"Member Day"
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Agriculture U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
I urge the committee to allow commercial shrimpers to access agriculture safety net programs, to increase FDA inspections, and provide resources to allow the USDA to purchase domestic seafood and distribute them to our schools and local food banks. The next issue I wanna touch on is the New World screw worm. Second, as the known as the New World Screw Worm, as it inches closer to the border of Texas, we're really concerned this could be devastating for the ranching economy, not only in Texas, but across the country. I know for a fact, I've been monitoring this since the issue was on the border of Mexico and Guatemala. We met with the USDA, doctor Kim Lohmeyer in Central Texas.
I think she's probably, you know, the global expert on this issue. She told us at the time we needed to be producing 700,000,000 sterile flies weekly. At the time, we were producing about 200. A few months from there, we moved from the border to Veracruz, and now it's one state away from the state of Texas. And we just celebrated the construction of a facility, which will take years.
We don't have time to construct a facility. We're at, I think we're working with Panama and Mexico, Mexico and some other places. We're producing about 300,000,000 sterile flies weekly. We need to more than double that, almost triple that, just to hold it back. And I'd urge the committee to speak with her and speak with experts on this because it's become a very political issue, but we're not we don't have our facts straight, and I think we need to talk to the scientists and get up to par on what we really need.
My office is at your disposal to work on this issue. There are facilities in Northern Mexico. There are facilities in South Texas. There are places where we were housing migrants that are available. You know, you need about 200,000 square foot to produce these sterile flies, you need a lot of water.
There are places that we can begin immediately. We don't have to wait years because that's what it'll be, years. And I can assure you right now, that this problem is about 150 miles away from our southern border. In six months, we'll probably have it in Texas, and it'll continue to grow through the country. We need to address this.
So with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, Miss Gonzalez, thank you for your testimony on behalf of your constituents. Much appreciated. Now, working down through my list, and I recognize the general lady from Michigan, represent Taleb for 5 minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig for hosting this hearing. I'm here because I know that children can't learn if they are hungry. I'm also here because I represent the 12th Congressional District in Michigan, which houses one of the most beautiful black cities in the country. I'm also here as the cofounder of the Congressional Mama's Caucus. And for me, I still remember years ago having a mother in my office in tears.
And I don't know if you've ever heard the cry of a desperate mother, but I have. And she was crying because the Head Start program that her children were in was closing. And I told her I'll find you a different place. I'll figure out the transportation. Please, you know, stop crying.
I was trying to console her. And she said to me, but you don't understand. That's the only place my children can eat two times a day. So I think after, you know, watching what happened with the SNAP benefits, which is a lifeline for food for our families, it was treated as a political pawn. It was devastating.
You know, it was incredibly heartbreaking to get the calls, the emails, and even the messages through social media. And they're so scared it's gonna happen again, chairman. And so I know that they're not alone, that it's 42,000,000 Americans across the country. But understand in the budget betrayal bill, it's a 15% cut. It's a $6-a-day average.
$6, we're gonna cut 15% across the board. And it's gonna be something that literally will take food off the tables of our families. And when children can't learn, when they're hungry, when they can't thrive because they're hungry, it's gonna hurt our whole country. And so for me, it's not just the children. Of course, we know it's 40% of SNAP benefits, and recipients are older adults.
40% of SNAP beneficiaries are children that we know, and also we have a number of people that are senior citizens that also benefit from it. I know right now studies show that an estimate of a dollar investment in children returns $62 in value over the lifetime. Investments like SNAP and childhood development allow kids to learn without thinking about where their next meal comes from. And here it's not just children. It's 36 percent in Michigan alone that are senior citizens that benefit from SNAP benefits.
And so, mister chair, a 70-year-old woman asked me to share her story, and I think it's important because she doesn't even get the $6. She actually gets lower than that. She says I'm a 74 year old, single female senior citizen with Social Security as my only income. I get $24 in SNAP benefits. This helps me purchase fresh fruits and vegetables.
She says she only buys half a gallon of milk, margarine, and a loaf of bread. And I don't know what to say to her when I say, are we really allowing, you know, are we saying to her that we don't have the money to make our seniors, you know, help them afford milk and bread? And so it is important to understand that the impact is real, and it's not just Republicans and Democrats. It's the American people, and we have a crisis around access to food. We know this, and the cost is going up.
But even in Michigan, it's my ag community. The agricultural sector in Michigan is incredibly important. And they say now the Michigan Farmers Market Association said 15%, they rely 15% in benefits from SNAP, investment from this body. And so it's incredibly important to understand that connection. You know, I have to say this because it's heartbreaking to see us fighting for our Pentagon budget, whether it was 890000000000 for a Pentagon budget that can't even pass an audit.
Yet where we cut is in SNAP benefits, not where they're wasting all this money. And with my residents, I'm telling them we always have money for war, but we don't have money for food. And so somehow, again, it is lacking the priority and understanding of why it's important to make sure that we invest in SNAP benefits. Stories like this I'm hearing from residents are not isolated, we're all hearing them. And so I'm asking all of you to please do your best in investing in SNAP benefits.
Do more than what we're already doing. And it is a win-win. It's not just the farmers. It's our whole country as a community, as together that we understand the investment is important for our children. Lastly, I also have Urban Farmers chairman, and don't forget the Urban Farmers.
I say this because some of my family, the only place they can get food is a gas station. And now we have Urban Farmers creating these farmers markets where people can get fresh food. They can get access to food that, again, they don't have access to at a gas station. And so I'm asking all of you, as you prioritize, and when you talk about farmers, talk about all the farmers. Don't forget urban farmers.
With that, I yield.
Speaker 2
Thanks, the gentlelady. If members do have questions, I will apologize. I missed that when mister Gonzalez was here. So, just indicate and let me know, and Mister Scott has indicated.
Speaker 4
Well, she's saying that during the shutdown, sir. You know, when the shutdown, she says, are we really political pawns with the snap cuts, the benefits? So for her, yeah. And she always got it on, so every state invests.
Speaker 5
Let me finish. It's my time. You hit your time. So first of all, like, 99% of the Republicans voted to keep the government open. I know there were some Democrats who voted to keep the government open.
But the fact is if she's a senior, seniors and children are exempt from the changes.
Speaker 4
Understand what's happening here. She just knows that her card didn't get reloaded. So just so you know.
Speaker 5
Alright. So let me say this. I had a lady at Walmart that I know. Her husband is disabled. She works full-time.
She asked me if her benefits were going to be cut, and the answer was no. Her benefits were not going to be cut. I mean, so, again, I just the way you said it, you were indicating that they were gonna be cut because she was 74, the way I understood it. You were talking.
Speaker 4
About during the shutdown, that was told her we had $5,000,000,000, as you know, and money that we could have used, this emergency response money, that we could have used to make sure she didn't go hungry for those few days.
Speaker 5
I voted to keep the government under voted to shut it down. So let's I'll yield the remainder.
Speaker 4
Of, and chairman, through you, just please know even that little bit of few days, we should have used the $5,000,000,000 that we all appropriated and agreed to. And she wouldn't have, I mean, again, the anxiety and fear that we just inflict on our families. They don't know what's happening here. They just know their card wasn't reloaded.
Speaker 7
Let me just say for the record, my friends voted for nearly a $200,000,000,000 cut to SNAP in the big, ugly bill. Right? And so when they talk about not cutting benefits, they are. And number two, this is the first administration in history that actually withheld food assistance from people even during a shutdown. This was a conscious decision.
Federal courts were telling them that they had to appeal. Administer it, and they kept appealing it. That's where they're coming from. And I would just say the cuts to snap that this congress has enacted represent a moral failing in this congress. The idea that making sure that no one in this country goes hungry is somehow a radical idea is unconscionable.
And by the way, the SNAP benefit is inadequate. It's on average about $2 per person per meal. I mean, try living on that. And that is why so many people on Snap are looking for additional help from food banks and food pantries mid month because it doesn't go far enough. And the other thing I wanna put the rest to is I keep on hearing people say, people on Snap are at work.
Well, the majority of people who are able-bodied, who are on Snap, do work. Some of them are working not just one job, but two jobs, just to try to make ends meet. And the idea that somehow we are nickel and diming this program, that we are taking benefits away from people, at the same time we're giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and big corporations, I think is pathetic. And so I thank you all for being here and raising the issue of SNAP.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Miss representative Taleep, I just have a question. The woman who shared this story with you, what is her political affiliation?
Speaker 8
Pretty much. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter. And I just wanna make sure that we level set this Member Day hearing because it's not about what you did. It is bringing forth the priorities and concerns from constituents.
Because at the end of the day, that 74-year-old woman who gets $24 a month doesn't really care about the letter behind the names of the people sitting on this dais. What she cares about is her fear and frustration with how am I going to continue to buy that loaf of bread, that margarine, that gallon of milk. So, right. So, I just think that that's the important part of the testimony that you just gave, because I think what we experienced during the shutdown and what everyone saw is something that I've been well aware of is that every part of the country, the fragility of our food security systems. And then the second part of what you said about many people in the places where you represent having to literally only get groceries from a gas station, and I think that's very important because a lot of times on this committee we're talking about what people can purchase.
