it was not closed because it the f- uh, there was a failed motion to report the bill. Our review, when we went back and we looked at the August sixth proceedings, that identified no such action in closing out title twelve. The committee recessed following the failed reporting vote, leaving the bill and the last title to be considered pending before the committee. So, Mister Chair, we all understand that the path forward on this farm bill hinges on snap. It does. Our Democrat colleagues have asked for a two year delay of the snap cost share, so all states are treated equally, and the committee has continued working to find a path so that we can secure a bipartisan path forward and bipartisan support. I've asked the same for a good faith effort on proposition twelve. For years I've worked to find a reasonable solution for America's livestock producers. We followed the guidance that was provided by your team. And we continued working with the democratic offices to develop a balanced middle ground approach.

This is

This amendment preserves proposition twelve and other existing state laws. It protects federal and state animal health authorities. But most importantly, it prevents future mandates from creating an unaffordable patchwork of fifty different production standards for farmers across this country. This hurts the small producers like my father. This is a serious attempt to find common ground and give our producers certainty going forward. Yet, after following the recommended process, again, given by your staff, and doing the bipartisan work, we were are not even being given a an opportunity to bring the solution before the committee for a vote. Mister Chairman, you have repeatedly said you support finding a proposition twelve solution. But today the compromise sitting before the committee is being blocked from consideration. Iowa's livestock producers deserve more than expressions of support. They deserve action. They deserve an honest debate, which I was denied today. I regret that we were not given this opportunity. If this farm bill advances without addressing proposition twelve, it will not be because a reasonable solution was unavailable. My team did the work. We followed the process given by your staff. We crafted a balanced proposal and brought it to the committee. The solution was here and the votes could have been taken. I conclude my remarks.

Mr. Chair, look, um, we voted um on the bill, we go to the floor, Um, I think the challenge, and, and I, I, I support uh what you're trying to accomplish, uh, Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst. I, I'm, I'm with you on this. But the problem for the chair is if he opens this up, he's gonna end up opening all the titles and we're starting over. And at this point we're ready to go to the floor. And so what I would uh suggest is, hey, let's go to the floor and work on this. There's gonna be amendments on the floor. So let's all go to the floor and work together. And let, there are gonna be other amendments. So let's go to the floor, offer up amendments, have robust debate, and get this done for our farmers and ranchers.

Yeah, let me, let me clarify some things. First of all, we talked extensively about uh whether or not to offer the amendment or not before the the uh last vote, uh the vote in August. That was decided not to do. I was, I certainly didn't block that at all and actually encouraged it at one point. The uh but in regards to the you know whether or not this was done right, uh this is the transcript of the of the hearing, okay. We started out German Bozeman. Finally, without objection, we will consider all amendments by title. And this is the conclusion as we're wrapping up. Are there any further amendments to title twelve? No response. Chairman Bozeman, is there any discussion on final passage?

And it failed.

It failed, but we closed out title twelve. I said are there are there any further amendments to title twelve? No response. Then we moved to final passage.

And it failed.

And it failed. But the the things were closed out.

There is no action closed that time.

Well, I disagree. Uh, anybody else?

I just wanna say a few words.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so

And I do too.

okay, well what you wanna go first, that's fine. Or I can I'll go.

Oh, go ahead.

Um,

That's fine.

