Fiscal Year 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Related Agencies Bill
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 Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. I'd now like to recognize my good friend Mister Bishop from Georgia for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Thank you, ranking member DeLaura, my counterpart, doctor Harris, and our respective staffs. Let me thank you all for the hard work and your cooperation. We've had an opportunity to chat a number of times with Chairman Harris. And while we have not necessarily come to agreement on all things, I think this is a good faith effort.
The agriculture, rural development, FDA, and related agencies bill is of vital importance to our farmers and our rural communities across the nation. The programs and the workers that we fund through this bill affect the lives of every single American every day. It's about the food our families eat, support of our rural communities, our entrepreneurs, and our agricultural producers. It's about the safety of our medicine and cutting-edge research needed to ensure that America will continue to produce the highest quality, the safest, and most abundant and affordable food and fiber anywhere in the world. Today, we are marking up the FY '27 bill, and we must take this opportunity to improve it so that it actually meets the needs of our country's agricultural producers and our rural neighbors.
The bill does continue 2026 funding levels for all of the rural housing programs. It maintains funding for low-income seniors in the commodity food supplemental program, and it serves our strategic interests around the world by keeping the McGovern-Dole program intact. It also provides flexibility for rural electric programming. However, all of this is overshadowed by the devastating and unfortunate cuts to USDA programs and staff that will hurt American children, attack our freedom to drink clean water, to eat safe food, and to preserve U.S. farms. The FY '27 bill before us today drastically cuts fruit and vegetable benefits for over 5,000,000 hungry women, infants, and children, and it reduces funding for emergency food assistance.
It eliminates the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and it fails to help school districts with the equipment needed to cook real food to meet the dietary guidelines. The bill also provides $200,000,000 less in new funds for WIC than the FY '26 bill. That means that 95,000 more women, infants, and children will go hungry in Dr. Harris' home state of Maryland. Chairman Cole, this means that 56,000 women, infants, and children are going without fruit and vegetables in Oklahoma. An hour represented on the committee by Miss Henson, that's another 48,000.
Across the Chattahoochee River from me in Alabama, represented on this committee by Mister Strong and Mister Adaholt, 85,000 women, infants, children are losing access to affordable, healthy food. We have several members on the committee from Florida. Yet, if they support this bill today, that means 330,000 of the most vulnerable Floridians are going to go hungry. In my own state of Georgia, and I'm joined on this committee by my colleague, mister Clyde, 185,000 women, infants, and children are left asking how on earth does ending their access to healthy food help make America healthy again? And that's just a snapshot from a few states.
Every state is going to see more women, infants, and children going without the fresh food and vegetables that Doctor Harris says he wants to promote. If WIC remains underfunded as it is today in this bill, we will turn away eligible families for the first time in 3 decades. Unfortunately, American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars a day on an unauthorized war, with no end in sight. For nearly two months, just one week of this war in Iran could fully fund WIC for the whole year. Ag producers in rural America need our help now, more than ever.
Yet this bill cuts staff at the agencies that our farmers and ranchers rely on the most. The Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, NRCS. When it comes to agriculture production, growers know that you have to make hay while the sun shines. But my constituents, and I would bet most of yours too, are driving further and taking more time to catch the USDA office open on a day when it is open. They face delayed payments, reduced technical assistance, and loss of services from programs, as this administration tells us they can do more with less.
That's just not true. American farmers need USDA resources now, and this bill turns away from our responsibility for making sure the USDA staff is available and ready with the expertise to help them. This bill also cuts water and wastewater grants nearly in half for the smallest and poorest rural communities in your and my districts. We have rural neighbors living with clay pipes and without access to the sewer service. This makes no sense.
Clean water and working wastewater systems are a basic human need, not a privilege. Businesses will only set up shop when there is access to clean water. This is a quality of life issue and a job creation issue. My colleagues across the aisle seemed obsessed with the border in November 2024, but will not provide the basic utilities that Texas border residents, American citizens, need. Colonias often lack running water.
They have substandard housing and rely on filling septic tanks. Yet this bill cuts water and wastewater funding to these neighborhoods, as well as neighborhoods in Alaska and Hawaii. Unfortunately, in this FY '27 bill, rural broadband is cut by 20%, rural business development is cut by almost 30%, and rural energy programs are cut by 50%. I'm also disappointed that the majority is once again offering caustic riders that distract the committee from the mission at hand to invest in our hardworking ag producers, support Americans' rural communities, and ensure the timely review and safety of the medicine that families need. While this bill largely rejects the disastrous cuts and, in some cases, program eliminations that were proposed by the White House, we can and must do better.
Let's make sure that we don't leave our constituents behind, especially as they face higher costs for food, for fuel, and everything else in this Trump economy. Now is our time to make this bill great again, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee as well as the House and Senate to do so. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. I now recognize myself for the remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Harris, and thank you Ranking Member Bishop and Ranking Member DeLauro, and, frankly, all the members on both sides of the aisle on both the subcommittee and the full committee. As we start today's full committee markup, I'm reminded that America's farmers and ranchers were already in the fields long before we walked into this airing room, planting, tending, and carrying the responsibility that keeps this country fed and moving forward. Our fiscal year 2027 agricultural rural development food and drug administration and related agencies bill reflects the same focus, doing the work, meeting real needs, and delivering where it counts.
The measure supports farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and reinforces research to keep The United States competitive. It invests in food safety through important inspection resources, and ensuring American agriculture is protected from foreign pests and diseases. And we make sure Buy American isn't just a slogan through policies prioritizing products produced right here at home. This bill centers on the health and well-being of Americans. It strengthens rural development, protects nutrition access, and upholds the reliability of essential food and medical systems.
It also takes further steps to safeguard American interest by strengthening guardrails of foreign purchases over agricultural purchases and enhancing oversight of overseas drug manufacturing, protecting our land and ensuring greater security across the supply chain. We depend on our common sense priorities we can all share. Further, it shifts the focus from spending more to spending smart, eliminating inefficiencies, ending the Biden era of regulation, and holding every dollar to a higher standard. This measure is rooted in the people it serves, America's producers, consumers, and communities. When we strengthen agriculture and protect public health, we ensure the long-term prosperity our country depends upon.
I wanna thank Chairman Harris for his leadership and work in drafting this vital legislation, and I appreciate the partnership of ranking member Bishop, as well, again, as majority and minority staff. I look forward to adding to our total of bills reported out of the full committee, and I urge support for today's measure. With that, I yield back. It's now my pleasure to recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Laura of Connecticut, for opening remarks.
Speaker 4
Good morning to everyone, and good morning, chairman. Thank you. I wanna say a thank you to you, to Doctor Harris, and Ranking Member Bishop. Also, wanna say a thank you to the subcommittee staff, to Martha Foley, Alex Swan, Marek Waltieri on the minority side, and their counterparts on the majority, Pam Miller, Elizabeth Dent, Judd Gardner, and Nick Sellinger as well, for their work. I rise in opposition to the bill before us today.
It will increase costs for American farmers, decrease aid for working families, and scale back our support for rural communities. In 2025, nearly 7,000,000 women, children, and infants received support for grocery vouchers provided under the WIC program. These are families who struggle to put food on the table, who are just trying to keep their heads above water at the cost of living, and their grocery bills keep rising. This bill makes substantial cuts to the assistance. And by the way, there's an overall $200,000,000 below 2026 to the WIC program.
This bill makes a cut specifically to the vouchers for fruits and vegetables, denying women, infants, and children access to fruits and vegetables. It is hardly a way to make America healthy again. In addition to providing assistance for families who need it, WIC supports the farmers and grocers who grow and sell the produce these vouchers can be used to buy. Cutting back on this aid will have a cascading economic effect that will reverberate throughout our communities. WIC works. Multiple studies have found that WIC participation reduces the risk of adverse birth outcomes, like premature birth or low birth weight, and it lowers infant mortality, and that it leads to healthier overall diets for young children.
Yet, this bill would prevent participants from enrolling or recertifying in the program remotely. I think this is the 21st century. They can do this remotely by failing to extend this option beyond the 9/30/2026 deadline. This option has proven to be critical in allowing more Americans to access these benefits, allowing working people to avoid transportation barriers and time off from work. In some rural areas of the country, including many states with Republican members of congress, there is not a readily accessible WIC clinic where individuals can go to enroll in person.
Virtual recertification is a proven process that eliminates these barriers to access for many people, allowing more efficient use of taxpayer dollars and making sure that people can put food on the table while maintaining the program's integrity. The American people deserve programs that work to support them and do not impose unnecessary burdens. I don't understand why people cannot certify online. This bill cuts the Food for Peace program by $300,000,000, a 25% cut compared to 2023. This not only deprives farmers of the additional revenue they can earn when they grow food to support the program, but it denies hungry children around the globe access to the assistance they desperately need.
My faith reminds me in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, and I quote, for I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I can also quote Leviticus, just set aside a share of the harvest for the poor. This bill turns a blind eye to our brothers and sisters who are suffering, and for what purpose? More than 2,200,000 Americans do not have access to basic plumbing and running water in their homes, and this problem is more pronounced in rural communities.
Yet, this bill proposes cutting grant funding for waste and water development programs in rural communities by $62 million. Rather than alleviate the problem, the bill before us makes it worse, leaving more Americans without access to the basic necessities of life we should all expect in the United States. The bill scales back loans under the Rural Energy for America program by 50%, while eliminating all grant funding. This program was created to help bring down energy costs for farmers, small businesses, rural communities. More than 25,000 projects have been funded through the program, helping people across all 50 states reduce their energy costs.
And over two-thirds of grants have gone to Republican-led districts. More than 25% of all REAP grant funding has gone to just 20 congressional districts. 18 of those districts are represented by Republicans, including all of the top five highest R.E.A.P. grant recipients. Iowa's 2nd District, now represented by Representative Ashley Henson, has received the most REAP funding at more than $50,000,000. Minnesota 7th District received the second most funding at more than $47,000,000.
Minnesota 7 is represented by Michelle Fischbach. Iowa's 4th District has received the third most funding, with more than $40,000,000 total. Iowa's 4th is represented by Representative Randy Feenstra. In 2025, out of the 2,200 plus REAP awards, 1,752 for $372,000,000 went to Republican districts. By contrast, only 465 went to Democratic districts for $169,000,000.
Despite this, the Republican bill we consider today decimates the program. It raises energy costs for their own constituents all across the country. This bill cuts funding for Reconnect Broadband, a program designed to expand internet access in rural communities by 20%. Broadband access is not a luxury. It is a necessity today.
It drives economic growth. It connects people to a wider community, including jobs and career training. It improves access to medical care, which is crucial when the nearest medical center may be an hour's drive away or more. It expands educational opportunities, helping to ensure every child is equipped to succeed in the economy of the future. This bill does nothing to further protect our infants and better ensure infant formula safety, even in the wake of the baby botulism outbreak that took regulators and parents by surprise just a few short months ago.
This bill leaves behind specialty crops, family, small farmers while doing nothing to tackle the big agribusinesses that terrorize our farm economy, increase costs for the American consumer. I find it troubling as well that this bill does nothing to recognize the essential role that the FDA plays in the vaccine review process for approval and use by Americans. Prior to this administration, FDA followed long-standing good guidance practices related to vaccines, assessed scientific evidence in a transparent manner, and adhered to the principles required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Earlier this year, the FDA refused to even review a flu vaccine developed using mRNA, which secretary Kennedy has crusaded against for years because it was used to develop the COVID-19 vaccines. The FDA later reversed course only after facing a substantial backlash from the medical community and the public writ large.
Last week, the FDA refused to approve a drug for advanced skin cancer, which Secretary Kennedy personally opposes. Despite numerous cancer doctors attesting to the effectiveness of the treatment, FDA has been the gold standard for drug safety and efficacy. I have serious concerns that under this administration, it's less focused on proven treatments and more attentive to Secretary Kennedy's personal opinions. Lastly, the bill includes a litany of partisan policy writers. It eliminates protections for small meat and poultry producers, a gift to larger corporate competitors, which the American Farm Bureau opposes. It would encourage Americans to eat raw eggs that have not been properly stored or refrigerated, which increases the risk of foodborne illness.
I don't understand the obsession among some of my friends across the aisle giving themselves food poisoning as an expression of individual liberty, but to each their own, I suppose. Lastly, the bill also brings up partisan culture wars. In its current form, the bill raises cost for American farmers, takes food away from hungry families, cuts off support for rural communities, loudly bangs the drum of culture war drums once again. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the legislation. Work with the Democrats.
Let's work together to fix the many serious problems it contains. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, mister chairman, for the.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady, for your remarks. Obviously, as you can see, we have started voting, but we wanna go. Oh, wow. As far as we can go into the individual remarks and responses on the bill. So we'll just keep a sharp eye on the clock. I would ask once you go down to vote, when we're done, you come back as quickly as possible so we can resume wherever we stop.
And I would ask those that are speaking to try to stay within the time limits if you can. The chair is always gonna be generous with the clock, but obviously, we wanna get as much of this done before we have to vote as possible. With that, the chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Molinar, for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I rise in support of the fiscal year 27 agriculture, rural development, and FDA appropriations bill. This bill provides the Department of Agriculture with the funding it needs to support our farmers, invests in important research, and provides ample resources to get American products to new markets. Importantly, it protects our farmland and food security from foreign adversaries like China. This bill is also an investment in rural America.
It provides robust funding for community facilities, housing, and vital communications infrastructure that will help rural communities like mine thrive. This bill fulfills President Trump's promise to American farmers and rural communities, and I thank Chairman Harris for his leadership in crafting this bill. And I urge all my colleagues to support it. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chairman Cole. Ranking member, Del Oro. Chairman Harris. Ranking member, bishop, thank you all for bringing us together under regular order to consider this bill. US agriculture impacts every American, and it actually is the lifeblood of each of us and of all the individuals we represent.
We look across our country, and we see farmers, ranchers, urban growers now, and our rural producers who serve Americans all the way from our heartland, which I represent, and coast-to-coast. This legislation is important whether you live in a city or farmland. It funds the programs that keep our food and agricultural supply chains functioning for the American people. And also, with exports, adding additional economic growth to our farmers and agricultural communities. A sector that supports roughly one fifth of our nation's economic activity and about 1,500,000,000,000 of our GDP.
That's pretty good. Put simply, investing in American agriculture is food security for our own people, but it's also investing in our national and economic security. The share of our economy represented by domestic agriculture, unfortunately, has declined, while imports of foreign-produced food have risen. Every imported food, guess what? We can grow and produce here, and it's a lost opportunity for America.
I wanna thank Chairman Harris for his sensitivity to this issue of the displacement of imports with US-produced product, because what America makes and grows makes and grows America. With that in mind, I want to highlight several areas of this bill that fall short for my constituents in Northwestern Ohio and for rural communities across our country. First, the rising cost of everything. Everyday Americans, including our neighbors and the farmers I represent in Northwest Ohio, are struggling to make ends meet. Farmers' margins are razor thin.
They are facing drought, tariffs, escalating input costs driven by global instability due to the president's war of choice and unresolved issues like permanent extension of year-round E15 sales. Frankly, I wanna go to the 30, the 60. Brazil's doing that. We got a long way to go, but half our income in field production in corn and soy now goes into fuels. Without that, these farmers would be bankrupt, and America needs to understand that.
This bill does not do enough to help them. It cuts in half the loan guarantees under the Rural Energy for America Program known as REAP. And I'm also deeply concerned about the 60% cut, a $3,000,000 reduction, to the USDA Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production. Frankly, we have four season houses in our area raising fruits and vegetables to displace imports. You have to recognize the new American agriculture that is rising around us.
Fertilizer and energy costs have nearly doubled for greenhouses, and I represent one of the largest, if not the largest, greenhouse landscape capital of the United States, home to the warmest coast of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie South Shore, and the fertile soils that was called the Great Black Swamp. We have enormous potential, but greenhouses cannot survive or expand when energy costs literally strangle them. Cutting the one USDA office dedicated to urban agriculture undermines efforts to diversify production, strengthen local supply chains, catch up with where science is leading us, and build the next generation of American growers. Second, we must rebuild local and regional food systems. This bill eliminates funding for the agriculture, marketing services micro grants for food security program, which helps communities grow food through small scale gardening that they can increase, herding, and livestock operations.
It also reduces funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which helps retailers overcome barriers to serving rural and low-income communities. And as many dear colleagues know, I am laser focused on connecting producers with local food school programs so our children can access more locally grown fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, and other locally produced food. But cost is a major barrier. School meal reimbursement rates need to reflect inflation, supply chain pressures, and labor costs. Students, by the way, don't like the food they are eating in the schools.
Just ask your kids when you go out to the schools. America has to do better. Schools also need more kitchen capacity for scratch cooking, especially in rural America. Yet this bill cuts school breakfast equipment grants by 50% or $5 million. Third, we must invest in the future.
Research funding is essential to counter pests, invasive species, and threats to soil and plant health. Yet this bill cuts NIFA research equipment grants by $3,000,000 and reduces the sustainable agriculture research and education program by 17%, or $8,000,000. These cuts slow farmer-driven research and hinder efforts to protect working lands and watersheds, including the largest watershed in the entire Great Lakes, which I have the privilege of representing, the Western Lake Erie Basin. In closing, mister chairman, I recognize we face tough choices, and these are finite resources. While this bill certainly improves on the president's budget, it still falls short.