Mhmm. There really isn't a lot of availability in these communities. So can you talk just a little bit about what you see in that respect for what is available to people in these communities that you represent?
Speaker 4
You should see it. If you go into a gas station, and I know some of you have seen these massive kind of new gas stations, these are not, these are the old gas stations. If you remember going in there to get, you know, I used to go in there to get my nylators and Mhmm. And but it's just because I actually go and look next to where the auto related supplies is, like bread, cookies, chips. Mhmm.
It's not, you know, healthy foods. But when you don't have access, that's what happens. That's why it was so important that all of you worked really hard to make sure that EBT cards and food assistance could be used at some of the farmers' markets. And I'll tell you, it is transformative the way on Saturdays and sometimes during the week they have these pop-up farmers markets for our families, and they are taking fresh tomatoes, you know, zucchini, you name it. Mean, it's amazing to see.
But you should, if you ever get a chance, just go into some of the gas stations. I'm talking about the old-school guests. I'm not talking about the really fancy ones that come up now. The ones in my community are the ones with literally congresswoman Hayes. It's like, oh,
Speaker 8
Really, absolutely. Thank you. I think that's very important. I used to do an assignment with my students on urban revitalization, and one of the tasks was how long it would take for you to find a fresh tomato in your community. I would give the students a radius.
You couldn't have any transportation. How long would it take for you? Not tomato paste, not canned tomatoes, not tomato sauce, but a fresh tomato. And the discussions that came out of that when my students realized how difficult it was to access fresh fruits and vegetables in their surrounding communities, and how that looked very different in some other communities. Thank you so much for your testimony.
I yield back. Okay.
Speaker 2
With that, representative, thank you so much for your testimony. We have two members of the committee who are testifying. I'm gonna go to them next so that they can then take their place on the dais case they have questions of other witnesses. So first, recognize the gentleman from California. Mr. Costa.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Craig, for the opportunity to speak at Members Day. This morning, I speak on behalf of California, the constituents I represent in the 21st District, and the great beautiful San Joaquin Valley that is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the entire country, therefore, the world. I speak as a third-generation farmer. California's 70,251 farms and ranches are remarkably productive. Given the average size, 70% of these farms is less than 100 acres, 89% are less than 500 acres.
And yet I represent, as a third-generation farmer, those individuals, those families that really put food on America's dinner table every night. And food is a national security issue. We don't treat it that way, I don't believe often enough. But it is. Food on America's dinner table is a national security issue.
And in California, the number one agricultural state, we produce 50% of the nation's fruits, nuts, vegetables, 20% of the milk supply, over 400 agricultural commodities that we grow, $61,000,000,000 at the farm gate. It's imperative, I think, given the current economic conditions we're facing with input costs and the cost of what farmers, ranchers, and dairymen are getting for their products, that it's not making it. It's not making it these days, across the country. And we know that specialty crops are so critical to good nutrition. Robust congressional oversight in the area of specialty crop insurance is necessary.
The recent Farm Bridge Assistance Program announced this week by the administration, $12,000,000,000 of which $11,000,000,000 is going to row crops, 1,000,000,000 to specialty crops. I don't get it. This is déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once said. We went through this in the first Trump administration where we were acknowledging that tariffs had a negative impact upon the farm gate economy, and there was an effort for the administration then to provide $28,000,000,000 out of the Commodity Credit Corporation to try to put in a safety net. Once again, we see specialty crops being left out.
What? I don't get it. $40,000,000,000 for Argentina, $12,000,000,000 for American agriculture. Somebody's got their priorities, I think, woefully in the wrong place. I've always said that tariffs don't win trade wars, and I think the actions of this administration prove that.
The fact of the matter is that, we need to deal with the issues with our long standing trading partners and allies. I've consistently led the charge for market access programs, foreign market development programs, and peace programs, USIAID that, frankly, I think, address the issues of nutrition, not only for the people in our country, but around the world. Our farmers, ranchers, and dairymen wanna provide their neighbors and communities with food on their dinner table. They don't want to cut them off. The not so beautiful bill took food assistance away from nearly 5,000,000 Californians.
5,000,000 Californians in my district alone, almost 30% of the households rely on SNAP. 67,000 out of 237,000 homes. These homes include 60% of them with a child, 34% with an elderly person, 46% include someone living on a disability. We must ensure that we strengthen and improve these programs, not weaken them. And the examples that was used in the cutoff that took place earlier this year is a separation of the nutrition programs from the commodity or other titles.
And I fear on my fourth form Farm Bill reauthorization that we will never be able to put the toothpaste back in that tube as a result of the separation of nutrition from the other title programs. Let me just talk about some other areas that I'm concerned about. Conservation programs are key to reducing fire risks. We need to be bolstering our efforts there. Conserving our waste sustainability act is another area.
Headwaters protection, improvement, and flexibility. Each of these bills would strengthen the programs. The chairman, I don't know where you get your sense of enthusiasm. I appreciate that. And if we can come together to deal with some of these issues next year, God bless all of us.
We need to do it. Let me close by saying the following. This reorganization of the United States Department of Agriculture has been going on for 6 months. The reductions and the separation into four hubs, I don't understand. We have not had the secretary of agriculture testify before the committee to justify the reorganization plan.
We don't know what the appropriate priorities are in the reorganizational plan. I do not get it. This committee needs to provide the proper amount of oversight for the reorganization to understand where the Department of Agriculture is going in the future. We ain't got work to do. We must work together, and I wanna thank the chair and the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to give you a little sentiment of my views and the concerns that the people of California have, whether you're on food assistance or whether you're part of the vital incredible agriculture economy that California represents.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Well, Mister Costa, thank you, and thank you for your service on this committee. Anyone have any questions for mister Costa? I'll be real specific. What I'm asking for members are questions for him to answer versus long statements. Anyone over here?
Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 9
You, Mr. Chairman. Representative Costa, if you could touch a little bit more on how the ranchers in your district have, if they have expressed the concerns around the Argentina bailout as opposed to this new pool of money that's supposed to assist them?
Speaker 6
Well, the expressions range from outrage to being mystified to frustration because the input costs have continued to rise as a result of inflation. And, as I told President Obama a number of years ago, farmers and ranchers, dairymen, they're price takers, not price makers. You grow your commodity, your product, or if you have a dairy, it's 365 days a year. And you put all this investment in it, but at the end of the year, you get paid for whatever the market price is. And so they see their costs increasing, but yet what they're getting for their product, their commodity, is not increasing.
And the tariff war is a really critical part of that. $40,000,000,000 for Argentina, 12,000,000,000 for American agriculture, they don't get it, neither do I.
Speaker 9
Thank you. And as we talk about those input costs, I too have had the opportunity to visit some farmers across the country, in Michigan, Illinois, of course, Ohio, where I represent. And the sentiment that has been shared with me is that I will give the administration a little bit of credit because we have been so delayed with getting a farm bill over the finish line for this $12,000,000,000, but it just does not seem to meet the moment. And the parameters that have been established capping it at a $150,000 will not make, will not help some of the most impacted farmers, cow ranchers and dairy men, as I see it. Would you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 6
No. I would agree with that assessment, and I must say this is a difficult time in farm country, whether you're in any region of the country or out in California because of inflation, because of the input costs, and because, again, farmers are price takers, not price makers. And, clearly, this tariff war has impacted their ability to access those markets. And guess what? The other countries have the ability to retaliate, and they do.
Canada. You know, we have the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. 40% of California wines have gone to California. By the way, they're good wines. But you can hardly find a bottle of California wine in a supermarket or in a restaurant in Canada today.
Why? Because they're acting in response to this tariff war. And they have other markets where they can access those products and enjoy them. And in some cases, we never regain those markets. So it's of great concern.
And that's but one example.
Speaker 9
Thank you. And as I close, I think that, you mentioned the tariffs being part of the major problem as it relates to this situation that we're in, is a self inflicted, self induced problem if you ask me. And, the fact that the president is touting that the relief that he is offering the farmers is coming from tariffs, I believe is questionable because if I understand the resource correctly, the source of these funds are coming from the CCC, not actually the tariffs. And we have industry folks who are in litigation to question the legality of the tariffs and to fight for getting the recuperation of the resources that they had to spend on tariffs in their own companies' cost.
Speaker 6
I think that's correct. And the administration won't say it, but I'll flat out make a point. The fact that they're reducing some of these tariffs, I think, is an acknowledgment that it's impacting the cost. Why else would they reduce, in the last week, some of these tariffs and some of these products if, in fact, it were not impacting the bottom line. And so it's a de facto way of acknowledging that the tariffs are impacting the cost to consumers, and this is their response to try to address it.
But, you know, it's not working.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit, for the record, a Reuters article from November 11. US profited from the Argentina currency swap deal. The treasury chief of the cent says.