I wanna welcome Senator McConnell back and um, I wanna thank Chairman Bozeman for his work. Uh, we've worked together for many years and it is my goal and our goal on the democratic side, to get this farm bill done. and to get it done by the end of the year. Um we will do that by working with the house leaders, we will do that by working uh with the on the remaining issues. Um and that is key when you see what our farmers and ranchers are facing right now throughout our country. Um the headwinds of the tariffs, the headwinds of the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, the cost of fertilizer um have all hit them very hard, and that makes it even more imperative uh that we get this farm bill done having spent august in multiple multiple farms and ranches, I truly believe this. But there is another need right now out there, and that is our families and the people of this country who have been equally hit by these tariffs, at the cost of eighteen hundred dollars last year, twenty five hundred dollars with a fifty percent tariffs to Canada. Um and so what we will expect for this year, and that's why we think it is critical, that we stand up for them too. And we have had a very simple ask from the beginning, uh, the Senate Democrats. We have remained united despite differences in our states and actually have gotten a lot of reach out including Senator Bozeman's uh proposal, which we appreciated um to take care of one year of the state shift. But what we're asking for is to reverse just ten percent of the total cuts to nutrition. That's because half the cuts are for other things, and then this is ten percent, only two years of the snap cut. And that is by delaying the cost shift to the states. It's about treating all states equally, treating the states with middle error rate so that they can get their error rates down as the same as those high error rate states, which no one can explain really why they get treated in a special category. Uh, we have heard from governors. and state legislators that this cost shift would increase property taxes in red and blue states alike. Of course, we share this goal of reducing error rates, but we recognize the reality that states across the country need time and equal resources to bring them down. So I appreciate uh Chairman Bozeman's offer in this bill and the inclusion in this bill of this one year delay, and it is a big start from where we were. appreciated Senator Justice's comments uh at our last mark-up. But the one year delay would still allow states like Alaska to keep a two year delay, while states like Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oklahoma, Texas would be in a worse position if they cannot go down below that magic number of six percent. And we do not understand why Alaska with an error rate of twenty-three percents is still eligible for a two year delay and Minnesota at twelve percent is not. And we don't get why Florida, who reduced their error rate, did the right thing to about where Minnesota is. The privilege of doing that for them is to now to pay over almost a billion dollars, nine hundred million dollars for reducing their error rate. Or other states that have shot their error rate up now don't have to pay anything. So that is something that we hope we can resolve because if we just do one year, and we don't at least change the numbers or where it hits for the error rate for the second year we're gonna have this unfair situation so we are in good faith and I appreciate the chairman trying to fix that second year, which we have been from the beginning. We've also voiced concerns um as did some of the uh Maha moms today uh about the decision to take money from the EQUIP program and CSP. And we wanna find a solution to that, and we think that solution uh is there. But we will note that there are strong areas of bipartisan support. Uh, the bipartisan amendment that we all voted on last time had like forty provisions, and we worked in good faith with the chairman and the Republicans on these, including investments in local foods and ag research, as well as improvements to make the dairy safety net more affordable. a limited expansion of base acres. Um, and this bill has many other bipartisan provisions, including, uh, the year-round E-fifteen that we're really, we've been working on and looking at, Senator Ernst, Senator Fisher, Senator Grassley, Senator Thune, um, Senator Moran, uh, for so long, and a stronger farm and ranch stress assistant network. All of this shows that there's a lot we agree on this bill and that we really can't afford to not get this done by the end of the year. especially for those states that are lowering their error rates, but are gonna get socked with this next year if we don't find some way, all of us to come together to get the votes to get this passed. So, um, we don't wanna have the situation where high error rate states get off scot-free, uh, while the rest of us pay. And we have shown our commitment and will continue to do that to improving this bill, to get us to a bipartisan product that can be successful on the Senate floor. Our members offered many amendments as you are aware, and I truly believe we are much closer to agreement than we were six months ago. And I appreciate the chairman's desire to move this process forward. I hope that everyone remains committed, as I do and I know the chairman does, to getting this bill done. So, I thank you.

Uh, passage of farm bill two point O is a positive step for farmers renters. Sorry, I still don't know what that is I'm looking for. Oh.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, go ahead if you're gonna make a, OK.

No, go ahead.