It needs an amendment. But where the president shortchanges farmers in rural communities, this committee has the responsibility to make up the difference because protecting their interest is protecting the nation's interest. If the president can direct $40,000,000,000 of US taxpayer funds around the world, including $20,000,000,000 to Argentina, to foreign cattle producers. Surely, Congress can find a fraction of that amount to invest in America's cattlemen and in the energy savings, local food systems, and research programs that I've highlighted that this bill cuts. I hope we can work together to address these shortcomings.
Let's at least level-fund the programs that help farmers in rural communities manage rising energy costs, strengthen local and regional food systems, and support farmer-driven research that protects our soils, watersheds, and the future. Because when we do so, we innovate and increase the percent of our GDP and the nation's economic activity from the food and agricultural sector. Thank you for your attention, because what America makes and grows makes and grows America. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the comments. Gentlelady from Iowa. Miss Henson's recognized to address the bill.
Speaker 8
Support of the fiscal year 27 ag FDA appropriations bill. This bill takes important steps to modernize our USDA operations, improving customer service for our farmers and ranchers while making the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars possible. I'm proud that this bill includes $50,000,000 for the USDA chief information officer to help support IT improvements at our Farm Service Agency, including the One Farmer, One File initiative. FSA local offices play an incredibly important role in connecting our farmers with USDA programs, and this effort will help farmers access those federal resources that they need and trust. This bill also maintains language to protect our national security against foreign adversaries, adding the secretary of agriculture to CFIUS and including my language to secure our food and ag supply chains from countries like China. We're also making some targeted investments in food and ag research, providing funding to support discoveries that give our producers a competitive edge in the global marketplace.
Our bill also does support our most vulnerable population, babies, through ensuring that foreign infant formula factories are held to the same standard as American factories, and this also protects the US infant formula supply chain. And finally, the bill includes my language to help improve price transparency for fertilizer and to lower the cost of inputs that our producers in Iowa rely on. So, in short, this bill is responsible. It respects taxpayers while still making those targeted investments in agriculture to support our producers and growers. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work on this, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for making her point so concisely. Absolutely. She ought to applaud her. But you can applaud the speakers on both sides here. I'd next recognize my good friend from Minnesota, gentlelady, Miss McCollum, for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 9
Chair. Of Iowa. I rise in opposition to the bill before us. Last year, Republicans and President Trump forced through their incredibly unpopular big beautiful bill, which cut millions of Americans from food assistance benefits. This year's agriculture appropriations bill, the SNAP, is no different, continuing a $6,000,000,000 cut to SNAP.
Now Minnesota administers SNAP at the county level, and many of us in this room do exactly that on both sides of the aisle. The counties are being asked, well, I should say they're being forced, to modernize their enrollment systems to comply with new federal standards. Because of this, some of our counties are now facing unfunded mandates that carry steep penalties the counties cannot afford. The bill does nothing to solve the catastrophic problem that will go into effect later this year for our counties. This bill also presents a problem with its failure to fully fund the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children known as WIC.
With this funding level, young children and pregnant women who are eligible to receive nutritious food through WIC will not receive the assistance for which they are entitled. Many of you might not be aware of the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which provides funding to improve access to healthy fresh foods. Well, that's eliminated too. Take these cuts together to nutrition services, and it'll impact all of our districts. Everyone's paying more for gas, for groceries, for basic needs.
This bill will be even more burdensome to our families who deserve assistance. Some people might find it odd, I hear that sometimes on the floor, that someone from Saint Paul cares about agriculture. But Minnesota's a farming state. We produce corn, sugar beets, soy, and we are the country's largest turkey producer. Just ask Brad Finstead about that.
In my district, we have some amazing apple orchards, organic farms, heritage animal production, and small agriculture. It is very important to our community. My district also has the University of Minnesota St. Paul campus, which is vital to agricultural research. Programs like Serial Disease Lab conduct research to protect corn, barley, wheat, and more. If you have these crops in your state, we're doing the research to protect them in my district.
The university's veterinary program is also in Saint Paul, training the future workforce that cares for animals, large and small. Agricultural research is vital for our food security, for our economic security. And I'm gonna continue to fight for increases in those programs. Rural Minnesota is, we're one Minnesota. And so when rural Minnesota is harmed by cuts in these bills, like reconnect broadband slash by 20%, it's a problem for the whole state.
And we all care about clean drinking water, but this bill cuts vital water and waste grants to help rural communities. An 8% cut also to conservation programs will limit our farmers' ability to implement best practices to conservation, to protect their land and protect all of our water. Bottom line is this bill does not support our farmers enough. It hurts best practices, and it doesn't do anything to help with the affordability of nutrition in my state. Without a yield back.
Speaker 1
And I wanna thank General Lady for her precision, her remarks, and staying within the time limit. With that, we're getting close enough that I think we'll probably suspend remarks, then we'll resume. Obviously, we have more speakers. So please come back as quickly as you can. Thank you very much, and the committee stands in recess, subject to call of the chair.
Speaker 1
Committee will resume session. Let me quickly, obviously, we've had some confusion here and some, just talked with the ranking member. She's headed to the facilities, but she said, let's get started. And we agree with that. Obviously, we're going through opening statements, and we will accommodate as we can there.
We're not sure exactly what's happening on the floor, but we think it's gonna take a while no matter what, and we might as well resume. So I would ask you, if any of you are in communication with any of our colleagues, just urge them to come back so we can proceed as normal. And I'm gonna give, we have several members coming in. I wanna give my friend, a gentle lady from Florida who's been very patient, recognize her to make comments on the legislation. Gentle ladies, recognize.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise, my friends, to speak in strong opposition to this bill. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is, because our farmers, ranchers, and growers need help. They face skyrocketing fuel costs, erratic tariffs, global markets, and increasingly extreme storms and droughts. So they need real help right now.
Agriculture, as I've reminded my colleagues before, is the number two driver of Florida's economy. And, unfortunately, instead of investing in the hardworking people who put food on our table, this FY27 agriculture and FDA appropriations bill completely abandoned STEM. It slashes spending by more than $1,100,000,000, a 4% cut from last year. Meanwhile, families nationwide still struggle with the cost of groceries, line up at food banks, and still count on this congress to have their backs. But this bill just deserts them.
Let's start with WIC. Last year, it served nearly 7,000,000 new mothers, babies, and young children during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Yet this bill cuts WIC by $200,000,000 below 2026 levels, and the pain doesn't stop there. It fails to fully fund the cash-value vouchers that allow women and children to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables. Think about that.
We're telling new mothers that we know you qualify, and we know you're eligible, but we're gonna shortchange this vital benefit anyway. That's just heartless, and it's not who we should be as a country. But it gets worse. SNAP, the backbone of America's food security infrastructure, takes a $6,000,000,000 hit in this bill. And that's a direct consequence of cuts baked into the big ugly law, which handed working families crumbs just to lavish huge tax breaks on millionaires and billionaires.
Yet we know SNAP is the most effective and efficient anti-hunger program in the federal government. It keeps food on the table for working families, seniors, people with disabilities, and children. Every dollar cut from SNAP doesn't disappear. It shows up as hunger. And the emergency food assistance program that helps stock food banks and pantry shelves is cut by $5,000,000 here.
These are the organizations that catch people when they fall, when a job disappears, when a medical bill arrives, when the unexpected happens. All this bill does is make their work harder. Let me turn to Food for Peace, because this program does something extraordinary. It supports American agriculture by purchasing US-grown commodities and uses them to fight hunger around the world. It's good for our farmers, good for our standing in the world, and good for all the hungry children that it feeds.
But this bill cuts it, guts it by $300,000,000, even after this administration already gutted USAID and dismantled the very infrastructure that delivers this food to those who need it most. This isn't fiscal responsibility. This is fiscal negligence of the cruelest kind. Lastly, there's the Food and Drug Administration. FDA's job is simple: keep our food and medicine safe.
But this bill cuts FDA discretionary funding by $56,000,000 below last year's level, right as public health concerns mount around food safety, drug integrity, and the slow pace of approvals. The answer to that anxiety is not to defund the agency tasked with protecting us. The answer is to invest in it. Look. I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this bill is about fiscal discipline.
But discipline without moral direction is just damage, and a budget is a moral document. If it reflects what we value, who we fight for, and what kind of country we wanna be. This bill says that we value painful cuts over our children and our farmers. It says we'd rather trim line items than protect a mother's ability to buy fresh vegetables for her kids. It says that Food for Peace, a program that both helps American farmers and feeds hungry kids abroad, is expendable.
Well, I say it's not. It's not who we are or who we should be, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank the chairman, Harris, and the ranked member of Bishop, and, of course, you, Mister Cole, and, of course, Mister Laurel. And I especially wanna thank the committee staff that has worked on both sides very hard on this. I wanna, I know this is a bill in progress. I understand that.
But I wanna talk about a couple provisions that I worked on and funding that are important to my state and my district. First of all, I wanna thank the committee for the strong investment in cattle health, including the funding to eradicate fever ticks for livestock and wildlife hosts. The cost share program for the construction and repair of livestock or game fencing on private land is critically important to contain the spread of quarantine areas and for protecting Texas ranchers. Thank you for that. I also wanna say thank you for the important steps that we've taken to address the growing threat of the New World screwworm by expediting the treatment approvals.
This is a proactive, commonsense investment in biosecurity, and thank you for that. Along with that, I wanna say thank you for the inclusion of the assessment of the operational capacity for the sterile Mexican fruit fly production facility at Moore Air Force Base, which is critical, making sure that we do the repairs, the modernization, the full operational capacity to make sure that we protect the specialty areas in our border region. Along with that, the work that you did for the avian influenza, as you know, we gotta keep the prices of eggs down. And I think this will help us, and I wanna thank you for the investment. Also wanna thank, and I think, Debbie and I and other folks, know the support for the citrus greening research for citrus fruit, along the border in Florida and other places, for that.
The work that y'all did, adding money to combat cotton pest, the white fly, the feral swine, to help ensure that farmers can continue to produce the food and the fiber that our country depends on. Also, particularly to the border, the APHIS border inspectors play a very important role in protecting our country from invasive pests and diseases, and their personnel are so important because they're on the frontline to make sure that we protect the United States from those pests and diseases, to make sure that we keep trade flowing, but at the same time, keep those bad pests away. And I appreciate the committee for encouraging USDA to exempt border inspectors from any federal hiring freeze we have. Rural development is another area that's so important, the rural housing. Wanna thank you for that, especially for the section 504 home repair.
That is so important for the rural areas across the country. So thank you for that. There's one particular area that has to do with the farm labor housing provisions in the bill. Thank you for addressing that, maintaining that funding and strengthening the program by requiring USDA to use data to identify gaps to direct resources to the highest needs. This language is important to make sure that we coordinate housing, health care, nutrition programs, and that we recognize that farm workers, and my father was a farm worker along with my mother, that we recognize the importance of farm workers to our agricultural economy.
And thank you for providing, especially the safe housing and basic services. The circuit rider program, regional technical assistance, thank you for protecting that funding. The grassroots source water protective program, again, is very important. Thank you for protecting that. And finally, one of the things that I also wanna mention is the areas of the persisting poverty in communities.
This is something that mister Clyburn has been working on for many years, and I certainly wanna follow his lead to make sure that we put the funding for the persistent poverty communities. The direction to increase investments and improve accountability of federal resources to reach those underserved areas. And with that, I know this is a work in progress, but I do wanna thank the chairman, the ranking member, the staff, for the work that you've done in this bill. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your remarks. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, is recognized to address the bill.
Speaker 13
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes to talk about the bill before us. Before I mention some of the important things in there, wanna express my appreciation certainly to Chairman Harris, ranking member Bishop, but even more importantly, the staff of the subcommittee. You guys do awesome work, we couldn't do it without you. The bill before us actually does some really good things.
I think some of the things you could call key investments, which is something I'm interested in. I just wanna real quickly highlight a couple of those. First of all, something I've been working on since the day I got here is the issue of the funding for agricultural research, which keeps us as an industry on the cutting edge and be able to compete with countries around the world. So I appreciate the increase in funding for that. Also, if you grow things, you gotta be able to sell them.
So we also maintain strong support for the agricultural trade programs, which is very important. And then another thing that's vital to everyone, whether you realize it or not, but we increase the funding for the food safety inspection service, which helps address some of those things like emerging pests and diseases, which helps to protect our food supply so that when you go to the grocery store, there's actually something on the shelves. And then last but not least, generally, this bill before us does an awful lot to help, in so many ways, our specialty crops that are raised throughout the country. And, I appreciate the fact that the chairman sees the importance of that, and we do not leave those specialty crops behind. And then something that we've talked about many times, and that, over the last several years, I've been a strong proponent.
And we maintain in this bill the capability for the secretary of agriculture to provide oversight of the communist Chinese party through their seat on the CFIUS board, which is a I hope you guys understand how key that provision is as we face the threats that the communist Chinese party poses to United States in buying our farmland. So, you know, it's said in many ways, but agriculture is the backbone of our country. Our farmers feed, fuel, and clothe our country. And this bill helps ensure that we not only show appreciation to the hardworking farmers every day, but they can continue to do that important work. So for those reasons and many, many others, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. General lady from Maine, Miss Pingree, is recognized to address the bill.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have some serious concerns about the funding bill before us today. Unfortunately, I think it takes us in the wrong direction. I'm gonna start talking about WIC. We spend a lot of time in this committee talking about healthy food, nutrition, and getting more fruits and vegetables into people's diets.
This administration has created the MAHA movement, Make America Healthy Again. But how do we expect to make America healthy if we are cutting the very benefit that helps pregnant women, new moms, babies, and young children access healthy fruits and vegetables? This bill cuts the WIC fruit and vegetable benefit by 10% for the fiscal year 2027. So let's talk about what that means. For women, that means going from $52 a month for fruits and vegetables down to $13.
For children, it means going from $26 a month down to 10. That's not a small adjustment. That's a dramatic cut. In Maine, we have about 15,000 people who participate in WIC. In a state of only 1,300,000 people, that's a lot.
And the fruit and vegetable benefit is one of the most used and most redeemed parts of the program. One WIC participant in Maine told me that because of the current benefit, she was able to buy a bag of cherries for her child for the first time. Before that, when the benefit was lower, bananas were all she could afford. That child had never had cherries, Mr. Newhouse, before because they were too expensive. That's what this cut means.
It means fewer choices, fewer healthy foods. It means a parent standing in a grocery store deciding what they have to put back. And, again, this is a time when nearly half the children in this country do not eat a vegetable every day. We hear a lot about this USDA support of regenerative agriculture, but this bill cuts the very programs that help farmers do that. It eliminates funding for the USDA climate funds.
It cuts sustainable agriculture research and education, the SARE program, by 8 million. It cuts conservation technical assistance by 61,000,000, and it cuts the office of urban agriculture, which supports food loss and waste reduction projects in local food systems, by 3,000,000. Some of the farmers who had their grants cut were told that they were too weak. They were unnecessary. They were political.
They were DEI. They were a climate change hoax.
Speaker 14
would say just talk to those farmers. The farmers in my state are dealing with extreme weather. The farmers in my state are trying to improve their soil, manage flooding, deal with drought, use cover crops, and make their land more resilient. This is not woke. This is what farming in 2026 looks like, as farmers grapple with the impacts of climate change and rising costs.
We are derelict in our duty if we are not helping farmers meet the challenges that are right there in front of them. At the same time, farmers in Maine are struggling with the chaos of this administration's tariffs. I heard from a farmer in Brunswick, Maine, who was trying to purchase a machine to help with his Brussels sprout crop. The machine came from Holland, and he had to calculate the daily price of steel just to figure out whether he could afford it. Eventually, he gave up.
I heard it from another farmer in Unity who's trying to buy equipment to weed potatoes. His tariff bill is 20% of the cost of equipment plus 50% of the price of aluminum and steel in that equipment. The dealer does not even know what to charge because no one knows the price of the equipment until it arrives. That's the reality that farmers are dealing with right now. You know, we learned a lot during the pandemic.
We learned that supply chains were fragile, that buying local matters, and that schools, food banks, farmers, and families all benefit when we connect to local food. We can, when we connect local food to local need. We had programs that did exactly that. In Maine, Farms for Food Equity used LFPA funding to purchase more than 61,000 pounds of nutritious food from 15 farms in southern Maine. That food went to pantries and other food assistance programs.
Cultivating communities in Portland supported fresh, culturally familiar food for limited-resource neighbors. These programs help farmers make ends meet, help families eat, and keep dollars in local communities, and this is exactly the kind of thing this bill should support. Instead, the bill walks away from them. Our farmers deserve better. Our rural communities deserve better.
Farmers trying to put healthy food on the table deserve better. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Franklin, is recognized to address the bill.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in full support of this bill, and appreciate all the hard work the committee has put into it. It reflects a serious effort to prioritize American agriculture, support our producers, and ensure that our ag economy remains strong and competitive. For my district in Florida, this bill comes at a very critical moment. Earlier this year, our growers were hit by a record freeze, devastating citrus, strawberries, blueberries, sweet corn, vegetables, and other specialty crops that are vital not only to Florida's economy, but to the nation's food supply.
Are hardworking producers who operate on already very tight margins and face risks that are often outside of their control. This bill takes an important step forward by investing in better tools to manage their risk. It includes direction to develop a temperature and frost index insurance policy for specialty crops, helping ensure that when disaster strikes, growers have a reliable, timely way to recover and keep producing. Just as important, this bill recognizes that federal support only works if it actually is there and then able to help distribute the assistance efficiently. The Farm Service Agency, FSA, is the front door for so many of these programs, and too often our farmers are met with understaffed offices and delayed services.