Speaker 5
It absolutely, Mr. Chairman. But it just, the members of this committee know that it's a false narrative to call a currency swap a bailout. We actually profited from the currency swap. It was an effort to stabilize the economy in that country, and the facts will show that we stable that what we did worked, and we actually profited from it. It was a swap, not a bailout without a yield.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig, for allowing us the opportunity to testify here today. As you know, I serve on this committee, and it's with great pride that I serve on this committee, given what it means to my district. I represent Alabama's 2nd Congressional District, which consists of 13 counties. 11 of them are completely rural, and the two non-completely rural counties are likely the only two places in my district that most people on this committee or in America have ever heard of, and that's Mobile, in Montgomery. And both of those have significant rural portions of those counties as well.
So the work of this committee is not abstract to me, or to the district that I represent back in Alabama. For my community, ag issues are a daily reality from soybean farmers and specialty crop growers to row crop growers to our forestry industry. Agriculture and the work of this committee has real-life ramifications on my neighbors across the 2nd District. And, historically, this committee has met those needs with a spirit of bipartisanship that puts the needs of rural America first, and that's the way I try to operate myself on this committee. I think many people know that I go above and beyond to attempt to work across the aisle in ways that will bring tangible benefits to the people of my district and of this nation.
And I believe that commitment right now matters more than ever. And we can start with what has been touched on, I guess, a lot already, so I won't beat a dead horse, as we say back home. But I think it's worth noting. You know, earlier this year, we did witness the largest snap cut in the history of this country by this administration through the bill, and we also saw throughout the shutdown process, the refusal to spend available money on snap beneficiaries. And so that is something that was very concerning and something that my colleagues here have touched on.
So I'm gonna spend my time touching on another aspect of those SNAP changes. And that's the fact that in the big bill, you know, we held a hearing on SNAP after we made the snap cuts. We held our first hearing on SNAP, and every witness on the panel testified that we had put into control of the states the ability of whether or not they would even participate in a SNAP program or not. And that is one of the biggest, most concerning pieces that I hope we can come back together in a bipartisan way and rectify. Because as it is now, if states do not meet or cannot or refuse to meet the cost sharing provisions for whatever reason, whether they are political reasons, whether they are financial reasons, every witness on this panel testified at that hearing that there is no SNAP in that state.
And that is not where we should be from a policy standpoint. I don't think it's good policy. I don't think it's a good law. And it's certainly not good patriotism to allow 50 different states to say, you know, we're not going to feed hungry people even though they will qualify in other states. And so that's something that I certainly hope that we can come together and work in a bipartisan way to at least fix that issue.
The rising cost and tariffs is something that's huge. It's something that's impacting, I think, all of our districts in a variety of ways. I represent a community where the median individual income is just north of $32,000. To say that a different way, 50% of the people who file a tax return in my district make less than $32,000 a year. It's one of the poorest districts in the country.
And so even the smallest rise in the cost of putting food on the table or the cost of new business, it significantly impacts people where I'm from. And so it's something that we, I think, have to keep at the front of mind as we continue our work in this environment that we're in. And so I wanna cite to that. The farm bill, everyone knows here we're long overdue for a farm bill. I'm a rookie on this committee.
Hoping that I can bring some rookie good luck with us, or I was hoping to bring some rookie good luck in terms of getting a farm bill across the table. Obviously, many of those provisions were pumped into HR one, but there's still things that have to be done. And it is sincerely my hope that we can come back to the table in a meaningful way, in a timely way, and pass some things that will support our beginning farmers, that will expand ag research, that will modernize SNAP, that will strengthen our crop insurance, something that will ensure that our rural communities have the housing, infrastructure, and economic tools that they need going forward. And with my remaining time, one of the big reasons I wanted to be on this committee was for rural development purposes. I represent a district where rural hospitals are closing left and right, probably at the fastest rate of any district in this country.
We have a number of food deserts with no grocery stores. We have a number of areas that don't have real broadband access. And so it is my hope that we can prioritize working together across the aisle in a meaningful, impactful way to be able to bring some rural development funds to not just my district, but to everyone on this committee's districts and in Congress to be able to positively impact the lives of those people in rural America, to show them that, you know, despite the environment here, that we can still figure out a way to move the ball forward on a wet field. And so I look forward to working with you guys to do that, and thank you. I see my time has expired.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Mister, thanks so much. Anyone have any questions for Miss Figures? If not, sir, thank you for representing your constituents. Go ahead, Miss Brown.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Figueroa, you touched on rural development. I know that broadband and Internet access has been essential in both the urban and the rural communities. Is that something you can elaborate on?
Speaker 10
Yes. I mean, if you wanna come home with me one day to Alabama, to my district, to some of the rural parts of my district, I can take you to a McDonald's parking lot in some of these rural counties. And it is more cars in the parking lot than people in the restaurant because of the need they don't have access to the Internet. And I know that's not unique to my district. I'm sure if we, you know, go to communities across the dice, you'd see something similar.
The difference is, you know, many of the communities that I represent, they don't have the capacity locally. They don't have the tax base. Some of them have geographical challenges. And quite frankly, given the economics of it, historically, what we have seen is that companies are not willing to make the middle leg or the last leg investment, in, you know, expanding broadband access because it'll just take them too long to reap the profits of it, which from a business perspective, as a business owner myself, I understand that. We don't want business owners being forced to make decisions that put them in the red.
But I think as it relates to rural broadband, that's something where that's an area where the federal government has to step up because its implications on education, its implications on being able to bring businesses into areas, its implications on rural telemedicine. And so it's something that ultimately is costing us in the long run. And so it is my hope that we can come together in a way to drive some real resources to real broadband deployment.
Speaker 9
And I love that you touched on telemedicine because when we consider the fact that the Affordable Care Act is going to skyrocket folks' premiums, and we already know that the largest cuts to our health care system in our nation's history have already resulted in some rural hospitals closing. Can you the farmers that I visited in different parts of the country rely on the Affordable Care Act to provide health care to their families as and their employees as well. Can you speak about that?
Speaker 10
Yeah. Look, we've heard from several farmers and just a number of constituents in general, as I'm sure everyone here has, in terms of the impact that the premium subsidies have. Regardless of how they got here or when they got here, they got here. And they provide a meaningful benefit to millions of American families and about 50,000 or so just in my district. And on average, without those premiums, they will see their health care costs, on average, increase by about 106% in my district.
And, again, this is a district where the individual median income is $32,000, and, you know, half of people make less than that. And that's not even raising that number up to 35, 37, or 38, which is still too low. But at the end of the day, I represent a very poor district financially speaking, and so it's something that really matters. And on the hospital front, I like, I say this not to, like, raise, like, alarm flags. I got 13 counties in my district.
You can deliver a baby in two of them. Mhmm. 10 of the 13 counties either have a hospital that has closed or is in the process of converting to an REH to be able to stay open or on literal life support. The largest hospital in my state capital, Montgomery, which I represent, is in the middle of a bankruptcy, and they are the hub of rural health care in that region. And it's only two hospitals in Montgomery.
So if you lose that one, you're really in a bad situation in terms of rural health care. And this is all in a state that has the third-lowest life expectancy in the United States of America. And so it is, you know, the health care piece to me is not talking points. It's not political. It's how do we get to an answer that can fix these issues and at least keep our hospitals open because, you know, it's hard to recruit a business or retain a business or to recruit back retirees who grew up in an area to come back to where they grew up or to recruit developers or builders to come to an area when that pitch begins with the reality of we don't have a hospital.
No one wants to live in those communities. No one wants to invest in those communities. And that that's not a red or blue or dim or Republican issue. That's just a pure economics issue that it is my hope that we can find a way to work collaboratively to recognize that fact, and figure out a way to try to address it. And I know, look.
And there are some members on this committee that I know have worked on both sides of the aisle to try to address rural health care, but we have an ability to do it through rural development funds. And I look forward to working with you guys to figure out a way to try to do it.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Miss Figures. Thank you for the testimony. Now recognize the general lady from Washington State, Representative Schrier, for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig, for the opportunity to testify today. Over the past year, our constituents have had their food assistance stripped away. Working people are struggling with rising costs. Producers and consumers are dealing with the uncertainty of tariffs, and we're leaving farmers behind in all of this. And today's member day really couldn't be timelier.
The government shutdown highlighted just how important SNAP is for all of our districts. While people were working without pay, and their SNAP benefits were delayed, food banks were then overrun. And many of my constituents actually reached out to see how they could personally help make up the difference, but the fact is that none of us can. Earlier this year, House Republicans made it even harder to access SNAP benefits. Food's not a luxury.
It's a necessity, you've heard from every one of my colleagues up here, and we should be striving to make sure that everybody has the food they need, and not increasing barriers for those who are already struggling. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, is another program that needs our continued investment. WIC is an effective intervention to support positive pregnancy and birth outcomes and healthy child development, and WIC saves lives. Studies have shown that WIC reduces the risk of preterm birth and infant mortality, reduces the prevalence of childhood obesity, and saves significant health-care costs. And at a time when constituents are forced to spend thousands more on health care coverage or go without coverage altogether, this could not be more imperative.