Good. Well, thank you, and I appreciate uh the opportunity to actually get this bill out of the committee. This is a important step forward. Um, a lot of the farm bill was addressed last year. We did the safety net programs, we did crop insurance, ARC, PLC, conservation, disaster programs, but there are pieces of the farm bill that didn't get done, and our farmers need certainty. And one of the things that's included in here is E-fifteen. which is something I think a lot of us have fought long and hard for, and which is really important to a lot of producers across this country, and I would argue to help lower gas prices. Um, so I I guess I'm, and I've I've been through these a a lot. This is my fifth farm bill, uh, as a member of the House Ag Committee and now as the Senate Ag Committee. Uh, I've been through uh a lot of fights over individual titles in the bill through the years, um, but we always seem to come together at the end. And and and honestly, uh, that's what ought to be happening here, folks. I mean, I just, I don't understand how you can take a piece of legislation that has a hundred bipartisan bills and then a process where you allow a manager's amendment that had eighteen, eighteen Democrat amendments, sixteen Republican amendments. This has been a very bipartisan process. And the objection is over a one-year delay and the reforms to the program that are designed to get fraud out of the program, to get the states to play ball. And so that one year delay, if you, if, if the, the Democrats, if this doesn't go anywhere, and current law stays in effect, the states, many of them represented on the committee, are gonna pay a total of seventeen billion dollars more. So some of you sitting here, you oughta check with your state and find out how much more you're gonna pay, if this bill doesn't pass. Your states are gonna pay. If this is about predicting the state, protecting the states, the way to protect the states for this next year is to pass this bill. We have a bipartisan bill with lots of stuff in it that people on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this table want, that the chairman and his team worked hard to negotiate with the ranking uh Democrat Senator Klobuchar. It is a product that deserves our support. And I don't know why uh uh uh an accommodation that includes a one year delay on this, which if it doesn't go into effect, costs the states in this country seventeen billion dollars. State of California, over a billion. State of Minnesota, couple hundred million. There are a lot of states that are gonna pay more if this doesn't become law. So, I I just, I I don't understand uh, Mister Chairman, their resistance of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or their insistence on blocked voting against this bill. This is principally about production agriculture. And yes, there's a nutrition title. And it's important. And there are people out there who need it. And that's the whole purpose of these reforms, is to insure that it's going to the people who really need it, and that there aren't states out there that are gaming this program. But there's a one year delay included for allow, to allow states to come into compliance. But if this bill doesn't become law, States across this country, including many represented right here at this table, are gonna face a significant higher bill next year, uh in in in s- unless this bill becomes law. So I I hope in the end, um, that my friends on the other side of the aisle, whom helped draft this, who were consulted at every step along the way, and whose suggestions and bills and um submissions of pieces of legislation were ultimately included in this bill.

Mister ch-

Thought it'd be a bipartisan process. It always has been. This is my fifth farm bill. Uh, please, let's figure out, let's figure out how to get together on this and realize that this is an important step in the right pr- uh right direction for our country's farmers and ranchers.

Mi- Mister Chair, I Mister Ch-

Very good.

Senator. Sorry, th- Senator Feifei.

Yeah, th- this is, Will, a brief, a very brief comment. But, but With Leader Leader Thune's uh words, you know, I will say, I can confirm, I've had six Pennsylvania agriculture interests, you know, just in the last two days, and they're all begging, they need a farm bill. We gotta find a way to pass this thing because people are coming all the way from my state saying we can't keep waking waiting for this, we have to deliver for our farmers now.

Mister Mister Chair, l look, The place to continue this debate is on the Senate floor. We have offered a one year delay. That means in effect it doesn't go into effect, the potential cost share, depending on the state's error rate, for two years. They've asked for a two year delay. It doesn't go into effect until October one of twenty twenty eight. That's two years from now. The whole point, as the leader just said, is if you take the compromise if they wanna keep working on further delays they have every opportunity to do that. But our farmers and ranchers need help now and by not taking the deal, they're putting the uh cost share in place first. That is why this is a reasonable compromise and I would strongly urge, and this is a bipartisan bill, we work in a bipartisan way, there's over a hundred amendments in here from our colleagues on the other side there, crafted a better bill, at least that I expected going in. And we've worked really well on this. So I'm saying fine, I understand that you wanna continue the debate, but let's go to the floor, let's do it there, let's have our votes, let's offer amendments. Joany Ernst brought up an amendment that a lot of us support. We can debate that one too. But the place to do this, guys, it's time, it's past time, we gotta get to the floor and get this done for our farmers. And our ranchers, our farmers are facing very low commodity prices, high input costs, they need our help, they need this farm bill.