This bill pushes back on that trend, establishes a hiring floor for FSA, and provides dedicated funding to bring on new staff while also ensuring that county offices remain open and accessible to the communities they serve. For states like Florida, where specialty crop growers depend heavily on timely assistance, this really matters. This bill also takes meaningful steps to protect small growers, packers, and producers from unnecessary regulatory burdens. It includes common sense flexibilities and oversights designed to ensure that costly federal rules, like food traceability requirements, are implemented in a way that is workable and not punitive. We should not be putting American producers at a disadvantage, especially when foreign competitors are not held to the same standards.
This bill helps strike that balance, protecting our food supply while supporting the rural communities that sustain it. Finally, the bill makes important investments in agricultural research and extension programs, which are critical to the long term success of Florida or American agriculture. Whether it's advancing AI innovations, greening resistant citrus rootstock, improving automation for fruit and vegetable production, or educating farmers on best practices, these investments ensure that we maintain competitive, resilient, and fed. For Florida, that means continued progress in fighting invasive disease, improving yields, and supporting the next generation of family growers. For the country, it means a safer and more plentiful food supply.
At the end of the day, this bill reflects what we should be among the communities, the committee's top priorities, supporting the men and women who feed this country. I look forward to working with my colleagues. And, as we move this bill forward, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. General lady from California, Historias, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 17
Thank you, chairman and ranking member. I rise in opposition to the bill. At home, I describe the appropriations committee to my constituents as being the federal government's checkbook or the Zelle account for some of our young staff. That the bills that we pass out of this committee reflect the priorities and the need that we have as a nation. So why are my Republican colleagues prioritizing a cruel $200,000,000 cut to the WIC program that helps moms and babies access healthy food?
Why is it a priority to strip away $140,000,000 in fresh fruit and vegetable benefits from nearly 5,400,000 toddlers, preschoolers, and moms? WIC not only helps moms access free, healthy foods, but also supports nursing moms. It provides nutrition, education, and health resources. In my district alone, WIC helps 25,000 moms, babies, and children each month. A constituent, Miss Martinez, a first-time mom from Pomona, told me that WIC became a lifeline during her pregnancy.
Despite working, she struggled to make ends meet and couldn't afford basic groceries, especially fresh fruit and vegetables. Before WIC, those items were completely out of reach. The cash value benefit changed that, allowing her to finally buy the nutritious produce her body needed. During pregnancy, fruits and vegetables were often the only foods that she could consume. So the fresh food provided by WIC was a true lifeline that helped her survive the days that she didn't have enough money to buy healthy foods.
Cutting funding and benefits from WIC would hurt so many mothers like Miss Martinez in the Inland Empire and across our country. Why is it that we are okay with giving a blank check for the war in Iran. Why are we okay to give a $40,000,000,000 bailout to Argentina? Why are we okay to fund a ballroom? Why are we okay to give welfare to the rich corporations but not okay to fund WIC, food, which helps moms and babies survive?
With the high price of gas, food, and basic goods, hunger is already on the rise. That's not just in my district. More low-wage workers are lining up at food banks. More people are being laid off. These cuts would force WIC to turn away eligible families for the very first time in 30 years.
I urge my colleagues to think through this and to oppose cutting fresh food for toddlers, moms, and babies. And I yelled back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from New York, Mister Espiat, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman. This farm bill could have presented an opportunity to feed the hungry in America. Back in my college days, I had, as a professor, the late and great Michael Harrington who wrote The Other America, a book that highlighted hunger and poverty in America. And it was used as a blueprint by the Kennedy administration to fight poverty and hunger across America. And here we are decades later, and hunger still exists in America.
As we give Argentina $20,000,000,000, as we propose and are ready to give billionaires in Gulf State billions of dollars in currency swap. And yet the American people, many American people, are still hungry. My district has in the Bronx part of my district, there is a significant number of people, residents. A 104,000 of them, including 30% of whom are children, rely on nutritional benefit to keep food on the table for their families. These are communities that continually face disinvestment and have been historically underserved.
But it's not just my district, Mr. Chairman. If you go to the rural part of America, even as they see the baskets of fruits and vegetables being sent out of their communities, there is hunger there in many places across America. And here we are cutting SNAP. Now SNAP is just a little bit under $7 a person per day. $7 under $7 a person a day.
That's what food stamps are. And yet, we're assaulting that minimum investment. Today's agricultural funding building committee and the farm bill that will be on the floor represent an opportunity to undo the harm that we have already seen done by the devastating cuts in HR 1. And, unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address the food deserts that are also rampant across urban and rural America, and takes food out of the mouths of women and children and infants. So I urge my colleagues to vote in the negative of this bill.
Furthermore, mister chairman, grocery store owners, many of whom see 30, 40, 50% of their business through food stamps, are getting hurt by the cutting food stamps. And they provide jobs, and they were there for us during the pandemic. The bodegas were opened during the pandemic, some of them 24/7. Some of their family members died during the pandemic. Right in urban America, they were the only place you can go to get food in the middle of the worst crisis we've seen in our lifetimes, the pandemic.
They were there for us. And some of those businesses make fifty, thirty, 40% of their business comes through the food stamps and the people that go there. And these cuts are devastating those small businesses, those bodega owners or grocery store owners in rural and urban settings. This is not just a New York City story. This is not just an urban narrative.
This is across America. And so in a district like May, a 104,000 residents, 30% of which our children rely on these nutritional programs. One in four Bronx residents face food insecurity. This is at a time where melee in Argentina got $20,000,000 and where the states in The Middle East now that are facing economic trouble because of this war want a currency swap. They want our money.
They want our tax-paying money. And yet, we don't wanna give a child, a woman, an infant under 7$ a day. What could you buy with $7 a day? I don't know. We got a bunch of stuff here.
Look at that fruit basket and everything that's on this table that we eat on a daily basis, and probably get obese on it is over $7 a day. Clearly, over $7 a day. The food that we get in the other room three or four times a day, when we have one of those hefty meals that we get there individually for us, is over $7 a day. And yet we can't give that to people in urban settings and rural settings across America. I strongly urge you to vote down this bill.
This bill is un-American, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Nevada, Miss Lees, recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, ranking member, and the staff. I rise today in support of the report language recognizing the state's legal role when it comes to regulating prediction markets. If you went into a prediction market right now, you could bet on who wins a basketball game, who will win the best picture at the Oscars next year, who will launch a political campaign, US strikes on Iran, or if Jesus Christ returns before 2027. No matter how you spit it, betting on these outcomes is clearly gambling.
States and tribes, especially in my home state of Nevada, have jurisdiction over gaming, but prediction markets are trying to sidestep those regulations. Nevada is known around the world as a world-class destination for gaming and entertainment. Our tourism industry was responsible for nearly $100,000,000,000 in economic activity, more than 436,000 jobs, $24,400,000,000 in wages, and nearly one third of our state's general fund revenue in 2024. The money from gambling licenses and taxes goes towards our schools, public safety, and essential services across Nevada. And Nevada is the gold standard when it comes to gaming regulation.
Our comprehensive licensing, enforcement, and consumer protection systems are designed to specifically address the risks associated with sports betting. And we can allow large corporations to avoid these regulations, especially when it means they're taking money away from our schools, our police, and our communities. As prediction markets expand and evolve, we must ensure oversight and regulation of such markets that align with established federal, tribal, and state frameworks. State and tribal governments must be actively involved in the conversation when it comes to the regulation of prediction markets. And Washington should not steamroll states and tribes, and take the side of big corporations who profit from avoiding state laws.
I'm grateful that this bill recognizes states' necessary involvement in the process. And with that, I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman, excuse me. The gentlelady from Illinois, Sunderwood, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose the fiscal year 2027 agricultural, rural development, FDA appropriations bill that we're considering today. Once again, Republicans are turning their backs on hungry families, rural communities, and public health. Uh-oh. This bill raises costs for families, betrays our farmers, threatens food access for hardworking Americans, and endangers the health and well-being of our children and communities.
This bill leaves the American people behind. Remember, don't listen to what the Republicans say. Watch what they do. Republicans say they want to make America healthy again, but this bill tells a different story. What they are doing is flat funding the WIC program, even as costs continue to rise.
This bill slashes the cash value benefit for fruits and vegetables, snatching healthy foods from the plates of pregnant moms and babies in their most critical years. If MAGA Republicans had their way, a toddler's fruit and veggie benefit would be lower than it was last year. That means it will be even harder for families to afford groceries. Let's be clear. This is not saving money in the long term.
When we deny healthy food to pregnant moms and kids, we increase the risk of preterm birth, developmental delays, and chronic illnesses. That results in more hospital visits, higher Medicaid costs, and worse outcomes for families. That's not efficient. It's just irresponsible. And it's not just families who suffer.
These cuts hit small farmers too. The ones without high-powered corporate lobbyists. The ones just trying to feed their neighbors and keep their heads above water. This is certainly not saving money long-term. This is not efficient, and this most certainly is not making America healthy.
You don't balance a budget on the backs of babies. I am also disappointed that this bill does not include full funding for the Protecting Animals with Shelter or Pause Act, which helps domestic violence survivors and their families find safe temporary housing for their pets. Despite the limited funding it receives, this program saves lives. Most domestic violence shelters are not equipped to accommodate pets, but many survivors understandably don't want to leave behind their beloved pets in a violent situation, knowing that abusers often harm pets as punishment. Research shows that when people can't bring their pets with them, they often stay in dangerous situations longer, with tragic consequences.
The manager's amendment restores half of the funding that was cut, but that's only half of what survivors need and deserve from all of us. Friends, Republicans will say that these are, quote, tough choices. But somehow, the tough choices always fall hardest on low-income moms and kids, never on the billionaires. And let's not forget, the same people claiming fiscal responsibility voted for their big ugly bill last year that added 2,400,000,000,000 to the deficit. Republicans say that they all care about farmers, but this bill got support from small farmers.
They all say that they care about families, but they're cutting food for babies. So I'll say it again. Don't listen to what Republicans say. Watch what they do. Because what they're doing with this bill is cruel, cynical, and dangerous.
I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on our families, our farmers, and our future, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from New York, Mister Morelli, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 21
Thanks so much, mister chairman. I recognize that for our nation, true long term fiscal security starts with meaningful investments in the food and housing stability of American families. And a big part of that effort is driven by the work we do right here in this committee, and the funds that make these programs possible. Yet, as we did last year, this proposal, this bill, cuts into the very programs that help working families put food on the table. It sure changes the programs that allow people access to a healthy diet.
And while this bill is bad enough on its own, it does not stand alone. The package comes after, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed a reconciliation package last year cutting SNAP benefits by 187,000,000,000. And as we speak, you are now looking to lock in the bill and cut through a flawed farm bill while openly talking about coming back for more SNAP cuts and few future reconciliation bills. Yet the attacks on nutrition programs don't end with SNAP. The bill also cuts 200000000 from WIC and fails to fully fund the fruit and vegetable benefit under the program.
It's estimated that the proposed cuts would take away over $141,000,000 in fruit and vegetable benefits from nearly 5,400,000 toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants. 366,000 participants in my home state of New York. This, quite simply, is an outrage. The bill cuts other critical programs, including slashing food assistance abroad, reducing investments in rural communities, and cutting the various staff who help farmers access the programs that they depend on. We cannot pretend these are isolated decisions.
They are part of a broader coordinated effort to weaken nutrition programs, first through reconciliation, now through appropriations, and then the farm bill. And let's be clear about the consequences. When you cut SNAP, when you underfund WIC, you are not just trimming a budget. You're taking food off the tables of working families, seniors, and children, and we need to stop pretending. These are separate conversations.
They are not. They are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is being used to give tax breaks to billionaires. Instead, we're being asked to accept a bill that moves us backward, one that increases hardship while doing little to address the real economic challenges American families face. So I urge the defeat of it. And I'd, if I may, also wanna raise a narrower issue, and also a thank you to staff here.
I wanna share a story about a fifth-generation family-owned small business in my district, Zweigel's. They make red and white hots, and other meat products. They have a 100 year history in my hometown of Rochester, New York. They proudly produce all their products in a state of the art manufacturing facility in Rochester, and they make sure anyone who buys their products know. It says on labeling, made in Rochester on their packaging.
That was until recently, when the United States Department of Agriculture changed their labeling requirements to no longer allow them to use made in Rochester. Why? Because the pigs that are raised in Arkansas, probably in Mr. Womax District or someone like that. So even though every other aspect of manufacturing and producing these are in Rochester, because the pigs, which ultimately become hot dogs, are raised somewhere else, you can't do it. It's mystifying to me that USDA is spending their time making marketing decisions that have nothing to do with public health or public safety, that affect companies around the country.
So I do wanna thank the majority for including my requested report language to direct the food safety and inspection services to provide technical assistance for small businesses who are struggling to implement these burdensome new requirements for marketing labels, although I would just assume those marketing label requirements went away altogether. I think this, however, is the first step to ensure small businesses are not heavily impacted by onerous requirements, but nor more needs to be done to ensure these companies aren't thrown into disarray and waste time, energy, money, profits, and customers. So, again, wanna thank the majority for their help on this and respecting our request to include this in the report. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. I regret that Mister Womack was not here to defend his pigs. But the gentleman makes a good point. General lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean is recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Bishop. Thank you for this really robust conversation around this markup. I rise in opposition to the bill, which cuts funding for critical nutrition programs like WIC and SNAP at a time when families across the country are already stretched thin by high food prices and economic uncertainty. Challenges only worsened by HR one. SNAP and WIC are not abstract line items in a budget.
They are lifelines. Working families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities rely on programs like SNAP to put food on the table each month. I've met with many of my constituents who are in great need, and now in greater need as a result of these cuts. And we've already seen the damage. After the big ugly bill cut $187,000,000,000 from SNAP, the largest cut in the program's history, more than 3,000,000 Americans lost their benefits.
This bill doubles down on that harm. It cuts mandatory SNAP funding by 6,200,000,000, furthering the damage caused by the majority's big, ugly bill. It also cuts $5,000,000,000 from SNAP's contingency reserve, the very funding that proved indispensable during the government shutdown. And then there's WIC. The majority is proposing a $200,000,000 cut, jeopardizing access to vital nutrition program support.
That supports women, new mothers, and young children during the most critical stages of development. We should be strengthening these programs, not chipping away at them. These cuts might look like savings on paper, but in reality, they are just shifting costs elsewhere onto families, communities, and our health care system. I'm also concerned with the majority's decision to cut funding for the emergency food assistance program by $5,000,000, despite the president's budget maintaining level funding in recognition of its importance. Why would we cut here?
TFAP provides critical nutrition support for low-income individuals and families through the state and local networks that are often the last line of defense against hunger in many communities. At a time when food banks are reporting increasing demand, this cut moves us in the wrong direction. Even a $5,000,000 reduction has real consequences. The president's budget rightly recognized that current funding levels are necessary just to keep pace with demand. This bill fails to meet that baseline, and instead imposes a cut that will be felt by real people and real families.
With that said, I want to point out something I was pleased to see included in the report: language related to PFAS chemicals. In my district and across this country, our communities are dealing with the toxic legacy of PFAS. These forever chemicals persist in our water, soil, and in our bodies and bloodstream. I commend FDA's efforts to measure PFAS in the American food supply and help states understand whether food grown in contaminated areas is safe to eat. I also am pleased to see that the bill acknowledges the challenges facing farmers with PFAS-contaminated soils and provides funding for research on PFAS solutions in our food systems.
This work is more important than ever, given this administration's deregulatory agenda and general affinity for corporations. Still, on balance, while I do see some good things here like the PFAS provisions, I do hope that others will join me in opposing this bill that will hurt American families. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the remarks. Gentleman from Indiana, Mister Ravan, is recognized to address the bill.
Speaker 22
Thank you, chairman. Thank you, ranking member. As we come together to consider the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies, I believe it is important to frame this conversation in the context of the challenges farmers and the community they support and serve are facing today. Last summer, the Republican majority passed legislation that imposed historically devastating cuts to the domestic social programs, namely the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, in order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. New eligibility requirements for entitlement programs have left working people with limited options, while making the cost of living less affordable.
This week, the House will also consider the 2026 farm bill. The farm bill has historically been a bipartisan effort that combines the investments in farming, conservation, nutrition, and trade programs that sustain domestic producers and feed families. Regrettably, the legislation we will consider on the floor departs from the tradition that ensures people who need it most do not go hungry. For fifteen years as a local elected official, I saw firsthand how a missed bill or an inability to buy groceries could impact the household. I work closely with our local food bank to connect people experiencing food insecurity with benefits such as SNAP.
These dollars allow the state and local government, community organizations, and local communities to come together to encourage pathways to economic opportunities and self-sufficiency. The hunger safety net is being held together by an emergency and charitable food organization like the Northwest Indiana Food Bank. These organizations, rely on the TFAP commodities and donated food, are being asked to bear more and more of the burden in addressing food insecurity. SNAP not only provides nine meals for every meal an emergency food organization is able to provide, but is an economic multiplier. Local economies rely on SNAP as a driver of retail sales and job growth.
To make matters worse, TFAB, the administrative fund's essential funding for safety to the safety store and distribute the food, is being decreased in this bill. This program has yet to be fully funded at the authorized level of 100,000,000. This is unsustainable. Food banks cannot withstand the growing number of food insecure households without a strong safety net. We must do more to support domestic agriculture, and this farm bill falls short.
This is why, as we consider appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year and the farm bill in these coming days, I urge my colleagues to put the pressing needs of our agricultural industry first and vote no. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Seeing no other members wishing to address the bill, then I would like to recognize Chairman Harris to offer a manager's amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have amendment number one at the desk, and ask unanimous consent to consider it. Right?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.