We also need to invest in community resources like food banks that provide a safety net lifeline during times of crisis or to make up for SNAP deficits. The TFAP program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program or TFAP, offers this support while also investing in our agricultural community. My bill, the Eat Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act, takes this one step farther by allowing states to use TFAP dollars to purchase locally grown food from small and beginning farmers and get that to their local food banks and local food organizations. This bill would also fill a gap that was left by the local food purchase assistance program, which was hastily canceled by the Trump administration earlier this year. I will be reintroducing the Eat Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act this week, and I urge the committee to please prioritize it and other ways to invest in family farms.
Rising costs are not only impacting consumers, they're lowering profits for producers. The administration's tariffs have increased infrastructure costs and risked farmers' opportunity to just compete fairly in a global marketplace. It took over two years of my fighting to convince India to drop their retaliatory tariffs on Washington apples following President Trump's 2018 tariff war, which precipitated a 99% drop in those apple exports. We cannot afford to spend years cleaning up this new tariff mess while our local economies continue to struggle to pay Trump's tab. I introduced the Agriculture Export Promotion Act to increase funding to USDA export promotion programs like the Market Access Program, to give farmers who export their crops a fighting chance in this Trump economy.
My district is home to apples and pears and a variety of other specialty crops, much of which are exported. And I also wanna thank you for your focus on expanding specialty crop research and extension service services. I introduced bipartisan legislation to waive the prohibitive matching funds requirement for specialty crop research, funding, and this will allow our research institutions and individual orchardists to more readily invest in projects to combat fungicide resistance in wine grapes and pestilence in onions, precision irrigation for fruit growers, a variety of other issues, including, we were talking about flies before, mealy flies as well, not just mealy worms. Finally, we need to support a resilient agricultural system and ensure that farmers and producers can invest in climate-smart practices. My build the partnerships for agriculture climate action act allows farmers to choose to implement practices that reduce emissions, enhance soil carbon storage, and improve resilience to extreme weather.
It's modeled after a bipartisan Washington State program, and it is a good bill. I also introduced the bipartisan Enable Conservation Act, which expands the conservation reserve program county acreage cap so that more farmers can choose to restore their land and protect it for future generations. All of our US conservation programs are oversubscribed, and I urge the committee to prioritize these pieces of legislation and conservation programs that help the Earth and our farmers. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor Shire, so thankful for your testimony. I just wanna get a little more insight. You talked about the 99% drop in apple exports. Can you walk us through that?
What countries were impacted? Did the market recover? Like, how did you Washington work through that?
Speaker 11
So most Washington apples are the best apples in the world. Most of them are exported, but chances are when you go to the store down the street, you will see apples from my district. These particular tariffs were retaliatory tariffs imposed by India on the US after the US, the Trump administration, the first Trump administration, imposed tariffs on India. And predominantly, India was importing Red Delicious apples, which are not consumed so much in the US anymore. Have we have so many other varieties.
But they're very popular in India, and that tariff brought a $120,000,000 market down to a $1,000,000 market. It really nearly killed these apple farmers. It was two years of fighting. We finally got it flipped around, and they're now up and running again. But this is all quite uncertain.
We saw what happened the first time, and retaliatory tariffs hurt farmers.
Speaker 9
And were they able to recover back up to $12,120,000,000? Are they still, is it still a work in progress? Or it's
Speaker 11
Still a work in progress. We don't know if they're gonna get all the way back to 120. It'll take some time. I mean, the longer that you don't have a market, the more likely it is that you're gonna lose the market permanently. And we have already experienced that in Washington State, specifically with regard to China.
Speaker 9
Exactly. And so that was my point because that's something that I also experienced when visiting farms in the Midwest as it relates to soybeans. The soybean market has been drastically impacted by these tariffs. And, the concern of the farmers is if they will be able to recover and regain those markets. And when, whatever however you wanna phrase it, but I'll just say I'll call it a bailout too.
When you're bailing out other countries like Argentina when it comes to our beef and cattle market, it creates a space where our farmers are challenged to regain those markets. And so, what do you do? And so I appreciate you sharing that. And with that, I will yield back.
Speaker 8
Thank you. I just wanted to make a point. I appreciate you bringing up your comments about the WIC program. Very important, and so many of our families rely on that program. The chairman and I both sit on the committee of education and workforce, which, oddly enough, has jurisdiction over childhood nutrition programs.
So I would encourage you to also share that part of your testimony with the committee on education and the workforce, because it is worth noting and it's very important, and that overlap needs to be, just, I guess, considered because we work together with the two committees to make sure that that program is funded. Thank you. Thank.
Speaker 5
You, mister chairman. Mister Schrier, India has long had tariffs on the majority of US agricultural products going into that country. Correct?
Speaker 5
But I will tell you just as somebody who represents pecan growers and a lot of other products that go to India, India has long had significant tariffs on our agricultural products going into that country. Correct? Yes.
Speaker 11
The point is really not that. The point is that we were at a great equilibrium. Our farmers were thriving, and then additional tariffs got added on unnecessarily against essentially an ally.
Speaker 5
Where I disagree with you on that is your term equilibrium. Because what we want to reach is equilibrium. And I know what their tariff was on pecans. I know what it took for my good friend and colleague, Save Sanford Bishop, what it took for David Scott, what it took for myself to work to get the India tariff simply back down to a level where they were even affordable in their country. And so I just we can disagree on things, but India had long been tariffing US agriculture products going into that country.
Our goal is to reach an equilibrium with them where we get the tariffs reduced. Would that, I'll yield.
Speaker 11
I could just add. The US feeds the whole world. If we had calibrated our country just to supply food for our own country, we would not have farmers, you know, stuck in this position where they're getting lowballed by local supermarkets, so they can't make ends meet if they only sell domestically. We don't have enough people in this country to eat all of this. We need to figure out might agree fairly more.
Speaker 5
More on that than you think we do. They're not actually being lowballed by the supermarket. They're being lowballed because there are very few people that are actually buying the commodity and turning it into food anymore. So there are very few cereal makers. There are very few companies that are actually buying the commodity and turning it into the products that we buy at the grocery store.
Speaker 5
Fair enough. I'm talking, I'm fair enough. I'm talking about peanuts. I'm talking about grains. I'm talking, that's fair enough.
Pecans are pecans too. Actually, the pecans, until you bake a pie with them, then it's pecans.
Speaker 2
Well, and as we finish up, doctor Schreyer, I just wanted to say doctor Schreyer has been a champion on child nutrition. Next week, we will have on the floor Whole Milk for Healthy Kids, which she is an original cosponsor of, restoring that nutrition as an option back into our schools. As many of this panel actually are co-sponsors of it. You for that, Patty Schrier was one of the leaders on it, so thank you for that. Please recognize a very patient member of Congress who's waiting through this panel.
I apologize. Representative Underwood for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Craig. Americans across the country, especially in rural communities, are feeling the impact of President Trump and MAGA Republicans' extreme policies. Families are paying more for basics. Hospitals are closing. Farms are facing higher costs and more extreme weather due to man-made crises like climate change and Trump's tariffs.
And instead of strengthening our rural economies and improving affordability, Trump's big, ugly bill made things worse. It cut Medicaid by nearly $1,000,000,000,000, threatening access to life-saving care for rural communities and increasing the cost of health care for everybody. It also undermined vital conservation payments that help farmers face the dual challenges of rising costs and a changing climate. And on top of the big ugly bill, President Trump and his tariffs created chaos for the communities that keep this country fed. The damage is obvious, and rural communities are the ones paying the price.
That's why I've introduced two bipartisan bills to undo some of the harm House Republicans have caused. The Prioritizing Rural Hospitals Act and the Strong Farms Strong Future Act. Together, these bills address two of the biggest challenges I hear about from farmers in my district: access to health care and affordability. Republicans just passed the largest cut to health care in American history, and now hundreds of rural health care facilities are projected to close. When a hospital closes, families are forced to travel for hours to emergency care.
Preventive care plummets, and conditions worsen before people can get help. That means higher costs for families and higher costs for the entire health care system. We must act immediately to address the significant challenges people in our rural communities face in accessing quality health care. My bill, the Prioritizing Rural Hospitals Act, would address these disparities by prioritizing funding for rural health care facilities applying for rural development funding through the USDA. This bill gives communities the ability to renovate outdated buildings, reopen shuttered clinics, expand telehealth, and equip providers with the tools they need to expand care.
The Prioritizing Rural Hospitals Act is a crucial step towards reversing the damage done by Trump and House Republicans when they passed, when they slashed federal investment in rural health care. We need to act quickly to provide rural communities with the resources that they need to ensure everybody can access care when they need it, no matter where they live. Unfortunately, Trump and House Republicans didn't stop at cutting health care. To pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, they also stole from the conservation programs that farmers rely on. Family farms keep rural economies running, and they've been hit hard by rising costs and the financial uncertainty that comes with changing climate.