Mm-hmm. I just, I would agree with Senator Hoven on this. Um, and I would note to Senator Ho- uh, Federman. I know how important this has been to him, uh, to get this resolved for the two years. Um, and no one wants to get this done, uh, faster than me with, uh, how this has hit, uh, the Midwestern states. And so I'm very pleased that He wants to work with us and the ag groups on getting this done. And uh, we're ready to get this done.

M- Mister Chairman, just real quick in response to what a one year delay means. Th- there's a whole other side of this story, and you all know it. A one year delay kicks in to the process a higher state contribution factor on the back-end years. And so, if the states don't do something over the next year, and I hope to God they do, they're gonna pay more forever, until the next farm bill comes. In order to get some of these bills done initially, New Mexico benefited because we were a high-error state when Senator Murkowski led this effort to carve out Alaska. There's only a few states that benefit from that. Mister Chairman, I I appreciate you pushing hard, cuz I know you have, I know you're a person of your word. And the last mark-up we had, someone said something that caught my ear which said, President Trump, we've gone, he's gone, we've gone as far with him as we could. Meaning this is a White House thing. We can either have hunger in America or not. And if we're gonna talk about error rates, as I said before in the last mark-up, it's broken. These, this error rate program is broken with every commodity program USDA. So we're gonna do something. Let's fix that. We we had bipartisan agreement to say let's tackle it. There's a lot of smart people in this room, probably some people that even created the darn thing. But we can choose to end hunger in America or we can choose to accelerate it. And the program isn't just for folks that need food. And when I went to church, they tell me, " You help people." "This is about farmers and ranchers." "They're the ones raising the darn food that's going to programs across the country." So, I just wanna make sure that the other side of the story is being told here, and I hope someone submits into the record, I don't know if one side of the staff or the other has what the fifteen to twenty percent cost factor means if states don't change what they're doing with lowering their error rates in the back years as well, because costs just go up, up, up, up, up. This is gonna break budgets. That's why Republican Governors and Republican County Commissioners are the ones leading the charge in the RGA and the National Association of Counties, to ask us to do something here. So, Mister Chairman, I've gone long enough, I apologize, I just hope that we present both sides here, and I pray to God we can come together, cuz we are close. We are close. And if this is about farmers and ranchers, and people across the country, man, let's close the divide. And maybe let's make this a legislative back and forth, in the United States Senate, back and forth. If the administration doesn't wanna move any further, well, God help us. I'm not, I'm not in that place. I'm here. And so I'll do my part to help in any way that we can, Mr. Chairman, but I just hope to God that we talk about the facts associated with what this is, so that when this vote comes up on the floor, there's not a misconception that say, oh, we're gonna pay another a hundred billion dollars, whatever it's gonna be. Let's be honest about what this is gonna cost in the outline years to every state in the country and what this means to wreck all the budgets. Including my friends that are gonna be governors. And there's a few of us that know they're gonna be there.

Senator Luton.

Just gonna blow those budgets.

Uh, the r- well, let me just say one thing, John.

Let me, let me, let me just

The the rest of the story is this. We offered a one year delay with no with no penalty, no cost. It was rejected. So, again, we we've worked hard to try and get this done. We've been unsuccessful. And as a result, our our farmers are in the position they're in, our states are in the position they're in, we're running out of time, and we're rapidly losing a window that we can actually get this thing passed. Uh, so it's - we need to start working together and get these things resolved. I want uh it resolved in the sense no one ever imagined that we'd - we would have the states paying for this. The idea was to get them uh the help they needed, get them under control, where they didn't have error rates of twenty, twenty-five percent. Uh. John, I I'm I'm sorry, John, and then you then them or you.

Yeah, and again, and I I'm not sure how a a two-year delay, which I understand is what's being proposed, helps you in the out years. But I can tell you right now that if you don't do if you don't do a one-year delay, it's gonna cost you seventeen billion dollars, your states.

Current legislation. The current language, if if I may, Mister Chairman, correct me if I'm wrong, to the smart staff in the room. It increases the contribution factor of fifteen to twenty.