Speaker 2
This is the bipartisan managers' amendment, which includes billing report language additions from members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate ranking member Bishop working with us on this amendment. It includes it goes through various things like pet shelter programs, pet food donor liability relief, water access to colonias, and two other report language amendments on colonias. So, again, I would ask for the support of the committee. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the matter.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. It contains non-controversial technical changes agreed to by both sides. We worked collaboratively with the chairman, Mister Harris, to try to include the meaningful discussions that I think led to good faith efforts to accommodate the request from the various members on both sides of the aisle. I think it improved the bill, and thank chairman Harris and the staff for their hard work in that, and I supported the option of the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. A gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Edwards is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the farmers in Western North Carolina, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Harris's manager's amendment, particularly the provision that prohibits imposing any recipient cost share on the USDA specialty crop block grant program. For districts like mine in Western North Carolina, this really matters. Specialty crop growers are the backbone of our agricultural economy, from apples and tomatoes to nurseries, Christmas trees, and other value-added producers who keep our rural communities working. There are high value crops, but they also are high cost and they're high risk.
Growers are already navigating labor shortages, volatile markets, and rising input costs. The last thing that they need is a new financial barrier standing between them and the tools that the specialty crop block program provides. A cost-share requirement would hit small and midsized farms the hardest. In my district, many of these operations are family-run, multigenerational, and they operate on tight margins. They don't have grant writing teams or spare capital to meet a matching requirement.
What they do have is ingenuity and grit, and a deep commitment to feeding our communities and strengthening rural economies. This amendment ensures they can continue accessing the resources Congress intended without being priced out. Chairman Harris' provision keeps the programs accessible, keeps it fair, and keeps it focused on supporting the growers who need it most. For Western North Carolina's agriculture community and for specialty crop producers across the country, this is the right approach. Thank you, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of the manager's amendment, which includes key bipartisan wins. I wanna specifically thank chairman Cole and chairman Harris, ranking member DeLauro, and ranking member Bishop for including 1.5 million dollars in funding for the emergency and transitional pet shelter and housing assistance grant program or the PAWS program. And I also wanna thank Representative Underwood for her partnership on this incredibly important issue. I'll point out that in the subcommittee markup, the secretary of agriculture, when I asked her why the administration had proposed to defund the pause program, tried to tell me that the program wasn't in the department of agriculture.
And, of course, it is in the Department of Agriculture. So here we are making sure that we can ensure this vital funding helps women who are domestic violence victims not be forced to stay with their abusers for fear of them abusing their pets, or having to leave their pets behind. This bill is commonly referred to as the PAWS Act. It is a lifeline to the countless domestic violence survivors and their pets across the country. There's no reason why someone should be trapped in an abusive home because they're afraid of what will happen to their dog or cat if they leave.
We should not force people to pick between leaving an abusive situation or staying because they are scared the shelter won't let them bring their pet. And this is the reality for many victims of domestic violence, and too often these fears are justified. The studies are bleak. Up to 50% of women in shelters say their abuser also harmed their pet. And nearly fifty percent of survivors said they delayed leaving their abuser because they couldn't bring their pets with them.
No one should ever have to face that situation. Thankfully, we chose a better path and demonstrated to the American people that politics does not need to get in the way of a proven program that works and saves lives. I always enjoy working with Chairman Harris. We have numerous issues. Despite duking it out here occasionally, we have numerous issues on which we agree, and we've been able to partner.
And I appreciate his support. The 1.5 million dollars for the pause act included in this manager's amendment will help empower victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers and seek safety. And I will continue to push for full funding as we work through the appropriations process, earn support of the manager's amendment, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your comments. Gentlemen from California, Mister Valadao is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chairman. I'd like to note a provision included in today's manager's amendment, which would ensure that no cost sharing or matching requirements are imposed under the specialty crop block grant program for fiscal year 2027. Specialty crop block grants are an important tool for farmers and producers across the nation. These resources support a wide range of commodities from tree fruits, nuts, legumes, and other specialty crops to help feed families nationwide. In California's Central Valley, growers have used these grants to develop innovative irrigation techniques, improve soil management, and research new disease and pest control methods.
These investments help farmers become more efficient, conserve resources, and stay competitive. Specialty crop block grants are also used to promote commodities both locally and across the country, developing new market channels, which increase consumer demand and encourage the consumption of fresh American-grown fruits and vegetables. Specialty crop producers continue to face real challenges, including rising input costs and ongoing labor shortages. As I know from speaking with many of my colleagues who represent specialty crops across the nation, we must continue to do everything we can to support these farmers. And I want to thank Chairman Harris, the subcommittee staff for working closely with me to include this language in the manager's amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments. Jill from Texas. Mister Cuellar is recognized for comments on the manager's amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're so kind, and I wanna thank you and the ranking member, Del Oro. And I wanna thank my good friend, doctor Harris and the ranking member, mister Bishop, and the staff for adding two provisions that I think are important. First of all, the one dealing with performance-based budgeting, the one looking at reviewing regulations that are outdated, the one that's looking for efficiency without cutting surfaces, this is the second committee that's added this provision. And I think it's important that we add it in every committee from now on because it does ask the agencies what's your capacity to review outdated regulations.
What's your capacity to look at performance-based budgeting? If we spend $1, are we getting $1 for that $1 that we invest in? And I think it's important to look at that. And, finally, you know, everybody talks about efficiency. Everybody talks about accountability.
Everybody talks about the effectiveness of the federal agencies. And especially, we have, what is it? A $1,700,000,000,000 discretionary funding. And I think this will get us to that part where we can truly find out which are the efficiencies, the effectiveness, and the accountability measures that we need to have in place. So thank you for doing that, chairman and ranking member.
The second one has to do with colonies. Colonias are really third-world conditions. They don't have the water. They don't have sewage. They don't have electricity.
And I know there are resources that we've added. The problem is they can't access it because they don't have the resources to hire their lobbyists or their grant riders. So how can you have resources out there? But then the very areas that need to access that don't have the capacity to do that. So extending the technical assistance from USDA to get that money in those low poverty areas is very important.
So, again, thank you for providing that bridge, chairman and ranking member, and, again, for those two amendments that you added, and I rise in support. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your comments. Gentlemen from Wisconsin, mister Bokan is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the manager's amendment and would like to thank the subcommittee chair, the ranking member, and the staff on the subcommittee for including language in this package on a very nonpartisan but important issue. Ridgeland Farms is a dog breeding and research facility located in my district in Wisconsin. It currently houses about 2,000 beagles. And many of the dogs bred at Ridgeland Farms are used for biomedical research, pharmaceutical testing, and toxicology studies.
Last year, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection cited Ridgeland for 308 counts of mistreating dogs. These violations included significant deficiencies in veterinary care, sanitation, housing conditions, and overall treatment of the animals. There were documented instances of stagnant waste and poor ventilation, so severe that it made inspectors physically ill. Multiple cages with rusted or broken wires caused cysts and infections, and dogs were often subjected to removal of their vocal cords, and in certain instances, allegedly without anesthesia or pain management. Following the investigation, the facility agreed to a settlement to surrender its state commercial dog breeding license by July 1.
Even though this facility was cited for hundreds of violations demonstrating systematic and ongoing animal mistreatment, this facility was allowed to maintain its USDA Class A breeder license. Months after the facility was cited with hundreds of violations and agreed to surrender its state dog breeding license, the USDA conducted an inspection of the facility and determined it was still qualified as a class A USDA licensing facility. So this license allows the breeder to supply animals for taxpayer-funded research purposes, including NIH labs. And you may remember we had that conversation with Secretary Kennedy. He said he wants to stop this practice.
In fact, he thought it wasn't going on, and I appreciated the comments he had that day. But this amendment includes language that directs the USDA to review the federal licenses of breeders that have lost their equivalent state-level breeding license and take action if it's clear that they are no longer eligible for their federal license either. Honestly, this should be an automatic thing. If a breeder is turning in their state license due to code violations, the USDA should at least take a look and see if they should be allowed to continue to have this privilege. And this situation is so nonpartisan that even Laura Trump and Laura Loomer have spoken out against what's happening at Ridgeland Farms.
Interesting bedfellows. So I'm glad that we could do a little good here today. I know my constituents are grateful. And, again, I appreciate the inclusion of this, and I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. First comments. Do any other members wish to address the manager's amendment? General lady from Washington, Miss Press.
Speaker 26
Chair, I advise to speak today on two priorities in the manager's amendment. The first is a pear tree, wreaking havoc on native habitats and, like, farming equipment, the Callery or the Bradford pear. These pears were introduced to the US in the 1960s as a popular landscaping tree. And since then, it has cross-pollinated. Was initially thought to be sort of infertile.
It's cross-pollinated and has taken over large swaths of what was formerly ag or native land, hindering forest management and agriculture. Some states like Virginia and Ohio, Massachusetts, South Carolina have already banned these trees from being sold or created phase-out plans that don't use native plants in their stead. Unfortunately, my state, Washington state, has a massive stand of these on its capital grounds. And I'm glad to see the amendment urging aphids to take the necessary steps to designate calorie pears as a federal noxious weed. I hope this is the first of many in eradicating this invasive shrub and reinvigorating native habitats.
The other issue that I was thrilled to see in manager's amendment was related to the food our kids eat in schools or they don't eat. I think we all remember being presented with a really gross Red Delicious apple at school cafeterias. Maybe you like them. If you do, you're wrong. But Red Delicious, as we know it in Washington State, is an inferior apple.
And, you know, then people argue that the kids just aren't eating fruit because they don't like it. It's like, well, yeah, if you gave them an old boot leather to eat, they wouldn't eat that either. It's really not about, you know, it is important that we offer quality fruit that can compete with Cheetos or whatever kids are eating these days. And thank you, Debbie. And, I think by expanding the list of permissible varieties that are available for school programs to purchase, we can make apples competitive again.
We can ensure that the varieties that grow well where we live, like Cosmic Crisp, are eligible for inclusion in this list. And with that, I will yield back. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you for her remarks. Are there any other members wishing to comment? I have to say I've been here a lot of years. I don't think I've ever seen so many effusive comments on a manager's amendment. What an explosion of support.
I mean, I can't imagine anybody would even have any problem with the bill, but I guess we'll deal with that later. I wanna recognize Doctor Harris for one minute to close.
Speaker 1
I thought you'd at least take a victory lap. I mean, that's pretty modest. With that, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. Amendment is adopted. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I do have an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman has recognized remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 3
This amendment restores funding for critical rural water and waste infrastructure and energy assistance programs to the levels that were provided in the fiscal year 2026 bill. These programs are essential for communities that still lack reliable access to clean drinking water, wastewater treatment, and affordable energy. Rural water and waste grants help small and disadvantaged communities build and maintain basic infrastructure that most Americans take for granted. In many areas, aging or inadequate systems pose serious public health risks and limit economic development. The base bill cuts this program by 44%.
The amendment further supports the high energy cost grants, which help rural households, particularly in remote areas, to manage disproportionately high utility costs. The Republican bill eliminates funding for this program entirely. Without this assistance, many families are forced to choose between paying for energy and meeting other basic needs. At a time when costs remain elevated, reducing these investments will only deepen the hardship in already vulnerable communities. The amendment treats the additional funds as emergency funding so that we don't exceed the already insufficient allocations the subcommittee received.
If the committee decides we don't find this accessible, then I would urge the majority to increase the agriculture 302b level. Surely, we can divert some of the $1,500,000,000,000 on the defense side of the ledger to ensure that rural America has safe and clean water. We must put America first, and certainly rural America first. There's no reason that a simple procedural hurdle, to stop us from maintaining these important investments in our rural communities. It's practical.
It's a practical investment in public health, economic opportunity, and a basic quality of life for rural America. So I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments. A gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We all understand and appreciate the need to support USDA's water and waste disposal. Certainly, we make use of those programs in my rural district, as well as the need for energy programs in rural America. However, the bill already provides 78,000,000 for waste and water disposal grants and loan increases for the electric programs.
And without an offset for these funding increases, the ag bill will be over-allocated. And, you know, the use of emergency funding is, I think, just insufficient. So, for these reasons, I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that many of the necessities that we take for granted, like clean water, are out of reach for many communities across rural America. In the grand scheme of things, this is not an astronomical amount of money. With that, we will look at the defense bill.
Speaker 3
should not let legislative or budgetary procedures get in the way of doing the right thing for rural America. It's incumbent upon all of us to make the investments in rural communities that they deserve. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. As opposed, say no.
No. Any chair of the nose habit. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient number of hands have been raised. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford?
Mister Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mr. Spice? Mr. Bishop?
Speaker 10
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? No.
Mr. Carter? Mister Carter? No. Mr. Case? Mr. Case?
Aye. Mister Siscamani? Aye. Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud? Mister Cloud, no.
Mister Clyburn? Alright. Mister Clyburn, I. Mister Clyde? Mr. Cole?
No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar?
Speaker 10
Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine? Mister Loro? Aye. Mister Loro, aye.
Mister Diaz Ballard? Mister Diaz Ballard? No. Mister Edwards? Mister Elze?
Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar? Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman?
Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? No. Mister Franklin, no.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? No. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson, no. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 10
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce?
No. Mr. Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee?
Miss Lee? I. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin?
I. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum?
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Miss Ming? Ay. Mister Molinar?
Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore? Mister Morelli? Ay.
Mister Morelli? Ay. Mister Mervann?
Speaker 10
Mister Mourvan, aye. Mr Newhouse? Hello. Mr Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree?
Speaker 10
Miss Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan? Aye. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley?
Aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mr Rashenthaler? Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mister Valadayo votes no. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mr. Womack? No. Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Nevada.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will tell you. On this vote, the ayes are 28, the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I'm gonna ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which would ensure that the SNAP contingency fund has the resources needed so that states aren't left scrambling to issue benefits during a government shutdown. But let me be clear, this is not optional funding. As we saw last November, the administration was mandated by law to use the SNAP contingency funds to issue benefits during the government shutdown. And yet, instead of doing so, the administration took this all the way to the Supreme Court, even after lower courts made clear they had the authority to act. When we included the language for the contingency fund, it was drafted with the intention to specifically address government shutdowns.
And at the moment when families were counting on basic food assistance, that decision created needless uncertainty where there should have been stability. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill is drafted fully replenishes the SNAP contingency. In normal times, and in the absence of a shutdown, FNS has 9000000000 available in the contingency reserve. We should be getting bills done, not preparing for shutdowns.
We could do this throughout all the appropriations bills. We could set up a TSA reserve account. We could set up all kinds of reserve accounts. That's not what this committee should do. We, this committee, should not be in the business of abdicating our duties and putting programs on autopilot.
Instead of thinking about the next shutdown, Congress should do its job and fund the government. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentle lady from Connecticut, mister Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment. Thank.
Speaker 4
You, mister chairman. I rise in support of the ranking member's amendment. Although, let me be clear, the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment. I believe this is an important issue, and I thank the ranking member for providing us with the opportunity to discuss it. There are more than 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, 8 million seniors, 4 million people with disabilities, 1.2 million veterans, and over 360,000 people in Connecticut, nearly 31,000 in my hometown of New Haven, who rely on food stamp assistance, that is to be able to put food on their table.
Last year, the administration went out of their way to block this assistance from being distributed. They did it, they did that for purely political purposes. They fought so hard to withhold food stamps from hungry families that they went all the way to the Supreme Court to deprive families and children of food. They were told by not one but two separate federal judges that they were breaking the law by withholding this assistance. They appealed those rulings all the way up to the highest court in the land.
President Trump's signature piece of legislation, the one big beautiful bill, cut funding for food stamps by $187,000,000,000. It got this funding explicitly to help offset the 4.5 trillion dollar cost of tax cuts that benefit the very wealthy and the biggest corporations. Stripping away assistance for hungry families is not a byproduct of this administration's agenda. It is their agenda. Congress explicitly sets aside funding to cover the cost of these benefits in the event of an emergency, like, for example, a government shutdown.
Yet during this exact circumstance, the Trump administration refused. They refused to distribute the aid in the contingency fund, because they believed it would help them politically. The funding we pass for the contingency fund is bipartisan. It is passed by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. Interestingly enough, the chair spoke about 9,000,000,000.
Last year, it was 6000000000. The number changes. There is the need for $9,000,000,000. If the Trump administration can pick and choose when it wants to abide by the laws that Congress passes, even when it comes to something as serious as the ability of hungry families to feed their children, then we, this body, have abdicated our authority in the legislative branch. We will have given up the power of the purse.
The contingency fund existed last year. The administration refused to use it. They even spread misinformation that it was the shutdown holding back the funds. Not true. The contingency dollars were there to be used, and they went all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to deprive children, families of food.
I do not believe it is in anyone's interest, Democrat or Republican, to concede the power of the purse to the presidency. At a time when the Trump administration is requesting reportedly hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funding for his war of choice in Iran, it is shameful that they continue to defund domestic programs that support American families in need. I thank the ranking member for offering this amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for your remark. General lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand and speak in support of Representative Bishop's amendment. Government shutdowns are happening more often, and highlighting the need to protect our constituents in a time of party polarization is certainly front and center in our thoughts. SNAP is a major food and nutrition program that is at risk of not being able to cover benefits during a shutdown if it is not adequately funded to account for this political climate. During the longest government shutdown in history just last year, 42,000,000 Americans were at risk of losing access to SNAP benefits.
827,200 New Jerseyans, or nearly 10% of New Jerseyans, rely on SNAP. More than 64% of the SNAP recipients are families with children. A higher rate of households rely on SNAP in rural America than in metropolitan areas, yet they face more barriers to access. Disruption to the reliability of these programs puts an extra burden on hardworking families. Our constituents deserve stability, not their benefits being held hostage.