The Big Ugly Bill undermined conservation programs that farmers rely on to manage risk, improve soil health, and stay competitive. It pulled the rug out from under farmers who are acting as good stewards of their land. My bill, the Strong Farm Strong Families Act, I'm sorry, the Strong Farm Strong Future Act, is a common sense measure that puts farmers back on solid ground. It makes sure that when costs go up for things like cover crop seeds, labor, and equipment, conservation payments rise with them. Finally, farmers will receive inflation-adjusted payments for implementing and strengthening climate practices on their farms.
It also builds on the Conservation Stewardship Program, so farmers who adopt or improve conservation practices can renew their contracts with ease. Plus, it expands Climate Smart bundles so that farmers can access region-specific bundles for different types of land. These practices are helping farmers reduce input costs and stabilize yields. Better soil health means fewer expensive fertilizers. Better grazing systems mean healthier herds and lower feed costs.
Better water retention means fewer crop losses during drought. These bills give farmers and families the support that they're being denied by this administration. As Congress works towards a bipartisan farm bill, we cannot ignore rural hospitals or the financial pressure on family farms. Both of these bipartisan proposals should be included in a farm bill and brought to the House floor without delay because rural communities need action now. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, I thank the general lady, and certainly, I think that the economic, rural development aspect of the farm bill has been a force for good.
Speaker 2
When I look at the construction of hospitals or, whether it's maybe a new diagnostic machine or an emergency room upgrade, and I think it is, I think it's something that's overlooked by maybe a lot of members of congress and where it actually is a significant, significant tool. I appreciate your focusing on that. Yes, sir. Representing the many other members that have questions or anything?
Speaker 5
I would just mention to you, ma'am, one of the challenges for those of us that represent rural America with our hospitals is that many urban hospitals are claiming rural access, and that small pot of money that is put aside for rural health care because of urban hospitals claiming rural status, they are dipping into that money. And so, in many cases, that's leading to the wealthiest hospitals in the country taking money from the poorest. I would just point that out.
Speaker 12
What this bill would do is that it takes the USDA rural development pot of money that only those communities that are certified and that are accessing the rural development programs across the board. It would allow a prioritization of the health care programs when a community applies for those funds. That's important because, as you know, sir, when there's a closure of a rural health care facility, that infrastructure gets depleted very quickly. And if there's another company or nonprofit that wanted to come into that physical space, they often need help to afford the renovations to reopen. And that's what this bill is designed to address.
It's not addressing what you're talking about. It's really talking about the communities that are being directly served by the existing rural development program.
Speaker 5
And so I'm just pointing out that there are a multitude of problems. Mhmm. And, I mean, I've just watched as the county next to me was able to secure some funds to rebuild an older health care facility that had shut down so that they will now have a physician in that community who, by the way, happens to be my personal doctor. So now I'll travel 20 minutes instead of an hour. So the issues you're talking about affect a lot of us.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much for your service to your constituents. Thank and bring those before the committee. We're going to take, I think we're gonna have some folks coming up. We're gonna keep going as we get other folks seated. We have the general lady from Wyoming is seated, so we're going, we're gonna jump right into and proceed as other members, the rest any of the other members come up for the panel.
And so we'll the water passed out. Alright. Thanks very much to the staff for helping us. That was real quick. I represent the general or recognize the general lady from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Chairman Thompson and ranking member Craig, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I was raised on a ranch in Goshen County, Wyoming, and dozens of my immediate and extended family members remain in the ranching industry to this day. I have become increasingly concerned by the disappearance of ranching families in my community over the last 25 years or so, due in large part to numerous federal policies that have not only caused the current out migration of our ag producers, but accelerated it in recent times. 2025 started as a year of optimism.
Wyoming livestock producers were selling at higher prices, finally turning profits after years of losses, drought, and skyrocketing costs and expenses. One impact I have heard from constituent ranchers who, for the first time in years, didn't find it necessary to take a second job to keep the family ranch alive. Unfortunately, those gains for many were wiped away after unnecessary market disruptions, exacerbating larger issues that make it increasingly difficult to ranch in Wyoming. Because so many of these challenges originated in Washington, DC, we should be able to fix them in Washington, DC, but only if we have the courage to do so. The Trump administration has again taken a bold step forward in issuing its plan to fortify the American beef industry, and I believe we can build on this work.
I have submitted a number of priorities to this committee for the Farm Bill to do just that, and I want to touch on a few of those today. First, the electronic identification ear tag rule issued by APHIS in 2024. While I know there are members of this committee that do not agree with my opposition to mandatory EID, I am very grateful for your willingness to let me weigh in on this policy. There have been several challenges to the rules' implementation that must be addressed regardless of whether we support it or not. Since the EID rule went into effect, Wyoming and its surrounding states have run into persistent shortages, making compliance nearly impossible.
APHIS and the tag manufacturers assured us that they were prepared for the rule, but the fact is they were not. There is, however, another issue exacerbating the shortages. State veterinarians, in an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with this federal mandate, are instructing their cattle producers that they must put EID tags on all cattle from birth to grave, regardless of the type of animal, and despite the fact that the rule requires no such thing. The rule instead applies to sexually intact cattle that are 18 months of age or older and that will be sold or moved across state lines. Many of our cattle do not meet this criteria, including replacement heifers, other breeding and non-breeding stock, and they should not be required to support an EID tag.
The problem is that ear tag manufacturers and state livestock boards are saying that they are now prohibited from manufacturing anything but EID tags. There are thus no Banks tags available for those cattle that do not come within the definition of the rule. Ranchers are thus being forced to use EID tags for those cattle that were never included in the rule. This not only creates shortages, it is going to skyrocket the cost of the program. The rule, for example, was designed to cover only 11% of the cattle industry, with the USDA estimating the related cost to be $26,100,000 per year.
If the rule is instead implemented against 100% of the cattle industry, the cost for the ear tags alone would be over $260,000,000. Congress has not and most likely would not appropriate funds to meet that price tag, so we need to address this situation. I believe that this, another priority of mine, includes much needed reform to the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP. While there is, of course, a legitimate use for this program, it is now time to update and modernize it to safeguard U. S.
Food production. In summary, I believe that the CRP programs, which are really designed to disincentivize the productive use of land, are a top contributor to the decline in rural ranching families I referenced earlier. This has played out in my home community by literally removing essentially all families with young children across tens of thousands of acres in Goshen County alone. Why? Because our young producers simply cannot compete with the federal government when it comes to being able to purchase or lease land for cattle production, when it comes to CRP.
The CRP program has risen to cover 27,000,000 acres of land since the 2018 Farm Bill. In Wyoming, fully one half of our CRP lands are in Goshen County, affecting our schools and the future of our young producers. We now have people who buy land solely for the purpose of putting it into CRP, thereby taking it out of production simply for the federal payments that they can reap. I believe we must seriously consider lowering this overall cap, and other reforms as well. Another important target for CRP reform would be to expand the types of approved management tools to include livestock grazing.
Cattle production is good for the land. Cattle ranchers produce some of the healthiest protein that we can consume, and we need to increase the cattle numbers in this country. This is one way to incentivize ranchers to do so, while also furthering the intent of the CRP. Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation for the committee's recognition of the importance of the Secure Rural Schools program and for the passage of its reauthorization in the House last night. Rural communities in my state have received vital economic assistance to support public infrastructure, along with search, rescue, and other emergency services.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
Speaker 2
Well, Congresswoman, thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Part of the team was getting secure rural schools across the floor last night. That's a great victory for those of us like yourself and myself that have school districts within National Forests who've been living over a shadow of just a, well, a 75% or a 70% decrease in Mhmm. In funding.
So thank you for that. Yeah. CRP is the longest. I appreciate your perspectives on CRP modernization. It's the longest operating or existing conservation program, but it's never been modernized.
And it has slipped towards incentivizing taking productive farmland out of production. And that's not what the conservation programs are all about. So we look forward to addressing that in Farm Bill 2.0. And I, and we do need some accountability with that EID program. You know, the problem has been in is a problem many times in the implementation.
And this, in certain states, seems like it's been out of control. So look forward to doing more oversight on that than what we've done in the past.
Speaker 13
So, Chairman of Thompson, I look forward to working with you on all of these issues.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I look forward to it too. Any questions for the congresswoman Hageman? Go ahead.
Speaker 9
Thank you, representative. Appreciate your expertise in sharing that. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on some of the changes you would like to see as it relates to the EIP program and its implementation? Like, is it more administrative funds too, because it sounds like from the chairman's perspective, we don't have enough to properly implement the program. So could you touch on that for me, please?
Speaker 13
So the program was underfunded from the very beginning. So the estimate was that it would apply to 11% of the cattle industry, the cattle in the United States. And it was designed to do that because I think it was an incremental program, and it was intended to be. It's an astronomically expensive program. And in fact, I think, ultimately, it will cost over $2,000,000,000 if the state vets are successful in forcing all livestock producers to use EID on all cattle regardless of whether they cross state lines.