No, we we tried to s

We may have offered something, but what's in the bill?

Well, we offered

I I can pull it up by title.

We offered it and it was rejected.

What's in here.

That's why it's not in there.

What's in here.

OK.

Increases.

OK, but you're saying

I mean, all I have is the paper in front of me. I I don't.

But All I have is just your side saying no. And that's why we did James.

Sure. My faith i- my my faith is in the guy above us. My faith is in in all the people around here that say something and they don't keep their word. This is all that I got right now. This says fifteen to twenty. It's right here.

Yes.

All I'd say, and I can make it real short and sweet from my side. And I thank all the brother Johns that are speaking up and doing unbelievable work. And I and I know everybody's tried really hard, especially you, Mister Chairman. I congratulate you. I congratulate you in every way. All I would say to all of us is just simply just this. This should be so bipartisan it sh- uh it o- it oughta be off the chart. And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, if we don't get this done for our farmers and our ranchers, shame on us in every way. It is absolutely pathetic to think how hard and the contribution that those folks are making And they're depending upon us right now. I congratulate you, but we gotta get it across the finish line. Thank you all.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I have never had a farmer or an agriculture interest in my office saying, hold that line, John, hold this line. You know, how many years late is this bill? Two years late?

Uh, it is, it ran out in uh twenty three.

Yeah, so yeah, so I mean, so it's it's very, very late. You know, I have held the line here as as a as a loyal Democrat, and my my vote really doesn't matter because it's not anywhere close to sixty, but I'm just saying we gotta find a way for, you know, my office is bombarded and they are desperate to to get this farm bill here. And I don't like I I support this idea of two years, but one day now we really gotta find a way to do this because, um, it's been three years, you know, now that's late. And, you know, two things can be true at the same time here where you can fight for it, but at some point now it's not caving, it's just saying, you know, America's farmers uh are counting on this bill and we get it out.

John. Jim.

Yeah, and I, yeah. And, and I think that, as the chairman has pointed out, what the uh, senator from uh, New Mexico is suggesting was offered. By the chairman, by his team. And it was rejected by the Democrats.

Weird, it's what's in there.

Exactly, because you rejected the offer they put on the table. Well, your your your team did. That's where we are. This is a bipartisan process, always has been, always should be. This is about production, agriculture, farmers and ranchers, and the people who benefit from that. And every effort was made. I've never seen anybody work harder to try and get a bipartisan bill. than Chairman Bozeman and his team. And what you're suggesting was in the bill, it was offered up as being the bill.

But it's not in the bill, here it is.

It's not in the bill?

We just got it.

But, yeah, but if you, if you, if you reject the one year delay in here, the states respectively, across the country, not everyone, but a lot of them, are gonna pay collectively seventeen billion dollars.

Let me, let me say something that's positive and I'm gonna put my uh, remarks into the record, but I do want to say how pleased I was to have Senator McConnell here today. He made a special effort to to really get back this week in order to uh to vote, help advance the bill. Uh, he put Kentucky he's put Kentucky farmers one step closer to the certainty that they need. Uh, he's been a member of this committee for the entirety of his service in the Senate, and I'm confident Bluegrass Senate farmers are happy to see him cast his vote to advance the bill so again that's that's that's great and uh we really do appreciate that uh with that then we we are going to

sorry me i'm can you just do this real quick uh i just did that to save your cause i was

oh yeah yeah yeah yeah uh in

without

Without objection, preparing this legislation for reporting the staff be authorized to make technical, clarifying and conforming changes as appropriate. Without objection, so moved. Again, thank all of you so much uh for advancing this critical piece of the le legislation. And I do wanna compliment the committee. This this committee, I've been on a lot of different committees through the years. The Agriculture Committee is is really is a very serious committee and uh we don't play a lot of games in here, and that's a good thing. And uh we're going to work really hard, I I feel like as a group, to get this advanced so that uh as we heard when we were back in our states, uh congressmen back in their districts, how very very difficult it is in farm country right now. So with that uh this business meeting is adjourned. hmm