With millions of dollars cut from SNAP by my Republican colleagues, ensuring that those who still have access to this vital critical program during a shutdown is crucial. And so I urge my colleagues to support the ranking member's amendment, and thank you. I will be back. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, gentlelady, for the comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is, oh, I'm sorry. The gentlelady from Ohio.
Miss Captur is recognized to address.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SNAP exists to protect the most vulnerable. Always. The basic assistance it provides often makes the difference between having enough food to eat or going hungry. It's our responsibility to ensure that the program is going to be there when people need it.
I'm perplexed as to why this administration fought so hard to block benefits last year. I hope that we can work together to ensure that the SNAP program will always be there for those who need it, when they need it. Our hungry people should not be the victims of political fights, and the department should execute the law in contingencies such as the government shutdown. I hope we can get this done, and I withdraw my amendment, and you're back.
Speaker 1
Let me, my good friend from Georgia, I failed to recognize the gentle lady from Ohio. My mistake. I apologize for that. Wanna give her the opportunity to address the amendment. And if you want to reconsider or still withdraw, that would be your choice, of course.
Speaker 7
I thank the chairman and the ranking member very much. I rise in support of the ranking member bishop's thoughtful and prudent amendment. Fundamentally, the bishop's amendment instructs us to be prepared. I just happen to find out that Congressman Bishop was an Eagle Scout. I didn't know that.
And that reminds me of the motto, be prepared. All of us have to be concerned about preparedness in this program. We're coming off the longest US government-wide shutdown in our nation's history. The 43-day shutdown occurred under the president's watch last October and November. And when a shutdown occurs or an unexpected crisis arises, the last thing we need is for food-insecure workers and families to become even more vulnerable or lose their lifeline, their access to food.
They need to stay alive and live healthy, and make it through whatever it is we're facing as a country. That's exactly what happens when shutdowns or political pressures disrupt regular SNAP funding. That is why this program operates with a contingency reserve, and that reserve must be meaningful and replenished when it is drawn down. Setting aside any debate about the use of contingency funds during a shutdown, the contingency fund is about ensuring SNAP participants and others have support when disaster strikes, and disaster SNAP is activated.
Speaker 7
We are witnessing a record-setting number of federal disaster declarations. 22 had been approved since January, exceeding the five-year average. Nearly every congressional district has experienced at least one federally declared disaster in the last 15 years. The district I represent has had five. At this moment, disaster SNAP programs are operated in Michigan, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Guam.
And my state or your state could be next. And when that happens, God forbid, we must be prepared. So USDA must have the contingency funds to meet the moment. That's what this amendment is about: preparedness. So let's take a page from scouting.
Let's be prepared. Please vote for Mister Bishop's amendment to show us that we all not only really care, but that we are ready. And I would yield to the gentleman. I
Speaker 1
Certainly will recognize the gentleman from Maryland for any remarks he cares to make on the amendment.
Speaker 28
I wanna just make a comment because we are on a very long shutdown. That shutdown is because we have a disagreement, a substantive disagreement on two agencies. And as a result, we've shut down all the other agencies that are within the Department of Homeland Security. An irrational thing to be doing. Shutdown is irrational.
It costs a lot of money. It's a stupid policy. And the gentleman from Maryland is absolutely correct. On the sense and I, and frankly, I would vote for this amendment if it were gonna be because we ought to have provided for this separately in a vote that we've all agreed upon because we wanna feed people. But a number of people have provided resolutions where federal employees can get paid or this section of government will go on automatically.
And I just, Mister Harris, want to join you in saying, to the extent we make it easier to shut down the government, I think we undermine our responsibility. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your comments. The chair's gonna recognize himself quickly to address this amendment too, before I recognize the gentleman to close. I just wanna say a word in defense of the president on this. It was not the president who shut down the government. It was the congress that shut down the government.
And we can debate that back and forth, but the president did everything possible to extend funding for both WIC and SNAP. He pulled the rabbit out of the hat a couple of times for the American military. So we can argue back and forth, but let's recognize who shut down the government. It was not Donald Trump. And, frankly, it was not over anything related to the appropriations.
It was over unrelated items, Medicare, important issues, Medicare premium support, what have you, but not appropriations issues. So it was a decision of Congress or parts of Congress to use the appropriations process to achieve an unrelated goal. I regret that. I've seen both parties do it. I don't think it's forever wise.
My party has certainly done it. We were lectured pretty sternly. Your party has certainly done it. And, I think you should be lectured pretty sternly about that. We're in a similar situation now.
But, again, regardless of that, regardless of how bad anybody feels about it, the president did not shut down the government. And he worked hard to try and, frankly, fund programs for some of our most vulnerable citizens and certainly keep our military paid. With that, I yield back. I certainly yield to my friend.
Speaker 28
I just wanted to agree with the chairman. And, frankly, it's somewhat irrelevant to all the people who are sustained the adverse consequences of what we do as to who shut it down. And both sides have shut down. We take the position that we're gonna take the government hostage if we don't get what we want. And what I think Mister Doctor Harris was saying is that, look, we need to do our duty and get things done.
And where we can't agree, we ought to take those out, and not have the consequence of adversely affecting everybody else. In this case, the Department of Homeland Security, we have a difference of opinion. It is a legitimate, honest difference of opinion on how ICE and CBP ought to operate. But that should not affect Coast Guard, should not affect the customs or Secret Service or other agencies that are not involved in that dispute. And I think, as I said, it's stupid, very costly.
Some of the shutdowns we've had have now cost us $40,000,000,000. That's not counting the presidential shutdown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. And if there are no other members wishing to address the amendment, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia to close.
Speaker 3
As I prepare to withdraw my amendment, I do want to point out that it really should not matter why the government shuts down. But the people who are the recipients of SNAP, right. Should not be collateral damage in the political disagreements that we have. And for that reason, we really should do our jobs, and we should make sure that this contingency fund is executed. It really didn't matter if the president or the congress shut it down, but the department had funds available in the contingency fund that congress put there for that particular purpose if there was a contingency where the funds had run out.
And all they had to do was execute their duty, rather than going to the Supreme Court and dragging it out, and making the recipients be collateral damage. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment. I
Speaker 1
Wanna thank the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks, and honestly, all of you for the debate and discussion. I thought it an important one to have. And just looking down the road before we resume here, I've been thinking I'll talk to my friend, the ranking member, and certainly a number of others. You know, we might ought to look at this problem when we get our bills done. There's a number of pieces of legislation going around that deal with government shutdowns or whatever.
My friend from Maryland makes a very good point about we don't wanna make it so easy that we end up with internal CR, and I know that's a concern, but I've actually started talking just to advise you down the road. We wouldn't do anything about this until we get the bills done. We've got plenty of time, but it might be something we should think about, because this committee is the most impacted when something like this happens. And I'm very proud of this committee. It did its work as well as it could under very difficult circumstances last year.
And it did that because it cooperated in a bipartisan way, and we certainly want to continue that. But if there are things we could do as a committee to help put us in a situation where we can deal with these things better, that's something maybe we should explore. And I would want to proceed. I don't have a partisan plan here in a bipartisan way. What would institutionally be something for us to do?
Again, you know, Senator Johnson has an idea. Senator Langford has an idea. There are probably some ideas over on this side of the rotunda as well. But that might be something we should talk about, think about. Might be a useful exercise because, sadly, there's always the chance we could be here for the whole government again come September 30, and that's something I very much want to avoid.
I know all of you very much want to avoid as well. So you're wiser. No. I was pretty wise we wouldn't have had a shutdown last year, so I must not be that smart. So but I do think we ought to think about it a little bit more because, as you know, my friend suggested from both Georgia and Ohio, we find ourselves in these situations more than we should and more than we would want to as an institution.
And we need to see if there are some creative ways we can deal with this. And if there's gonna be pain involved, it is on the Congress, maybe not the people of the United States. There's everything from staying around till we get our work done to all sorts of things that have been proposed, but they're worth exploring. That, I'm sorry. I took a soft bait.
I now recognize the gentleman, the other gentleman, one of the other gentlemen from Maryland, Chairman Harris, to offer a Republican en bloc amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I have amendment number two, the Republican unblock at the desk. And I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without any objection, the amendment is dispensed, the reading is dispensed with. The gentleman recognized who explains the matter.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This is a short Republican block amendment, which amends a definition related to specialty crops. It adds millet to the definition of specialty crop, extends the timeline for a water project, as well as including two new report language items relating to microalgae farming with data centers, and requesting the FDA to develop a framework for electronic prescribing information for health care professionals. I ask for your support for the unblock amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I'm concerned that these items are rushing processes that encourage investment and abrupt changes without fully understanding the implications. I'd like to see additional analysis before we move forward on both of these items. And, unfortunately, the majority added language at the last minute to help get votes on this morning's rule, which obviously is suffering. The Farm Bill and FISA language are putting on down block.
Unfortunately, that's not a good way for us to proceed, and I oppose the amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Do any other members wish to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And, you know, addressing the two late additions, one is very simple, just adding millet to a specialty crop definition. The other one is actually a bill that everybody has voted for already in term with regards to the Arkansas water project. So with that, I would ask to support the unblock amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The question's now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
Is a gentleman requesting a vote? Look. I'm gonna rule and favor the no's if you guys can't say aye. Aye. Okay.
You did scare them. Maybe you woke them up. And I thank you for that. So I'm gonna rule in favor of the eyes, but the gentleman wants to vote. That's certainly in order.
If not, the amendment is accepted. Gentlemen, from Michigan, Mister Molinar is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 6
I have an amendment at the desk, and request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you. My amendment would strike section 762 of this bill, which would prohibit funding from being used to enforce surplus broiler egg regulations currently in place. The FDA's egg safety rule requires producers to follow certain preventive measures to prevent the growth of salmonella. This section would negatively impact egg producers and potentially allow unrefrigerated hatchery surplus eggs, which are a salmonella risk, to enter the food supply, creating a potentially dangerous scenario for consumers. The FDA found that unrefrigerated eggs could carry salmonella even if they are pasteurized.
The agency's risk assessment carried out during the first Trump administration projected over 3500 additional salmonellosis cases per year if unrefrigerated eggs were allowed into the food supply. While I remain concerned about this section, I will ultimately be withdrawing my amendment in order to allow us more time to work together on a solution to ensure our producers are not hurt, and eggs remain safe. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland. Doctor Harris is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, yeah, I appreciate my colleague offering to withdraw the amendment. The issue is over. Whether or not, we're gonna allow into the use of food, exiter, leftover from a breeder farm, that are not sent to a hatchery. For various reasons, they're not sent to a hatchery.
These data that, with the FDA relied on, is old data that actually is modeling data, not a real study. They changed the rule. And subsequent to changing the rule, there was no difference in the number of batches that were that failed pasteurization. So, actually, the real world data, actual sampling data shows that that rule was not effective at changing anything. The pasteurization, in fact, works.
However, I note the concerns being raised. I'm happy to work with the gentleman on this issue as we move forward in the process.
Speaker 29
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to mister Molinar for his offer to withdraw. I rise in opposition to such an amendment that would strip a straightforward bipartisan provision allowing broiler chicken producers to sell surplus eggs to the breaker market where they're pasteurized and mixed into everyday grocery products like pasta, salad dressing, and the like. Now, currently, due to an FDA rule finalized in 2009, commonly known as the shell egg rule, these surplus broiler eggs must be discarded due to the lack of immediate refrigeration.
Now just think about that. Hundreds of millions of eggs are discarded as a result of this rule. It completely disregards the difference between table eggs, which are raw products that need refrigeration, and breaker eggs, which are pasteurized and safe for mixing. Because of this misguided rule, chicken farmers throw away nearly 400000000 perfectly good eggs each year. To add insult to injury, table eggs that test positive for salmonella are allowed to be sent to a breaker facility to be pasteurized, and then mixed into these grocery products.
Yet surplus broiler eggs that are salmonella-negative are not allowed to be sold to breakers just because they weren't refrigerated. This double standard didn't make sense when it was implemented, and it doesn't make sense now. This amendment would undermine Arkansas farmers and producers' hard work and continue to waste their chickens' usable byproducts, eliminating a potential revenue stream that is beneficial to all parties. Every good chicken farmer and producer loves to use the whole bird. Adopting today's amendment, if it persisted, would contribute to this gross food waste, stunt economic growth, and uphold an unfair double standard that harms our chicken farmers who help feed America.
So, again, I appreciate Mister Molinar's request to withdraw the amendment, but I wanted to weigh in on the subject because I think it's that important, in case this subject were to resurface. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to discuss the amendment? If not, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I would just note, my understanding is, and I look forward to working with the chairman on this going forward, that if refrigeration did occur, then everyone would be treated by the same standard. So I look forward to working with you going forward. And with that, I withdraw my amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. I'll just note while I'm waiting for what's next. Mister Womack, you were not here to defend your hogs, but you were here to defend your chickens and your eggs. So I just want the record to note that. They'll explain it to you later.
Okay. I recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Laurel, for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 4
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Anyway, okay. Mister chair, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimously that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise to offer this amendment to prohibit the implementation of tariffs that would increase food costs on American consumers who are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis. Food costs have already risen nearly 25% in the last few years, stretching budgets for families across the country. President Trump's chaotic tariffs have made trips to the grocery store even more expensive. Everything from coffee to fruit to the packaging of our food rose in cost, thanks to universal tariffs that he applied to our closest trading partners. According to the Tax Foundation, President Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike since 1993.
They cost each American family nearly $1,700 in additional costs last year. That's according to the Yale Budget Lab. Early on, the administration scrambled to try to fix its mistakes, including USDA increasing egg imports in hopes to bring costs down. And on November 14, President Trump issued tariff exemptions for various US food products, including beef, fruits, spices, and coffee. But over half of all US food imports were still subject to tariffs, even after this reversal.
This included bread and other baked goods at $10,300,000,000 in imports, fresh fish filets, $7,500,000,000 in imports, and crustaceans like crabs and shrimp, $7,000,000,000 in imports. And shoppers felt it at the checkout counter. Grocery prices increased by over 3% from February 2024 to February 2025, higher than the overall pace of inflation. Beef and coffee, two goods that were highly affected by tariffs, saw huge increases since last year, going up 14-18% respectively. But not only did American families lose under this tariff policy, so did small and medium-sized grocers who struggled to absorb these costs.
Now the Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs were illegal, and big corporations are lining up to demand refunds. The Trump administration is being forced to return nearly $166,000,000,000 in tariffs collected from American companies who passed many of those costs onto the American people. All of that chaos and disruption only to end up sending money back to big companies, while the American people are worse off. We cannot let anything like this happen. I know the president has never had to manage a food budget or worry about making ends meet.
But for Americans living paycheck to paycheck, the uncertainty his terrorists bring has caused panic and fear for parents just trying to put food on the table. Proud to propose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General Lady, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Maryland, doctor Harris is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Attempting to blame the Trump administration for trade deficits and food costs is just unrealistic. Look at the facts. The Trump administration left office in 2020 with a record six decades of trade surplus.
The Biden administration left us with a record agricultural trade deficit of nearly 50,000,000,000. Already, our constituents are seeing the benefit of the administration's trade policies. Egg prices down 44.7% from March 2024. And just last month, eight of 15 food-at-home categories saw price declines. The bottom line is that for American farmers, short term, tariffs may harm, but long term, they're beneficial.
These trade deals, America has to regain its positive trade balance, and it's beginning to do so as a result of tariff agreements that have been made in trade agreements. This amendment handcuffs the administration on its signature America First trade policy, move we cannot support. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment is about protecting American families and farmers from policies that drive up food costs. It ensures that no funds in this bill can be used to implement tariffs that would make groceries more expensive. Families across the country are already facing elevated food costs, and they cannot afford additional price increases driven by policy decisions. USDA data shows that food prices rose significantly in recent years, placing sustained pressure on household budgets.
Tariffs that increase the cost of imported food, agricultural inputs, are often passed directly on to consumers. They can also raise costs to producers who rely on imported equipment, fertilizer, and other inputs. The Trump administration's tariff policies have already created volatility in agricultural markets and contributed to higher costs across the supply chain. When retaliation follows, American farmers lose access to key export markets, compounding the damage. That combination, higher input costs, reduced market access, puts additional strain on producers who are already operating on tight margins.
This amendment draws a clear line. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to implement policies that raise food prices for American families. It's a straightforward, common-sense protection at a time when both consumers and producers are feeling the economic pressure. We should be focused on lowering costs and strengthening markets, not taking actions that move in the opposite direction. I support the amendment.
I commend the general lady for offering the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. General lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chairman. I rise in strong support of the ranking member's amendment. On Monday night, I held a town hall with my constituents to talk about the affordability crisis that's gripping our communities. The number one question that I received was, what is Congress going to do to lower my grocery bill? This is not new, and it is getting worse.
Families across Florida are squeezed at the grocery store every day. They watch more of their hard-earned paychecks get eaten up by climbing costs, and much of it traces directly back to President Trump's senseless tariff policy. Tariffs are taxes. That's exactly what they are. They get passed down to the consumer, and they increase costs for everything.
In fact, the data shows that Trump's tariffs are far and away the number one driver of grocery inflation. Look at the numbers. Since Trump took office just over a year ago, prices for everyday household items are surging. Orange juice is up 25%, kind of important in Florida. Ground beef is up 17.5 percent.
Coffee prices are up nearly 30%. These are not luxury items. These are the basics. This is what goes in people's shopping bags every week. These are the things parents reach for when they pack lunches and feed their kids before school.