So it's an unfunded mandate on our cattle industry that's potentially going to cost upwards of $2,000,000,000. So, that's one of the challenges associated with it. Anytime that the government mandates something, you create shortages and skyrocket the price. That's exactly what happened here. The other reality is that I see the challenges of how it could be used in the long run to control our cattle industry and our cattle producers and actually vertically integrate the industry much more than it already is, the way that we have vertically integrated our poultry and our pork industries. So, from the standpoint of implementation, we need to make sure that it is implemented pursuant to the clear language of the rule as it exists right now.
And that's one of the problems, is it is not because there's a lot of confusion as to which livestock at Ottawa apply to. As I indicated, it sexually intact over 18 of age that cross state lines. But if I have a replacement heifer that I keep for eight or nine years or 10 years on my own ranch, I may sell it as a coal cow eventually. But at that point, she could put an ear tag on it, any IUD ear tag on it. But right now I need to have bangs testing done for brucellosis, and I need to make sure that I can put a tag on there.
But the manufacturers are saying their understanding is that they can only manufacture the EIDs. They can't manufacture the metal bands tags. We need to clarify that if you are going to have a replacement heifer, again, as an example, that stays in state rather than moving interstate, that they could continue to use the historical metal bangstags that we could then have manufacturers produce at a much lower cost. Cost.
Speaker 9
Thank you so much for that. And then, have you heard anything from your cattle ranchers with regards to the $40,000,000,000 as it relates to Argentina and the United States?
Speaker 13
There've been concerns about the trade deals. So, I went immediately to the trade office to find exactly what the situation was. I think there's been an awful lot of misinformation about the arrangement and the deal that has been being negotiated between the administration and Argentina. It shouldn't have impacted our cattle market the way it did. In fact, no live cattle were being considered for importation.
We were looking at lean trim for mixing with the hamburger. No premium cuts. So I think there was a lot of hysteria around that when there was discussion about the trade deal being put in place. But in fact, again, I think it was more misinformation than the truth. The problem is it really did, in real time, hit our cattle market, despite the fact that it wasn't targeted to live cattle at all.
Speaker 2
All right. Thank you very much. Now please recognize another outstanding member of the all-powerful Agriculture Committee, Congresswoman Hayes from Connecticut for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee as part of member day to discuss my top priority as the ranking member of the subcommittee on nutrition and foreign agriculture, and that would be cuts to SNAP. Today I would like to discuss my legislation, the Restoring Food Security for American Families and Farmers Act of 2024. This legislation would repeal the devastating cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, that were included in HR1, the One Big Beautiful Bill. I was joined by nearly 200 House Democrats, including House Ag Committee ranking member Angie Craig, to introduce this critical legislation.
Companion legislation has also been introduced in the Senate by Senator Ben Ray Lujan. This bill also has the support of more than 1,400 organizations nationwide. SNAP is the most effective anti-hunger program in our country, serving nearly 42,000,000 Americans, including children, seniors, and veterans. Also, the loss of SNAP by so many people would affect categorical eligibility, which impacts programs like WIC, school meals, heating assistance, and other programs. This is very important.
Approximately 360,000 people in Connecticut utilize the SNAP program. Despite serving as a lifeline to keep families fed, we have seen repeated attempts to defund SNAP and keep those in need from accessing benefits. In July, the majority advanced H. R. One, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included the largest cuts in the history of the program.
H. R. One cuts 187000000000 from nutrition programs and creates administrative barriers designed to make it harder for people to get assistance. Equally as damaging are the cost-share provisions that will force states to either cover the costs or opt out completely, as we've heard from other members on this panel. During the government shutdown, we witnessed just how disastrous it will be for states to shore up benefits without support from the federal government.
As the administration withheld contingency reserve dollars to cover SNAP benefits for November, states scrambled to come up with plans to cover the costs. Every state, every congressional district, every community, rural, urban, suburban, was panicked about how they would feed people in their community. This is only a microcosm of what will be on the horizon for states if the cost-share provisions included in the one big beautiful bill go into effect. My bill would repeal these unfunded mandates to ensure that states do not have to make tough decisions about which programs will be lost as a result of federal funding cuts. The bill also helps to mitigate the negative impact SNAP cuts would have on farmers, ranchers, producers, and the nearly 250,000 grocers authorized to accept SNAP dollars.
In the year 2025, in the United States of America, we have the ability to feed our people. I strongly urge this committee to reverse course on the cuts to SNAP, stop weaponizing hunger, and let's have some real discussion about what this looks like, and bring this bill to the floor. I also would encourage, we've heard a lot from different members about the interpretation of things. And the member before me just talked about misinformation and how people are interpreting things like the tariffs or some of the actions by the USDA in this administration incorrectly. The best way to address that is with transparency.
The Secretary of Agriculture should be before this committee explaining to us the motives behind many of the actions, letting this committee work with her to decide what next steps are. States should not be left scrambling for a tweet or an email about guidelines on how they should proceed. This committee must begin to exercise our constitutional authority as a separate and co-equal branch and bring secretaries and administrative officials before this body to share with the American people how these plans will be implemented, how they will roll out, what they will look like by the time they get to the ground. And governors should not be left to wonder what is happening. I don't care if you are in a red state, a blue state, people on the ground don't care.
They wanna know how these programs will work. And if this administration and this secretary has such a wonderful plan that the American people will be happy with the changes, then they should be coming here before this committee and sharing those changes, not only with us, but with the American people. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Connecticut is what is considered a donor state. Can you elaborate on that and how the federally mandated expectation for states to pay into the program would impact not only a donor state, but a state like mine that does not have the resources?
Speaker 8
Well, you're absolutely right. Connecticut is a donor state, which means we, the residents of the state of Connecticut, through their taxes, pay more, send more money to the federal government than we receive as a state to help support these programs. We actually might be much better off if we just kept our SNAP dollars at home, and took care of our own people. And our governor has made the decision in Connecticut that we would use reserve funds or shift from other programs because its priority is for us in the state of Connecticut to feed people. So I just wonder, and this is why it would be really important for us to hold hearings or for the secretary to come before this body, because in many states that rely heavily on the federal government, that send less than they, I mean, get back more than they send to the federal government, they will be left with just not being able to come up with the funds and completely eliminating a program like SNAP.
This idea that the state should have to pay for it, I would argue that in my state of Connecticut, we already pay for it because we send more to the federal government to help fill in the gap for some of the other states. And if you look at the map of where benefits are accessed, it's not just in democratic states or urban communities, it is in our rural communities. It is our bright red states. It is our suburban communities. It is everywhere across the country.
And I think one of the things that was amplified during the shutdown is the fragility of our food security networks. It wasn't just pockets of poverty around the country. It was every congressional district, every community. So it really is difficult for me to understand or wrap my head around how states who already rely so heavily on the federal government are going to be able to fund these programs with even less help and support from the government.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Oh, mister, I agree with you. I'm looking forward to having individuals from the administration before the committee. So I think that's a really important thing. I went through four years in the last administration.
We got very little of that. That frustrated me, so I don't want any of us to be frustrated. We need to have those communications. And I'd like to take one step forward, actually, and I've talked about this for some time. I want I would like to require request the governors, certain governors to come and sit before us to be able to share how they're implementing their programs.
And given the fact they've got three years in order to do the state share, that's with an error rate of 6%. How are they working towards getting that error rate down? I know in the state of Pennsylvania, ours is coming down, I've heard, and that's wonderful. Because errors only hurt the beneficiaries, the people who are struggling financially. So thank you for your passion.
Speaker 8
Well, I would just say that, I mean, as the chairman of the committee, respectfully, when you know better, you do better. And on this committee, I don't care what state it is, what secretary it is, we should be calling people before this committee. And we could call a hearing next week and have governors come in and talk about those things. Actually have the ability to do that.
Speaker 2
Yeah. We would've probably had someone before the committee if we hadn't been shut down for a month and a half. That delayed a lot, what delayed everything.
Speaker 8
Well, when you put a bill in front of us that asks us to either feed people or accept some of the unreasonable cuts, which were an impossible choice, that's really
Speaker 8
Not the premise that we should be operating from. But the fact that this committee and every committee tries to throw that out at every turn as if the reasonable choice would have been to accept $187,000,000,000 in cuts or get November benefits out on time. I would argue that it required a lot more negotiation, which is what we attempted. And had we had more than one committee in the preceding year, I think we could have addressed some of these things. One committee hearing on this topic in the preceding year, we could have addressed some of these things.
Speaker 2
Well, I think how we portray that is really important too. There's a lot of the savings came from folks who were not truly eligible for SNAP, non-citizens, and a whole lot.
Speaker 8
That still hasn't been. And, again, if we had hearings, we would have been able to demonstrate that because that has not been demonstrated. And the savings didn't go back into the treasury. They went to fund the tax cuts. And when we look at how the data is being collected or disaggregated, one of the things I've heard at home is we have a lot of mixed status families where the children may have status and one of the parents does not.
Those children are still eligible for benefits, so that doesn't... That's not... But if this was truly about fraud or ineligibility, we would be having hearings on fraud and ineligibility, rooting out those things, and preserving and protecting the parts of the program that work. That's not what this committee has done. And any characterization other than that is just not true.