But over half of all US food imports are now subject to Trump's tariff. Half. Families must pay a penalty imposed by this administration on the food that they buy for their children. There's a reason that most states' sales taxes exempt essential goods like groceries, because we decided as a country that you shouldn't be taxed on the basics unless you're Donald Trump. And families are feeling the difference.
Right now, in stores across this country, people stand in the grocery aisle doing math in their heads. Then too often, they're putting items back on the shelf. They skip fresh vegetables and proteins and reach for whatever is cheapest, usually the less healthy processed foods, all just to make ends meet. That is the reality. That's what tariffs do to the people that we represent every single day.
This amendment says enough is enough. It draws a line and declares that we will not allow tariff policy to take food off our tables and healthy food out of the mouths of our kids. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense amendment, on an amendment that would make life more affordable for our constituents, and I yield back. Thank.
Speaker 1
You, gentlelady. Are there other members which the gentleman from Maryland's recognized to address the amendment?
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. I rise in support of the amendment, but also rise to respond to the observations of the gentleman from Maryland, subcommittee chairman. And he said I will. I will. That this would handcuff the president.
Supreme Court of the United States handcuffed the president, said he was doing things that he did not have the constitutional ability to do, and he didn't care. And so, we stood by while, again, one more time, we failed to protect our constitutional responsibility and authority. This was on tariffs, which the constitution clearly says we are responsible for. Now we have some emergency authority. Clearly, there was no emergency in the sense that the Congress contemplated.
And then what happened? It happened, I think, in the first administration as well as in this administration. The president then took money to pay it to farmers who had been hurt by his policies. That here we are, allowing our authority to be undermined, to have a collective judgment as to whether or not these tariffs were appropriate or it tariff a, tariff b, tariff c, you name your tariff, was appropriate. And if so, what the consequences of doing that would be.
And as I said and reiterate, what we did, we tried to offset the adverse consequences to farmers by simply paying them money. Very frankly, we're talking about food stamps, SNAP. I will tell you the recipients of those programs would be just delighted if we send them money to offset these cuts.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. A gentlelady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the amendment. I'm very much touched by things that my colleagues have said in terms of these tariffs on the impact on our families to feed our families. No matter what you call it, and no matter who you're gonna hold responsible for it, because the president is responsible for it, but so are we for not doing our job and holding him accountable and ensuring that we are the checks and balances that the constitution provides for. And if you listen carefully to the king of England, he reminded us that there are no kings anywhere.
They don't have to respond to some checks and balances. At the end of the day, we should be very concerned about whether or not our family's gonna afford to feed their families, and whether or not they can afford to buy nutritional items for their families. If food and other costs are rising directly because the tariffs are taxes and those taxes are passed down to the consumer, then we must confront the reality of the situation and not say that it's something that it is not with a straight face, knowing well that we're not portraying the honesty of the situation. So, with that, I do support this amendment. I do support Congress doing its job.
I do support doing everything that we can to lower the costs for families, to feed their families. And I support this amendment, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the remarks. General lady from Ohio. Miss captors recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 7
I'm sorry. It's in the wrong place. Anyway, ranking member, Chair Cole, ranking member Dolores, rise in support of the Dolores amendment. The trade battle and the trade deficit battle are why I ran for office. This country hasn't had a balanced trade account since 1970.
It's one of the reasons for the upheaval in this economy, and tariffs don't make it any better. It makes it worse. It also is bad because we don't deal with GAAP, and we don't deal with the differential in how other countries deal with their value added tax compared to us. It's a long, storied history and one in which we're not winning. So I rise in support of this because tariffs are regrettable, especially at this moment.
They're terribly harmful. And rising costs reflect that. I was shocked. I went into the supermarket when I went back home the other day, and a piece of beef this big, I saw it was on an end counter that minute was on sale, $48. This much beef.
And I thought, that's the bargain? How can American families even support their own family, much less their additional relatives? Anyway, the tariffs are rising, causing food to rise all over this country, and they put people against the wall. Credit card debt is skyrocketing across the country every day. I even hear from farmers, whose costs are driven right.
Fertilizer, all the inputs that they have, are much more expensive this year. They're not gonna break even, friends. They're not gonna break even. The latest available data indicates that tariffs on agricultural inputs are going to cost American producers $8,000,000,000 more than last year. And the premiums on their health insurance are becoming so expensive.
Our farmers can't afford their health insurance. This is gonna be a hard year. So these tariffs function as an unwarranted tax on American producers and America's families, squeezing their already thin margins. So where do you stand on the cost of living crisis? We stand with the people, and we have to roll back these tariffs.
They're working backwards. They're not helping us. They're hurting the American people. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeLauro amendment. But way beyond the DeLauro amendment, this country has to ask itself why we have not had balanced trade accounts since 1970, and why that is changing the politics of this country to something really ugly.
And it's deep, and it needs our attention, and I guarantee you it won't happen. And how sad for our country. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna say a thank you to my colleagues, for really sharpening the debate on this issue. You know, I have to agree with one thing that the chair of the subcommittee said, and that we have seen the results of the president's trade policy. Yes. We have seen it.
It is a disaster. Total disaster. Tax foundation. President Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike, $3,693 for an additional cost last year for families. I wanna remind everyone, and congresswoman Wassman talked about her town hall meeting.
Maybe the issue of affordability and cost of living doesn't penetrate with President Trump. He's never had to deal with that issue. But the single biggest issue that comes up in any gathering of constituents is, what are the costs that they're dealing with? The affordability of the cost of living is not a hoax. It is a reality.
And the congress needs to understand that is the reality. And the two items at the top of that list are groceries. And now, because of a war of choice, we are looking at gas prices. So we better focus on it. We are focusing on this side of the aisle.
I suggest to all of you that you need to do that, as well. There are people demanding help with the cost of living. We hear it over and over again. The last thing that the administration should do is engage in reckless inflationary trade wars, putting universal tariffs on everything from eggs to produce, especially after being so thoroughly rebuked by the Supreme Court. The American people need help with the cost of living, and this amendment gives it to them.
Urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All opposed say no. No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient vote or support has been demonstrated.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt, mister Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar? Aye. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford?
Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Missus Bice? No. Mr Bishop? Aye.
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, I mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no.
Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyde.
Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole?
Speaker 10
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar. Miss Dean. Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro?
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mr Edwards. Mister Elze.
Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? I. Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No.
Mister Harder? Doctor Harris? No. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 10
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce?
Miss Captor.
Speaker 10
Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee.
Miss Lutlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Molloy. Miss McCullum.
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar?
No. Mister Moore? No. Mr Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann?
Speaker 10
Mister Mervann, aye. Mr Newhouse? Mister Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Miss Pingree? Aye. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pocan? Mister Pocan, aye.
Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mr. Rogers.
Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mister Simpson, no.
Mister Strong, no. No. Missus Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, Miss Watson Coleman. Miss Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record or change their vote? Gentlemen from South Carolina.
Speaker 1
Yes. Second answer. Alright. We do. Okay.
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will tally. Thank you very much. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted.
A gentleman or a gentlelady, excuse me, from Connecticut. The ranking member is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you. This amendment adds report language that would help strengthen our nation's infant formula supply chain and ensure policymakers have the information they need to act. In 2022, the US experienced a severe shortage of infant formula following Abbott Nutrition's Sturgis, Michigan plant closing due to safety concerns and a recall due to a Coronavirus contamination. At the time, the Abbott Sturgis plant was producing roughly 40% of the infant formula in the country. The outbreak exemplified how desperately reform was needed and how concentrated the infant formula market is in the United States.
And thankfully, Congress acted in the wake of this outbreak, but it is clear that so much more needs to be done. The recent outbreak of baby infant formula due to botulism contamination has again highlighted the need for additional reform. This outbreak sickened at least 51 infants with infant botulism across 19 states. A one-year-old Portland baby is still battling infant botulism after drinking contaminated baby formula last November. This is the article that appeared: Portland baby still battling infant botulism months after contaminated formula outbreak.
He has been hospitalized twice. He's scheduled for surgery in early May to get a permanent feeding tube placed. Babies should not be getting this sick from infant formula in the United States. About 75 percent of US infants consume formula by six months of age. We must do more to protect the safety of infant formula in our country.
This report language is report language that would require comprehensive testing by infant formula manufacturers for pathogens and microorganisms in both the facilities and in the finished product, including setting a minimum testing requirement, a mandatory reporting process, and notification to Congress. It also requires record retention by manufacturers of all positive test results, and additional congressional notification of any inspections of infant formula manufacturing facilities that are classified as indicating the need for official action. Interestingly enough, when the contamination was made public, company refused to do a voluntary recall. It really had to be pressured into doing a recall and continued selling a product that was contaminating babies. They finally did deal with a recall.
The bill also, well, the measures are common sense. They strengthen the testing regime with clear deadlines and reporting requirements. It gives our health agencies and the Congress the information we need to act in an emergency. I think we can't let the health of our nation's newborn children be taken for granted. Infant formula is essential, so it must be safe.
Imagine, you buy a product with your, you know, with your treasure, your newborn, and you buy the formula and you're thinking you're doing the best for your baby. And what you're doing and putting them into harm's way, it should not be the case. We can and we should do something about this. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. I wanna thank the gentle lady from Connecticut for bringing the issue before the subcommittee. Certainly, the safety of an infant baby formula is an important topic. It's absolutely right. We can and should do something about it.
The question is how congress should be doing something about it. You know, the FDA is obviously gonna be tasked with coming up with a solution to the problem. But I think it's important enough that we get it right, that it goes through the regular process, which is energy and commerce, which is, my understanding, having a hearing on this today, and will discuss the issue. We'll do things the way congress should be doing it. I mean, I first saw this amendment yesterday.
This is a pretty prescriptive amendment. I'm not sure this is the right way to tackle. This is not my area of expertise, not baby formula. Energy and Commerce Committee, that is their oversight of FDA and their statutory guardrails that they can put in are, I think, the appropriate place. They are taking this issue up.
So I would say this is not the way we should be doing this. This is an issue with urgency, but Energy and Commerce realizes that. So I would urge that we don't adopt this amendment today, that we work with the FDA and with our colleagues in Energy and Commerce to make sure that they are dealing with it. And I will yield back at the time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment would direct the FDA to improve infant formula safety in the United States. It will require comprehensive testing in facilities and formula products, and require mandatory reporting. After the infant formula crisis in 2022 and additional outbreaks, this is an issue that we need to find solutions for.
Protecting our nation's babies, our most vulnerable, should be a top priority. Because of that, I support the adoption of the amendment, congratulate the general lady for offering it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The general lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chairman. I rise today in joyful, and I thought it was hopeful, support of ranking member Deloro's infant formula amendment, wishing we could come to an agreement here in this body about it. And I thank the lady for her beautiful amendment. It's a critical and long-overdue step toward ensuring the safety and reliability of our nation's infant formula. The facts are clear and concerning.
In just the past few years, we've witnessed multiple cases that put our most vulnerable population, our babies, our infants, at risk. From the 2022 contamination that triggered a nationwide shortage to a recent outbreak linked to contaminated formula that sickened dozens of babies. These incidents underscore a systemic failure that cannot be ignored. At its core, this legislation is about accountability, prevention, and trust. Parents should never have to question whether the food they are giving their newborn is safe.
Here in America, having to worry if the formula is safe. Yet under the current system, gaps in testing, inconsistent standards, and delayed reporting have created unacceptable risks. We have an obligation to learn from past failures and act decisively. This legislation does exactly that. It strengthens oversight, restores confidence in the system, and prioritizes the well-being of families across the country.
On behalf of all of our kids, all of our babies, and I will slip in my 7 grandchildren, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to take an important step toward ensuring that every parent can trust the safety of the formula in this country. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? If not, there is, at the desk, an amendment in the second degree offered by the general lady from Oklahoma, Miss Vice. The general lady requests that her amendment be read, or would you?
Speaker 1
Okay. Without objection, the reading of the second degree is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her second-degree amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna thank the ranking member for highlighting this important issue. I have been working on this almost since I got to Congress, because of the original infant formula shortage, and now this issue that has come up most recently. That being said, I think that the original amendment that the ranking member put forward was a little too prescriptive. And as we have heard from the chair of the subcommittee, this is an issue that is also being discussed in the energy and commerce committee today.
And so I ask that my amendment be passed in a substitute of Miss Dolores' amendment, which gives a little bit more flexibility to the FDA. This is an important issue. No doubt. We need to make sure that the formula is safe. And let me be clear.
Formula is safe. Our moms across the country, you know, can rest assured that this is an issue the FDA is concerned about and that they are looking at. But I think more could be done, which is why I would ask my colleagues to consider adopting this second degree amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
You, gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
Gentleman from Maryland. You bet. Thank you. Gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris is recognized for the best amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to the second-degree amendment. I think this makes it clear that the committee is interested in this topic. We want something to be done. We ask the FDA to study it, and again, we urge our colleagues in energy and commerce to deal with this as well.
Heal back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman lady from Connecticut, mister Laura, is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, mister chairman. I wanna say a thank you to my colleague, congresswoman, Vice. I was here to it was really a tragic experience watching families go from town to town, just frantic that they were able to get. And in that case, to get infant formula, it was the failure of the company who sold the contaminated product and of the FDA for not addressing it as quickly as they should have. So I appreciate and was happy to work with your team.
I rise to support the second-degree amendment. It preserves the essence of the amendment. I thank you for your willingness to work together. Our babies' health is not a partisan issue. It really isn't there.
Ideas of how to improve the safety and resilience of our infant formula supply chains. So I welcome the healthy debate on this, of this topic. The amendment is a compromise. I'm glad that we could reach it. It's not everything that I wanted, but, you know, that's the way life is.
But it provides a bipartisan path forward on a critical issue. And I would just say this, and I'll say this to you, mister chairman. We have oversight, overspending here. We have a right to direct agencies that we find when they should be continuing to tackle babies. Babies can't wait.
You know? We can't wait. Hopefully, E and C is gonna do what they're doing, but we have jurisdiction in this area as well. We can and we should act. So, I want to urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the general lady. The chair feels compelled. To point out, the general lady does get a lot of what she puts her mind on that she wants to get. Amazingly effective. Gentle lady from Oklahoma is recognized for one. Are there any other members wishing to speak on the amendment?
Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the second-degree amendment offered by Miss Weiss. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Now we will return to the amendment offered by Miss Del Oro as amended. General lady, want to clue? Okay. Support it.
Alright. Persuasive. Do any members seek recognition to speak on the amendment as amended? Seeing none, the questions on the amendment offered by Miss Bloor. All those in favor, say aye.
Aye as an.
Speaker 1
Opposed? Okay. As chair of the eyes have it, the amendment is as amended is adopted. Thank you very much. A gentlelady from Maine, Miss Pengeridge, recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is about the deep concerns I have about staffing levels at the USDA, particularly staffing in those offices back in our home districts. My amendment would restore the staffing levels at the USDA before DoD and the DRPs and the Rollins reorganization went into place. Staff has been decimated at the agency. But not just the staff in DC.
We're talking about county offices, the boots on the ground, the people who work directly with farmers, the people who we all are deeply concerned about having sufficient numbers of back in our home districts. In Maine, our NRCS staff lost 5 engineers. Hiring new engineers is very problematic because the salaries offered are usually substantially less than in the private sector. The lack of engineers means that producers are reluctant to even sign contracts, concerned that they will not get timely information to be able to complete their practices. Currently, it can take weeks to get an answer to a simple question about engineering practice.
This is frequently happening when contractors are on-site or planning to be on-site, and these delays are costly and can even have an agreement making an agreement with the NRCS impractical. Farmers are also concerned that their contracts will suddenly be terminated, which is what happened last year. In one of our county offices, they have a district conservationist, and that's it for the entire county. No other staff. I have one farmer who applied for the new regenerative agriculture pilot program and has been waiting for months to hear back.
I've heard that there's another FSA person in Maine, that there's only one FSA person in Maine who can approve loans, takes up to six months to get an answer. And by that time, the growing season is often over, and the farmers have to make that decision. Our farmers don't need more uncertainty. They look to the federal government to provide certainty and support, so they can farm successfully and feed our country. But they are encountering more uncertainty, which is highly stressful, expensive, and not at all supportive of our American farmers.
So I urge the members to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for the amendment. Right? The gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And, chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, in an era of unrelenting $2,000,000,000,000 deficits. I applaud the Trump administration for working to right-size the federal government, focus agencies on core mission areas, and save taxpayer dollars. Our constituents sent us to Washington to ensure that we're spending their taxpayer dollars wisely, to look over the federal government and to make sure that we are rightsizing the federal government, not locking in the bureaucracy to where it was. And to do that, we need to give the administration flexibility to continue to optimize those staffing levels, not freeze them into some, again, bureaucratic size that was here a couple of years ago.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment ensures that USDA has the workforce that is necessary to carry out its responsibilities to farmers, rural communities, and to families across the country. It withholds a portion of funding for the office of the secretary until staffing levels are restored to where they stood before the Trump administration reductions. Over the past several years, USDA has experienced significant staffing challenges that have weakened its ability to deliver programs effectively.
When staffing levels drop, service suffers from delayed assistance to farmers, slower processing of applications, and reduced technical support. These impacts are felt most acutely in rural communities that depend on USDA programs for conservation, for housing, and for economic development. The Trump administration's approach to workforce reductions and disruptions has contributed to these capacity challenges. Congress has a responsibility to ensure the taxpayer-funded programs are administered efficiently and effectively. This amendment provides a clear incentive for the department to rebuild its workforce and restore operational capacity.
It does not permanently reduce funding or impose arbitrary cuts. It simply conditions a portion of funding on meeting a reasonable staffing benchmark. Strong staffing levels are essential in implementing the programs that are funded in this bill, and it ensures that resources reach the people they are intended to serve. Without adequate personnel, even well-funded programs cannot deliver results. This is a common-sense accountability measure to make sure that USDA is equipped to do its job.
I support the adoption of the amendment. Congratulate the gentlelady for offering it, and I yield back. Thank.
Speaker 1
The gentleman for his remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? General lady from Ohio that Miss Captur's recognized.
Speaker 7
I thank you, mister chairman, and I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend, miss Pingree. And, the first question I wanna ask is, what does Elon Musk know about agriculture in any part of this country? Okay? So let's start with that question. The bill proposes nearly a 20% increase for the office of the secretary here in Washington.
And, at the same time, it reduces funding for the individuals who work with our farmers on the ground. People who really know what's going on in different regions of the country. Just in Ohio, the net effect of this, if we don't pass her amendment, we already lost 261 USDA employees, and Ohio is a big agricultural state. That's 16% of our state's Department of Agriculture workforce. Now think about this.
The input costs are rising. We face, in our region of Ohio, the future of something called Lake Erie. And over in New York, Lake Ontario, they're the two most troubled lakes out of the Great Lakes system, the largest body of freshwater on earth. We have to have new crop cover. We have to have new farming techniques to help us get through and preserve our life source, really.
We need experts to help our farmers do this, and it's quite complicated. I'd love to lecture for 3 hours on what it takes. But our weather events are getting worse. We had a couple of years of drought. We're not totally recovered from that.
If we don't get rainfall 18 inches down, we don't have a good crop this year. There are questions about that. This takes very careful tending of the land. You just don't write a bill in Washington and think it's going to work in places that we represent. The cost of production is rising. And, just to remind everyone, farm suicides are at record levels all across the country.
Why would you cut the people who are really the frontline workers to help what's left of American agriculture. Why would you cut them? And the farmer bankruptcies, look at any chart. Look at any of our farm bankruptcies are skyrocketing across the country. It's a really precarious situation that we face.
So I support the general ladies' amendment. It's just sensible. And why would you increase? Well, I could tell you stories about the Department of Agriculture here in Washington. When we tried to open the farmers market several years ago on their property, our biggest enemy was the US Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC. And we said we're trying to create farmers markets all around the country so we can sell our local produce and help our farmers survive. The day we dedicated it was brutal.
Was at 100 degrees. And we had all these customers coming from off the mall, who were buying the food produced by Virginia and Maryland farmers. And all these USDA employees were looking out the window. I'll never forget up there on the top floor. And I looked and said, you are our worst enemies.
Look at this. I said, look at the business here for our local farmers. So I don't think USDA here in Washington sometimes really understands the connection between their funding and what actually happens on the ground. So I support the gentlelady's amendment and urge strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady is recognized for one minute.
Speaker 14
Much, Mister Chair, and thank you to everybody who has risen in support of this. And I know this is a bipartisan issue. I've served many years on the agriculture committee. And one of the things that we hear most often from farmers, from others who testify, is there's never enough boots on the ground. If we really want our farmers to be able to take advantage of the grant programs, of the opportunities that we provide them, they need those engineers.
They need the people to make the loan decisions. They need the people in the offices to do the work. So I would say this should be a high priority of this committee, making sure that we have the staff available and that it's not randomly cut, whether it's by Elon Musk or the reorganizations that are going on there now. The chair in his opposition to this said that we have big deficits, and we have to spend our money in other places. Well, we're here discussing the USD appropriations bill, the agriculture appropriations bill.
And I think we should be thinking about American farmers. And if we're gonna talk about where to spend our money, we shouldn't be talking about a 40% increase to the defense appropriations bill or spending up to $25,000,000,000 already in a war of choice in Iran. We need to put that money to American farmers so they can grow food here in America. I urge everyone to support this, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Maine. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any share of the notes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar? Aye. Mister Aguilar? Aye.
Mister Alford? Mister Amade? Mister Amade? No. Missus Bice?
No. Missus Bice? Bishop? Aye. Mr Bishop?
Aye. Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter?
No. Carter? Mr Case? Mister Case, I. Mister Siscamani?
Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? Mr. Cloud? Mister Cloud?
No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mr. Clyde?
No. Mister Cole? No. Mr. Cole? No.
Mister Cuellar? Mister Cuellar, aye. Miss Dean? Mister Lauro? Aye.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mr Edwards? Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman?
No. Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel? Aye. Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mr Guest? No.
Mr. Harter? Aye. Mr. Harter? Aye. Doctor Harris?
Doctor Harris? No. Mrs. Henson? Missus Henson? No.
Mr. Hoyer?
Speaker 10
Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mr. Joyce? Miss Captor. Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lolota? No. Lolota? No. Miss Lee.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming?
Aye. Ming? Aye. Mister Molinar? No.
Mr. Moore? Mr Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Mister Mervan.
Mister Mervan, aye. Mister Newhouse? No. Mr. Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez. Miss Pingree? Aye. Miss Pingree? Aye.
Mister Pocan? Aye. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mr. Russian. Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no.
Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Swaseman Schultz? Miss Swaseman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Mr. Womack? Mister Womack? No.
Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida?
Speaker 1
There are other members wishing to record or change their vote. Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 33. The amendment is not agreed to. General lady from Maine, Miss Pingree is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady's recognized remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one I can make pretty simple. Doesn't cost as much money. It's really just to ask for a study. It's because I am deeply concerned about the cuts to the energy programs of REAP and the high energy cost grants, along with the USDA REAP freeze, are impacting energy costs for rural small businesses and farmers.
So we all know that energy costs are very high right now, and farmers are particularly impacted by this. And these programs that are now being targeted and cut are extremely important to helping producers bring down the cost. We've heard from so many producers in the main rural businesses about the value of these programs. I just wanna give you a couple examples of what some of the things have been done through REAP in our state. There was a $170,000 grant for Eagle Industries, a small metal fabrication business in Hollis, all roof-mounted solar.
It generated 82 or 88% of their business energy use last year, saving them a considerable amount of money. 48,000 went to Farmers Kev's organic vegetable farm located in West Gardner to install ground mounted solar. The system generated 100% of their business's energy use last year. And there was a $376,000 grant to CedarWorks, a wonderful manufacturer of children's playground equipment. You're also using your ground solar.
It generates an enormous percentage of their business energy use last year, and it means that we're building that much less coal, and using that much less energy. It's mind boggling to me that the USDA currently has frozen REAP awards at a time of high energy cost. So I'm merely asking for a study so that we can all better understand how this impacts our farmers, and how it is increasing their costs and making it increasingly difficult for farmers to stay in business. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And, of course, everybody's concerned about the high cost of energy, but a lot of that has been due to some of the green energy policies that insist on installing energy that's just very expensive to produce. So I rise in opposition to the amendment. You know, I go home. I drive down Route 50 to Ocean City.
I urge all of you. It's pretty close. Come through the district and drive. And almost every single month I drive down, there's another field that used to be growing corn and soybeans to feed our chickens that now is covered in silicon. That's it.
It's silicone panels, solar panels, prime farmland. And the US government was responsible for that because we subsidized it, and we paid for it, and we removed prime farmland out of production. What a shame. Because on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, the economy depends on whether or not we can grow the corn and soybeans to feed our chickens. Because if we don't grow it here, we can't afford it because you folks in the Midwest grow it pretty well.
But we gotta transport it to Maryland. And if we add the transport cost, it no longer will destroy our poultry industry. So I applaud Secretary Rollins for taking the bold position of saying, we're not gonna subsidize putting solar panels on prime farmland. That is the right policy for our farmers and our agricultural community. If we want to reduce our agricultural trade deficit, we better not be taking agricultural land out of production, especially prime farmland.
And that's exactly what we were doing under the policies of the Biden administration. We were taking prime agricultural farmland out of production and subsidizing it because, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't subsidize that solar up until a couple of years ago, it didn't pay. You had to subsidize. And, in fact, we heard, in advocating for this amendment, the general lady from Maine mentioning rooftop panels. I urge all of you to go and Google what the levelized cost of energy is for various production methods.
The highest levelized cost of energy, that is, it takes into consideration all the other things besides the solar panel. So, for instance, you have to hook up to a grid. You have to have the ability to reverse flow to a grid. You have to take into account the subsidies that occur. The highest means of producing energy is rooftop solar.
And here we have the US Department of Agriculture spending money on rooftop solar. If we wanna help rural communities, let's advance the development of small modular reactors. Let's bring those types of energy developments into rural communities. Let's stop the restriction like we have in Maryland of burning clean natural gas to produce energy. Because, ladies and gentlemen, that's one of the lowest cost levelized costs of energy.
Burning clean natural gas, and we have people from Pennsylvania in this. Thank you very much, Pennsylvania. You produce a heck of a lot of natural gas. You produce it very cheaply, and we can produce cheap energy. What this amendment does is let's go back and look at those failed programs.
Let's study them a little more. They did fail because they were grants to buy very expensive sources of energy. That's not what our rural communities need. Our rural communities need rational policy on burning fossil fuel, for instance, in the United States. They need a rational policy on advancing small module reactors for rural communities.
That's what they need. This amendment would only create a lengthy and costly evaluation, unlikely to provide clear or useful benefits for near-term decisions. I specifically disagree with it, looking at the restrictions the secretary has put on prime farmland. I know our farmers, look, they're under stress. They look at the economics, and because of the subsidies provided to that industry, a lot of them made the decision to put solar panels on that farmland.
We can't be encouraging that decision. We have to do whatever we can to strengthen our farm community and to keep the land in production and to make sure that we are lowering energy costs by allowing the development of the lowest cost methods of energy or sources of energy. Again, whether it's natural gas we're blessed with, whether it's clean burning coal, these are the things we should be doing. USDA evaluates this kind of information as it reviews the health and oversight of its portfolios. Congress does not need to direct a duplicative, wasteful expenditure of resources, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I agree with the chairman that the right policy is what we need to have. But I must caution and lay out to the committee that reasonable minds can disagree on what the right policy is. And what this amendment does is it allows a professional to look at what is the right policy. And I rise in support of this amendment because it ensures that Congress can get a clear, independent assessment of how the recent power decisions are affecting energy costs in rural America.
It directs the government accountability office to evaluate the impacts of these proposed cuts to the Rural Energy for America program, the reductions in the high energy cost grants, and USDA's freeze on the solar energy projects. It doesn't just assume or take for granted that this is true. We wanna find out. We wanna get the facts. These programs have long helped farmers and rural businesses to lower their energy costs through efficiency improvements and renewable energy investments.
When those investments are scaled back or halted, producers and small businesses like those in my district in Southwest Georgia are left with higher operating costs. Energy is a significant expense in agriculture. It affects everything from irrigation and processing to storage and transportation. For small rural communities and businesses, higher energy costs can mean tighter margins, reduced hiring, and even closures. The Trump administration's decision to freeze or reduce support for these projects has created uncertainty, and it has disrupted planned investments, even some businesses that had made loans anticipating the support for these projects.
At the same time, many rural communities already faced disproportionately high energy costs compared to urban areas. These combined factors raise serious concerns about affordability and economic viability in rural America. This amendment does not prejudge the outcome. It simply asks GAO to provide an objective, data-driven analysis. That information is essential for Congress to understand the real-world impacts that these policy choices will reveal.
If costs are rising as a result of these actions, we need to know, and we need to respond accordingly. This is a common-sense oversight step to ensure accountability and to inform our future decisions. I support the adoption of the amendment. I congratulate the lady for offering, and I yield back.
Speaker 31
Thank you, gentlemen. Mister Laura, I believe you want to be recognized. Please, you are recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. I rise to support this amendment. Electricity costs nationally have risen by nearly 10% in the past year. Diesel prices have also spiked 46% since the president launched his war of choice in Iran in February. These increases hit rural areas even harder.
A recent study from the National Association of State Energy Officials found that the energy burden for rural households was about 33% higher than the national average, 3.3% of household spending, largely due to higher home heating and cooling costs and longer commutes requiring more fuel. This difference in energy burden is even more drastic for low-income rural households who spend an average of 9% of household income on energy. There is no relief in sight. Average annual residential electricity prices are predicted to rise by over 5% this year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The war in Iran has continued to spike fuel and fertilizer costs.
We need serious investments in our energy grid, particularly in rural areas, to address these costs. This amendment prioritizes funds for those projects, directly lowers costs for rural households and small farms. This could include installing solar on barns, poultry houses, and other small businesses, or helping farmers to install more energy efficient systems such as replacing diesel engines with electric motors. That is why it's worth noting again that this bill cuts back loans under the existing Rural Energy for America program by half while eliminating all grant funding. More than 25,000 projects have been funded through the program, helping people across all 50 states reduce their energy costs, and over two-thirds of grants have gone to Republican-led districts.
More than 25% of all REAP grant funding has gone to just 20 congressional districts, and 18 of those districts are represented by Republicans, including all of the top five highest REAP grant recipients. $372,000,000 in REAP funding went to Republican districts last year. That is funding that directly helps their constituents with energy costs, which they are preparing to cut in half. This amendment would help rural communities. This bill is preparing to be left behind.
We need to bring down energy costs. This amendment is designed to help the communities who need it most. I urge your support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thanks for the indulgence, committee. With that, the gentleman in California is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment. And I want to state some basic facts about the Rural Energy for America program, and I ask everybody to just keep an open mind. This is a long-standing bipartisan Farm Bill program reauthorized under presidents of both parties that has provided billions in support to tens of thousands of farms, ranches, and rural small businesses.
It's a cost-share program that requires significant private investment, often a majority share. It's not a handout. It's private capital being unlocked in rural communities. In recent years, yes, a large majority of those funded projects have been solar, but those solar projects were chosen by the farmers and the small businesses themselves based on what works economically. REIT primarily supports on-site distributed energy projects, not utility-scale development.
So claims about paving over farmland are aimed at projects that this program simply does not fund. America is losing farmland every single day, that's driven primarily by development and by economic pressure. Programs like REAP actually, and I've spoken to farmers myself about this. They help keep farms viable by lowering energy costs and diversifying income. Demand for REAP consistently exceeds available funding, reflecting strong interest from rural communities across the country.
A substantial share of funding goes directly to agricultural and resource-based businesses. That's the backbone of rural America. And compared to overall energy subsidies, REIT represents a pretty small investment that puts assets directly on farmers' balance sheets. The emerging agrivoltaic practices, as they are called, show that energy production and agriculture can and do successfully coexist on the same land in many cases. So at a time of rising electricity costs, we should be doing all we can to support practical cost-saving energy solutions rather than kneecapping things that will actually bring costs down.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman lady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Mister chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. And, I spend a lot of time on the energy issue, and I sort of agree with a lot of those who have spoken on both sides of the aisle. But the most important thing we have to do in this country is to have competition and energy, or else prices won't go down for our people. And we also need innovation.
There's no question that one of our biggest problems is the old grid. And getting on the grid, off the grid. And what we've provided as a nation to supply that new grid is very small. And so we're going to see problems across the country on the energy front because we haven't moved fast enough working with the private sector in order to move into the modern age in this new era. Competition is very important in order to provide the new grid, and science is needed.
We've talked about nuclear, very small systems. They're being invented. They're not completely ready yet. Yes. Natural gas, as Chair Harris has mentioned, we have an unlimited supply at the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
They're all parts of an energy system that we're trying to make more competitive, but we can't turn our backs on innovation. I represent the Glass Center of America. We're very proud of the solar systems that we are developing. We were the home of Thomas Alva Edison, and now we're the home of Harold McMaster. He will be the Thomas Alva Edison of this century.
And, we are growing these new technologies as a country. We can't turn our back on any one of them. And I would have to say, when you go out into these areas of the country, one of the real problems is, and I think Chairman Harris is right, let's put solar panels in a certain place where there's prime farmland. Well, the local zoning authorities and the county zoning authorities have to deal with that. They can't let prime farmland just be frittered away.
They have to find a way to protect the best lands in the country. That isn't something that our great-grandparents faced in this country or our great-great-great grandparents, but we truly are destroying agricultural platforms that should never be destroyed. How we get that to work between the federal government and the localities, I'm not sure. All I know is it's not happening in a very intelligent manner right now. It's purely a market-driven, you know, buy that land and somebody wants to sell the land, but you give away irreplaceable farmland.
In addition, agriculture is changing. A lot of fruits and vegetables are now grown in four-season facilities that are 100 acres or more in size. I represent some of them. They need 40% of their bottom line, and now 50% is power. We've got to work on perovskites.
We've got to work on different kinds of inventions to bring that new technology to American agriculture and to industry across the nation. So, I think that we can't ignore any sector, but we have to make them available intelligently. And I'll end with this story. In a place called Pioneer, Ohio, I was part of a ceremony where a mayor and council decided in this little town of about 5,000 people at most, that they were going to buy some extra land adjacent to the municipality. They did that.
They used their municipal power to create solar, and it will take about 10 years to pay off the loan that they took out. But they will lower the bills of the people living in this area. They will attract industry because of that particular use of solar power. It didn't take any prime farmland. By the way, the mayor is Republican, and I love the guy.
Okay? He really did do something that no one else in the region has done in one of the most remote areas of Ohio, one that was the hardest to settle. So this American, they're geniuses. I mean, they're figuring things out at the local level. And I just think that this particular amendment will go a long way to help advance that kind of innovation.