Speaker 2
So, thank you. And now, please recognize the resident commissioner from the great territory of Puerto Rico, Pablo Hernandez, for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig, esteemed colleagues. I come here today with a single, simple bipartisan ask, SNAP for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been excluded from the SNAP program since 1982, and we've submitted a bipartisan bill that has the support of nine Democrats and six Republicans to ensure that Puerto Rico gets to transition from its current block grant SNAP program to the national SNAP program. Now this bill has been presented in the past, and members have raised concerns, which we have addressed in this newer version. First, we are providing for a longer transition that addresses the concerns about having the state government be ready for the implementation and administration of the SNAP program.
We've also requested a CBO score, which should help address some of the concerns. And I urge you to view this as an investment, not as an expense. It is an investment because it would just be $1,000,000,000 more for the program for an island that trades over $7,000,000,000 with the mainland in agricultural products. So if we get more money under SNAP as opposed to TANF, we would be buying more products from the mainland, from your districts for our people, thus strengthening our economies. Moreover, do not view this as additional welfare, view this as economic development and empowerment.
By having Snap in Puerto Rico, we would be able to raise the income levels that allow people to work and keep their benefits, thus driving more people into the workforce. And finally, I urge you to view this as an investment in justice. During my time in the district, I've spoken to students who, because they do not have SNAP and do not have the level of benefits that they would have under SNAP, have had to decide whether to buy a chemistry manual or buy food to feed themselves. This is a low-effort initiative with a high impact. When you look at the fact that you have families of three that have an average benefit of $315 a month in an island where foodstuffs are more expensive because of shipping.
And on their SNAP, they would have $535. You are doing something to end hunger. So, I urge you all to support this initiative. As I said, this unites Democrats and Republicans. This has the support of your former colleague and current Republican governor of Puerto Rico, Jennifer González-Colón.
And in the island, this unites people who support continuing its commonwealth status, transitioning to become a state, or even becoming independent. So this crosses party lines. This is a matter of justice, but this is also an economic opportunity for Puerto Rico and for the United States. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Mister, thank you very much. Any members have some questions, go ahead, please.
Speaker 1
I just wanna thank you, mister Hernandez, for your work on this issue. I'm a strong supporter of extending SNAP benefits to those Americans living in Puerto Rico, and I commend your efforts. Thank you.
Speaker 2
If not, commissioner, thank you so much. I appreciate your service. I know this is certainly a bipartisan issue, as you mentioned yourself and Governor Gonzalez Colon. So, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Now please recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Moore, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Speaker 15
It's great to be with you. And let me first start off by thanking this committee and its work to deal with a lot of issues I know that are there. And I from what I hear, probably one of the biggest issues facing agriculture right now is input cost. I hear that from, you know, particularly from row crop farmers, but I also hear it from folks who are dealing with, you know, with animals. And so it is I applaud this committee's work, mister chairman, your leadership on that to do what we can to help the agriculture industry.
In my home state, agriculture is the leading industry in the state, full stop. So, very proud of where we are in North Carolina, but understand the issues facing our country. And I wanted to thank this committee for its work on that. I did wanna address something that happened, and I'll, this was something that was a gift from our friends in the senate. As you recall, as a part of the government funding package that ended the shutdown, the bill included some major changes to the federal hemp policy without industry input and really without any stakeholder involvement.
Specifically, it changed the federal definition and regulation of hemp-derived products. These changes were made completely outside of the regular order. There were no hearings, no stakeholder engagement, and no meaningful debate. As enacted, this new law would effectively eliminate over 95% of North Carolina's hemp industry and put more than 220,000 American jobs at risk. It would have major consequences for small businesses and farmers in North Carolina and across the country.
This very committee was at the heart of enacting the hemp provisions in the 2018 farm bill that this, you know, this one provision just whole cloth essentially eliminated. I can tell you that farmers in North Carolina have relied on this framework for the past several years. They've invested in land, capital, etc., as well as retail operations. They entered this industry in good faith, follow the rules and guidance sent out in the farm bill. And, mister chairman, I submit it simply isn't right to change the rules of the game overnight, and certainly not without going through the proper legislative process.
I can tell you that we as house republicans are doing a lot to restore the American dream in rural America. And I would submit to you that this provision that was put in that provision, it does not help our rural hemp farmers around the country. You know, small businesses and farms across this industry are already being forced to consider laying off employees and pulling long-term investments, and this change is set to go into effect next year unless Congress acts to stop it. In the months ahead, mister chairman, my ask is that this committee use regular order to thoroughly examine the issue and to develop legislation that addresses these changes that were made. The agriculture committee is the appropriate venue to evaluate the full scope and impact, to hear directly from our farmers and determine the best path forward.
These hardworking folks deserve the opportunity to have their voices heard. They deserve a clear, you know, regulatory framework that reflects real work, real world conditions, and ensures fair competition. I look forward to working with this committee and stand ready to serve as a resource and a partner as you take up this issue. I do believe, mister chairman, there are ways to address any of the criticisms that are out there and to do so in a more effective way than what was put upon us in that provision. Like everyone here, you know, it was put into a bill to reopen the government.
I voted for it because we needed to reopen the government. But that doesn't mean we can't go back and fix this. This committee did a lot of work on the farm bill in 2018, and it's opened up a lot of opportunities in agriculture not only in my home state of North Carolina, but across the country. And I can tell you that it is something that has created jobs, and we need to do all we can to make sure those jobs remain in place and allow this as a viable industry for our friends in agriculture. With that, with time left over, something very rare for a former lawyer to do, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, thank you, Mr. Moore. Open this up. Any questions from any members? Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1
Representative Moore, thank you for your testimony. And I just wanna say, from Minnesota hemp growers, we are in complete agreement. We've spent a lot of time back home creating a regulatory structure for hemp that I would sure hate to see completely wiped away. So we'll be joining you in this fight to make sure we fix this over the next year. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Baird. Doctor. Baird. I'd like to add my appreciation for you bringing this issue before the committee, and, we have some of the same concerns in Indiana. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. I'll turn back to you. Very good. Miss Moore, thank you so much for your testimony and for representing your constituents back home.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much, Mister Chair and Madam Ranking Member, for holding this hearing, giving us an opportunity to weigh in on the important agricultural issues facing our districts. I wanna use my time very briefly just to highlight an important bipartisan bill that I am working on called the Catch It Act, which stands for Community Access to Treatment and Care for Health through Increased Testing. This is a bill that would help rural communities better screen for diseases and certain cancers like breast cancer. Whether our constituents live in a major city or a small town, everyone deserves access to lifesaving early detection services. Our bill would build on the Department of Agriculture's Community Facilities Grant Program by boosting the federal cost share to 25%, by 25% for rural projects involving preventative health equipment like mammogram machines, mobile health units, and early detection tools.
I introduced this legislation with my good friend and colleague from Iowa, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, because rural health is top of mind for both of us, as it is for many individuals on this committee. Our catch it act helps small communities afford the equipment that they need to keep people healthy. Catching diseases earlier avoids costly increase in health care costs by allowing the disease to be treated earlier and not progressing to a later stage, which again becomes more costly and deadlier to treat. This common sense legislation would expand affordable, accessible care in our smallest communities, too many of which have been overlooked for far too long. We appreciate the committee's attention to this bill.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, I thank the gentle lady, as rural development and what it does. You know, the impact it can have on rural health is significant. And, little no impact is big. I think the awareness is low. And certainly an investment from a preventive perspective is someone who practiced health care for 28 years.
That's some of the best dollars we can spend, better for outcomes, quality of life, and, quite frankly, the economy as well, economically, in terms of saving the burden of things that are not caught early. Representative recognize the ranking member.
Speaker 1
I just thank you so much for your testimony, Representative Shulton. And we will continue to work toward good partnership to get your legislation across the finish line. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Very good. Well, thank you so much. Now please recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Tucano, for five minutes. Mister chairman.
Speaker 17
And, Miss Ranking Member, thank you for hosting this Member Day hearing. As we sit here, we must acknowledge that veterans, their families, and caregivers across the country are facing higher costs of living. Veterans are not immune to the economic realities facing the general population. VA programs can only mitigate, not shield, veterans from the impacts of larger economic trends. I have to tell you, I'm incredibly frustrated that this congress and this committee delivered devastating snap cuts earlier this year.
Under what I call the big ugly bill, veterans will now be subject to work requirements. And what that really means is paperwork requirements. And these paperwork requirements do not help people find jobs. They just cut people off food. In my district, over 35,000 households and nearly 116,000 people rely on SNAP.
One constituent told me, quote, I'm a low-income senior citizen. I only receive $40 from the SNAP program, and I can barely make it each month after my rent and bills are paid. I use all the rest of my money on food, and usually, by the end of the month, I'm out of money. It is very distressing to think about them cutting off the $40 I get. I know that is not much to a lot of people, but it is to me. End quote.
Mister chairman, your committee's markup of the reconciliation package during that markup, you stated, quote, our veterans are exempt from the SNAP work requirement, which is the law, and we're not changing it, end quote. Yet, here we are. I ask you to hold joint hearings with the VA committee, and to hear directly from veterans and families regarding the impacts hunger is having on their lives. Today, we see a heavy use of food pantries at VA facilities, on military bases, and in military communities across the country. We know the need is there.
Kicking people off SNAP doesn't reduce poverty. It just exacerbates it, makes it worse. As the wealthiest country on earth, we have no excuse for this. I would also like to take a moment to highlight the over 300,000 veteran farmers. Knowing that farm bankruptcies are rising and veteran producers tend to run smaller farms with thinner margins, I worry about how the Trump tariffs are damaging veteran farmers' livelihoods.
And I'm not confident that USDA or VA are postured to help these veterans and families as they face foreclosures. We know that early intervention and prevention is much more cost-effective than addressing needs once in crisis. It holds true for housing. It holds true for hunger. It holds true for employment, and it holds true for mental health.
Every dollar you're taking away from hungry veterans through SNAP cuts or every dollar a veteran farmer loses in Trump's trade war, we are going to have to spend two or three or 10 times over at VA. VA's resources are already thin. As we stare down over a trillion dollars in Medicaid cuts, more veterans will turn to the VA and the Indian Health Service for care. But accessing care is difficult for rural veterans and families because they must travel long distances to medical facilities. These disincentives and reductions, this is what this does, is disincentivize and reduce preventative care.
It negatively impacts rural veterans' physical health, which is inextricably tied to their ability to earn a living, and in turn, their mental health. It affects their mental health. Again, Congress cannot gut essential social safety net programs without impacting veterans. My predecessor on the VA committee, who also served as a distinguished member of your panel, Governor Walls of Minnesota, constantly reminded us that we show our true priorities through how we spend the VA budgets and the committee's time. I'm sure he had the same thing.
He said the same thing to you all in this very room as well. He was right. And I challenge every member of this committee to put their money where their mouth is. I'm sure every one of us will give eloquent speeches on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, thanking our military members for their service. But will this committee vote to restore exemptions to snap work requirements for veterans?
I tried to do that in the rules committee when they were moving the reconciliation bill through this body. And I was told, no, we have to keep the work requirements for veterans in the bill. Or will we prevent or will you vote to prevent a billion-dollar bailout of Argentina while veteran farmers right here in the United States are on the brink of bankruptcy? Or will this committee rubber stamp continued cuts that undermine rural health care, bankrupt veteran farmers, and cause veterans and their families and their survivors to go hungry? We are here in congress.
We here in Congress must do better, Mister Chairman. I ask you to lead us, in that regard, with the power of your gavel, then I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, I thank the gentleman. I've been very pleased with the past number of including the National Defense Authorization Act that passed yesterday with a 33.8% wage increase for soldiers. If someone is an active duty military family, just very pleased with the success of years of significant increases, because we had a lot of families, especially those members of the military, joined a little older. So they came with a spouse and kids. And quite frankly, they were I always say that what we pay a private is probably pretty adequate because we also house them and feed them.
But if you come with a little older in your thirties maybe or late twenties and you come with a family, it's challenging because you're usually using off base housing, and I just really appreciate what the NDAAs have been doing of recognizing the importance of our military and congress as a whole with these increases that we have provided to make sure that which I think they use that for a lot of purposes, but including their own food security. I assure you we have significant programs already in existence in terms of our returning veterans, that, in terms of the agriculture field as well. We recognize the value of that, the importance of it as well, and the commitment to that. So any additional, go ahead.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Ranking member Tucano, I wanna thank you for standing up for hungry veterans in our country and in our community. I would also like to extend a very happy birthday publicly to you. Happy birthday to you. And then I just have one question.
What are the unique needs of the veteran population that cause you the greatest concern as it relates to what the Republican-led Congress has done in the SNAP program, which, of course, was to put work requirements on our nation's veterans.
Speaker 17
Well, you know, one-third of our veterans choose to live in non-urban areas. They like the quiet and the peace they get living in more rural areas, and it's directly related to their service history. They don't like noise, bangs, and all of that. That puts them in greater challenge in terms of access to health care. The more rural they get, they are often very far away from medical centers.
But, you know, significant numbers of our veterans face food insecurity. And notwithstanding what the chairman said about what the NDA has done to improve pay, we have a number of active duty military service members and their families who were qualifying for SNAP. And to subject our veterans to the work requirement, which is really a very insidious way to make it difficult for them to get food benefits. Our veterans who served our country and their families, they're going hungry. This is inexcusable.
It's wrong. And I thought it was very heartless when I couldn't even get an exemption for our veterans, to this requirement that this committee, the agriculture committee, they put it into the ag bill, the snap cuts that would affect our veterans. That to me was a shameful day.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, representative Tucano. And, mister Tara, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, gentlemen. Quite frankly, as a father of a wounded warrior, serving active duty, I'll tell you what's not fair is when your middle child retires before you do. He February hits his 20 years of service to this great nation, earning a purple heart, which he was quick to tell me that, dad, you know how you get a purple heart. Right? He says you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And, I will say that any of our veterans who are beyond the designated age are gonna be exempt. Any veteran that has a disability, and I think the VA has done a better job than what perhaps years ago of working and doing those disability ratings, because it takes a wear and tear in the body, serving in the military, depending on your MOS and what it is that you perform every day. And honestly, if you're coming out of the military and you don't have a disability, and, I don't know. I mean, I just find that someone is going from active duty status to veterans. They want to work.
And anything, what we've done is now we're investing dollars to help them with SNAP education and continuing education. We're investing in those veterans for them to be able to maybe get a different skill set or maybe just to refine the skill set that they've worked on, and they performed bravely while they're part of the military. I appreciate your passion for the military and our veterans specifically, and I appreciate you, you know, bringing those perspectives and those of your constituents before the committee. Well, can.
Speaker 17
I just say with regard to those veterans who don't have disabilities, who don't have an actual disability rating, that could be for many reasons. And we have homeless veterans that we're gonna have, it's gonna be more difficult to serve their needs if they have to go through these onerous work requirements. And, you know, maybe for a lot of reasons why that veteran never got connected with the VA. And for us to address this shameful problem of having veterans on the streets living without shelter and now facing a more difficult challenge of being able to, you know, have a sustainable path to self sufficiency, you know, these work requirements are simply not helpful. So that's my response.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
You're welcome. Seeing no other members before the committee, I'll just make it clear that any members that would like to submit for the record, and we have some statements that have been submitted already, the committee would welcome those in terms of their input, and now recognize the general lady, the ranking member, for any closing comments.
Speaker 1
Close with great thanks to those members throughout both of our parties who came today to express what their priorities are in this country as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee. And we appreciate the opportunity to listen to your work on behalf of your constituents. Thank you.
Speaker 2
I thank you, General Lee. I wanna thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for sharing their priorities before the committee. Many of these issues presented have been long-held priorities for our agriculture stakeholder community and have been championed by both Republicans and Democrats. We heard from members on the vital role of USDA trade promotion programs, including our Democrat colleague from Washington on the need for more funding for the Market Access Program. We heard from our colleague about the vital need for greater investment in agricultural research programs.
We heard from our colleagues about the need for greater investment in conservation programs, among other priorities. And what some were unaware of and others failed to acknowledge or intentionally admitted is a historic investment accomplished in HR one. And I know budget reconciliation is always partisan. I think we had that discussion long before we actually that the train left the station. I've been on both sides of budget reconciliation, but the fact is we were able to accomplish a historic increase in baseline funding for our popular locally led conservation programs, with total funding for EQIP, CSP, ASEP, and RCPP increasing by 54% in total by 2031.
That's now in law as part of the HR one or the One Big Beautiful Bill. Historic increase in funding for the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program. Those were both doubled in funding by the Big Beautiful Bill. A historic investment in the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty Crop Block Grants to support our Specialty Crop industry. That's right.
It's now law as part of HR1. At $125,000,000 per year, the first mandatory funding in history for the Agriculture Research Facilities Act, and it's in the big beautiful bill. Historic $1,500,000,000 over the next decade in livestock biosecurity, supporting more large animal veterinarians, USDA laboratories, vaccination developments, APHIS, and assistance for farmers impacted by animal disease. And, yes, we also secured that in the HR one. It's now the law.
And a historic involvement investment in our farm safety net in at least a generation, part of HR1. My hope going forward is, I mean, there are some things built right past years that, overall, I was not able to support for whatever reasons. Although, did take the opportunity to celebrate some of the individual wins for the people that I was serving and working for, and I'm hoping that that's what, whatever the feelings are with budget reconciliation, that we can, as we look at the agriculture title of that, the biggest investment in putting the farm back in the farm bill, well, probably over at least 25 years. So, and those ideas were all, that I just named, were bipartisan. We ones that we worked on together as we listened to the key constituency of agriculture as we traveled the nation.
So very pleased that we're able to serve and provide that. And so, with that, I think that concludes our business with our member day. Would encourage members to submit any additional comments to the committee of their priorities, issues, wishes they might have as we move forward and prepare to finish the Farm Bill process with Farm Bill 2.0. So, with that, this hearing is now adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.