And that's where we need to be making intelligent decisions at every level. So thank you very much. I support the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 14
You. Chair, I just wanna remind people again that if there's a controversy or a difference of opinion around this, this is merely to ask for a study so that we can better understand how these cuts and the freezes to reap and the high energy cost grants will impact our farmers. Because I think we all agree that in rural areas, energy costs are high, and anything we can do to help small businesses and farmers cut those costs. It would also allow us to deal with the facts. The chair stated that solar power is the most expensive form of power.
I've never heard anyone say that. In fact, in many studies, it's cited as the lowest cost of power. And I'm a believer in all of the above, and we're just talking about taking one more opportunity away. When we talk about using prime farmland for solar power, I don't think I'm not in favor of that either. Most of these are rooftop solar or small uses of it on farms.
They're chosen by the farmer, and usually a farmer is using land that's not adequate for something else, or they're doing agrovoltaics. They're able to graze under the solar panels or grow other crops that are compatible. So I just urge you to go along with this amendment, support this study, and we'll all have more information going into the future, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chairs in those habit, a roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The court will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Mister Aguilar, aye. Mister Alford?
Mr Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Missus Bice? Mister Bishop?
Aye. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No.
Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Carter? Mister Case? Aye.
Mister Case? Aye. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mr Cloud? Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. No.
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuellar. Mister Cuellar. Cuellar. Mister Cuellar, Cuéar, aye.
Aye. Mistine? Aye. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro?
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Edwards?
No. Edwards? Mister Elzi? Mister Elzi? No.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espeyat? Aye. Mister Espeyat, aye.
Mister Fleishman? Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No.
Mr. Harter? Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 10
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye.
Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor. I.
Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota. Miss Lee.
Speaker 10
Miss Lee, I. Miss Letlow. Mister Levin? Mister Levin? Levin?
Ay. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum?
Ay. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Ay. Miss Bing, aye.
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
No. Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Mister, excuse me, mister Mervann?
Mister Mervann, I. Mr. Newhouse? Mister Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Miss Perez, I. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, I.
Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, I. Mister Raschenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers.
No. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mr Strong. Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres?
Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood? I. Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valladeo?
Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Miss Watson Coleman?
Miss Watson Coleman? I. Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke.
Mister Zinke, no. Are.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to cast their vote or change our vote? Gentlemen from Tennessee.
Speaker 1
Good guess. Any other members wishing to record their vote or change their vote, seeing none, in the clerk's lethalin?
Speaker 1
What are we doing? On this vote, the ayes are 28, the noes are 30. The amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 1
The gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized for the purpose of amendment.
Speaker 27
Chairman, I do have an amendment on the desk, and I seek unanimous consent to consider it already read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would reinstate the USDA household food security survey and subsequent report, which the bill under consideration today eliminates for the second year in a row. The survey has existed for thirty years through both Republican and Democratic administrations, yet it was a Trump administration that cut funding for being, I quote, redundant, costly, politicized, and does nothing more than fearmonger. Whenever in my career did I think that I would have to stand up to remind my colleagues that being food insecure is scary. Not knowing where your next meal is coming from or how you are going to feed your family is frightening.
The Republican big ugly bill has cut $178,000,000,000 from SNAP, leaving 3,000,000 people to worry about their next meal or if they're going to go to bed hungry. In my state of New Jersey, 30,000 people have lost access to SNAP. Many of my colleagues across the aisle represent states that had food insecurity above the national average, which we only know thanks to recent data by this survey. Further cuts would hurt their constituents disproportionately. You know, here are some of the numbers that we should be thinking about as we entertain this amendment and our work going forward.
60,000 people in Oklahoma lost access to SNAP, thanks to the big ugly bill. And, you know, Miss Mister Cole and Miss Vice, your districts are involved there. 201,000 in Texas. Representative Carter, representative Cloud, and representative Elzy, those are your districts I'm talking about. 50,000 in Louisiana.
Representative let low. There you go. 22,000 in Mississippi. Representative guests, that's Mississippi 3. And so, as you can see, this hurts both our republican districts as well as our democratic districts.
Let me not leave out representative Womack because in your district, it's 11,000 Arkansans. And last but not least, in my little litany here, Representative Rogers, a 17,000 in Kentucky. So as I close, I wanna remind my colleagues that gas is at its record high. Utility bills are skyrocketing. Housing is unaffordable.
Speaker 27
Now Republicans are forcing hardworking families to choose between buying groceries or keeping the lights on. Pretending that food insecurity does not exist because data is not being collected does not make it go away, and ignoring the needs of our neighbors is antithetical to our purpose in Congress. I urge my colleagues to consider the harms occurring nationwide from the lack of data collection on food insecurity, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to reinstate the household food security survey, the gathering of information, and to help guide nutrition and food policy for decades to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, wealthy states, and we have representatives in some very wealthy states. I think, actually, the offer of the amendment is from one of the wealthiest states in the nation. They can do their own food surveys. They could actually pay for the food programs.
They might actually offer to cost-share with the federal government for SNAP programs. What a novel idea. Just like they cost share for Medicaid, maybe they should cost share for the SNAP programs. They are the wealthiest among the wealthiest states in the nation. But as part of the effort to right size the federal government, shrink the bloated bureaucracy, improve the efficiency of USDA programs, the Trump administration canceled this one national survey.
That's it. The data previously collected in the Household Food Security Survey also happens to be collected in 10 other national surveys. So is the eleventh survey the one that counts? Is the twelfth survey the one that counts? Why would we be duplicating the work that's done in 10 other surveys?
And by the way, which rich states could do on their own? Because what the rich states are doing is asking the poor states to pay for the surveys. That's not the way it should be. Rich states should pay for their own surveys. And, honestly, they should have a little money left over to pay for some of the poorer states too.
So just because the USDA stopped the publication of this one survey, does not mean the federal government is no longer collecting data on food security. Their survey was canceled because it's duplicative of other surveys at the USDA and across the federal government, and past surveys tended to be anything but objective. The household food survey dates to the Clinton administration and really has just served as little more than political cover to increase spending. Now how do we know that might be true? Because the rates of food insecurity in the US remain stagnant despite the fact that SNAP spending has more than doubled between the fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2023.
Yeah. We stopped doing the survey because it was showing that food security is stable. And, oh, by the way, we've doubled our SNAP spending, and food insecurity is still stable. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We don't need an eleventh national survey on food insecurity, and I strongly suggest that rich states should do their own surveys.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 3
I rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of this amendment. This amendment restores our core federal responsibility, measuring food insecurity accurately and consistently across the country. It requires USDA to reinstate the Household Food Security Report and coordinate with the Census Bureau to resume the food security supplement. This is the gold standard. It's the most reported, the most respected, the most relied upon tool.
These tools have long been the gold standard for understanding hunger in America and informing policy decisions. Without them, Congress and the public are left without reliable, comparable data on food insecurity trends. This administration has repeatedly tried to shut down access to information that would inform our policies so that they could pretend that many of the problems that we try to address do not exist because we no longer will have the data which they have ceased collecting. This is especially concerning at a time when many families are still struggling with high food prices and economic uncertainty. The USDA's most recent available data showed that millions of households experience food insecurity every year, including households with children.
Eliminating or delaying these surveys makes it harder to track whether the conditions are improving or getting worse. The Trump administration's decision to cancel or disrupt this data collection underminds transparency, and it underminds accountability. We cannot effectively target nutrition programs or evaluate their success if we do not have accurate information. This amendment ensures continuity by requiring the USDA to use the same methodology and content as in their prior reports. That consistency is critical for identifying long-term trends and making informed funding decisions.
This is, it should not and is not a partisan issue. It's about maintaining the basic data infrastructure that supports sound policymaking. I support the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from New Jersey is recognized to close.
Speaker 27
Interesting conversation coming from the chairman of the party. I mean, the chairman of the committee. Same thing. You know, just for your information, we already send a lot more than we get from the state of New Jersey and states like that. But our concern just be not just about what's happening in wealthy states or states in which wealthy people are getting wealthier and poor people are getting poorer, but we care about everybody.
We're simply asking for the collection of information, accountability, transparency, patterns that don't exist in this administration, and patterns that the president doesn't want, and patterns that you all are so easily giving in to. So I simply ask you, why don't you want to know what the truth is? Why don't you want to know what really is happening in this country to families that are struggling every single day in the wealthiest country in the world? And why do you care about whether or not this information and this request are coming from a wealthy state or a poor state? It probably helps your state.
I know it helps this country, and I think that we should consider what's best for the country, and not what's best for Donald Trump. With that, I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from New Jersey. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair of the nose habit. Surprise. And the amendment is not adopted. General lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 33
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent that its reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized to remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 33
For too long, our government has looked the other way while industry has put harmful chemicals and dyes into our food. These dyes have been linked to serious health harms, such as behavioral impacts, inattentiveness, impaired memory, and restlessness, including in our children. This is an issue both Democrats and Republicans have led on. Ranking member Del Oro, I worked with you and other members under the last administration to ban RED III. Wanna thank you for your leadership on that issue as the chair of the congressional food safety caucus, which I'm a proud member of.
This is an area where I agree with some of this administration's efforts too. Last year, HHS secretary Kennedy announced he and the FDA would work together to phase out petroleum-based dyes from our food supply, which I think is a great idea. That's why I introduced my Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act, which would codify a ban on those dyes, and would welcome support from my colleagues in this room for that effort. Even other countries have banned these dyes or placed stricter requirements on their use than we do. For example, the king was here yesterday.
The UK has totally banned Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6. Concerningly, FDA and HHS have been pulling back from their commitments. In a letter earlier this year to the food industry, not consumers, the FDA said it would loosen enforcement of food-dye labeling. But planning toxic petroleum-based dyes is popular with the American people and many of our constituents. That's why states led by both Democrats and Republicans are leading the way.
From California to West Virginia, Texas to my home state of New York, more than 25 states are considering or have passed legislation to ban synthetic food dyes and other food chemical additives shown to be harmful. My amendment would simply request a report on the steps the FDA has already taken to phase out the exact same dyes it committed to phasing out. It's the same exact list. Congress shouldn't let the FDA off the hook for the promises it made to phase out these harmful food dyes. I urge my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to please support this effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the general lady for comments. Gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this to the attention of the committee. And, you know, I've spoken with Commissioner McCarrie specifically about this issue. He's on board with making sure the FDA investigates these, make sure that they come to a conclusion about what they should do for your list as well as the list that they've already banned. So with that, in a Kumbaya moment, I would suggest we accept the amendment.
Speaker 1
Minor miracles do occur. Yeah. Absolutely. Gentle my friend, gentlemen from Georgia is recognized.
Speaker 3
This amendment would direct the FDA to report any actions the agency has taken to phase out and assist states in phasing out certain food dyes and petroleum based additives. And, of course, as you've heard, last year, HHS and FDA announced a voluntary plan to phase it out. That process is ongoing, and it's not complete. And while efforts have been made by the current and previous administrations to help eliminate the chemicals, we need to get an update on where we are. Glad the committee is working on it, glad we're having discussions, and hopefully, that process will go forward.
You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mr. Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
All I wanna just say is I wanna thank the gentle lady from New York for introducing this, and it's been accepted. And we have worked together on red dye in the past. Thank you for being part of the food safety caucus. We will continue onward. Thank you.
You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Florida. Miss Wasserman Schultz, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm also really pleased that Chairman Harris is accepting this amendment. I just want to illuminate a couple of things about the seriousness of needing to make sure that we can have transparency when it comes to these food dyes. I know many of you know that I'm a breast cancer survivor and someone who, really, after going through 18 months of intense treatment and surgeries, really started looking at what I was ingesting and putting in my own body and what my children were. I have a higher risk because I carry a genetic mutation that makes cancer more likely to begin with.
And so it really opened my eyes to making sure that I focus on healthy eating and eating clean, you know, the least processed food possible, which isn't easy. So when you're trying to avoid foods that contain synthetic petroleum-based food dyes like red 40 and yellow 5, those are linked to major health risks. For example, red 40 and yellow 5 are associated with tumor growth in animals, hyperactivity in children, and gastrointestinal issues. And here's the thing. Most Americans have no idea that these dyes are in their food.
So when a family picks up a box of mac and cheese or a bottle of salad dressing at the grocery store, they're not thinking about synthetic dyes. They're just trying to feed their kids. And right now, the FDA does not require restaurants to disclose when their menu items contain these ingredients. And that's a problem because you don't want to, as a parent, unknowingly feed your children food with dyes that can cause them health problems cumulatively as they ingest these things down the road. So giving them accurate information about what goes into their food is really important, so they can make better choices for themselves and their families.
And I could tell you I could see it generationally in my own family. Once I taught myself to cook, which I could boil water and scrambled eggs, mister chairman, and that was it. But once I knew I had to eat healthier, I knew I had to make sure that I could ensure my children ate healthier. And we, you know, had Sunday night family dinner at our house every Sunday night, you know, since my kids were in middle school. And it taught them to make healthier choices and also to learn how to cook, which is why you have some pretty special sourdough bread that was baked by my youngest daughter.
And she, you know, learned and focused and was interested in doing that, and thought about it, thought about what she put in her body as well. So we need to pass this focus on the least processed chemically infused food as possible to our children so that we can make sure we raise the next generation of healthy Americans. Thank the general lady for her amendment and the chairman for supporting it. I'll be back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general, lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? None. The general lady is from New York, recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 33
I guess I won't read my long list of arguments in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But this is evidence-based. We know these dyes are harmful to our health, our children's health. Other countries are already ahead of us.
It's a great bipartisan, even moral issue, to make sure that we are taking care of the food that we are putting in our own bodies and for our children. Thank you, Ayod Mack.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now in the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Speaker 1
A gentleman from New York, mister Espiat, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 1
Don't count on it. Let's I feel we're on a roll. Be courteous and polite.
Speaker 18
Doctor Harris, are we on a roll? Alright. Let's go back to reality. Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk asked to dispense a reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Food stamps are lifesaving benefits that serve more than 40,000,000 people across the nation. Not only is it essential in fighting food insecurity, but it also stimulates local economies across the country. When customers use food stamps in their communities, they are often supporting the revenue of a small, independent grocer. In some cases, 50% of the revenue of these grocers can be attributed to the sales made using food stamps.
In my district, many New Yorkers rely on their local bodega to purchase their food. As I mentioned in my opening statement, my district has some of the highest rates of food insecurity in the nation. For many, these bodegas are the only source of reliable food in their neighborhood. Oftentimes, these bodegas are run by immigrant families, by working class families, and they provide a vital. A vital importance to the neighborhoods.
But this isn't just the case for urban environments like New York City. In rural areas, small family-owned shops are the only place that offer fresh foods for miles. I've seen the rippling effects of this practice on bodegas in my communities when they close. Families must travel to a farther grocer and low income area, lose another source of economic output. The people employed by the grocers are out of a job.
The closure of a business can send aside to many that the neighborhood is no longer worth investing in. These grocers and full staff recipients deserve to know how the 300000000000 cut in the Republican reconciliation bill will impact their lives. This amendment calls for a study of the impact of this practice on local grocers, both urban and rural, and I urge its adoption and support. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Look. I rise in opposition to the opponent. I appreciate, you know, the circumstances of businesses that depend in the food retail market generally. But the changes in the bill or work requirements, and we may have a disagreement that maybe work requirements shouldn't be required for welfare.
On this side of that, we generally think they should be. We could have a disagreement. And program integrity. So I'm not sure what we want to reverse. Do we want to reverse program integrity?
Do you want people who actually don't qualify, who are on the program in two different states, etc., etc., to get it? Or do we want people who aren't willing to work to get it, to get that SNAP expenditure back up, that it would support those grocers? I would hold that we made the right policy decision in the one big beautiful bill. The work requirement is not unreasonable, and I'd have to tell you when I go in my district and people ask me, well, what did you do to this SNAP program? And we put a work requirement in.
Oh, I like that. And then they, oh, I think that's a good idea. You mean we didn't have one in? And when I say, oh, it's program integrity. We make sure people aren't cheating on the program, that they actually qualify for it.
They say, oh, you mean we weren't doing that before? Yeah. We weren't doing that before. That's about right. So I empathize with the retailers, but the solution would be to go back and remove what we did in that bill, which I don't think is good policy.
I don't think it's fair for the people who work hard, for my hardworking constituents who pay income taxes and who expect when someone goes for what is in essence a welfare program, and they are able-bodied. They're not taking care of a sick adult. They're not taking care of the children. They chose not to work. They don't want their tax dollars going there.
Now we might get another, we might have to find another way to help those small businesses. But the way to do it, I don't think, is to reverse good program policy.
Speaker 2
So for that reason, I think that doing this study again, I'm not sure what it would show. We might come up with other ideas to how to help those small businesses because goodness knows small businesses in the country are the backbone of a lot of communities. But I don't think this is the way to do it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Bishop's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is just common sense. We should be making decisions based on data, not hunches, and we should want to know what the consequences of our policy decisions are. As I rise in support of the amendment, it addresses a critical, often overlooked consequence of snap cuts, whatever the cause of the cuts. The impact on our local grocery stores that serve as essential community anchors.
It directs the USDA to analyze how the reductions, how the decisions that we are forcing them to make in SNAP benefits would affect independent grocers, especially in rural and low-income areas where there are few providers of grocery stores. In many communities, these stores are the only nearby source of fresh and affordable food. Independent grocers do a lot more than sell food. They employ local residents, and they support broader economic activity in those communities. SNAP is not just a nutrition program.
It's a key driver of local economic stability. Our USDA has found that SNAP benefits generate economic activity, particularly in areas with limited retail options. For many small grocers, SNAP transactions make up a significant share of their total sales. In some low-income communities, that share can exceed 50% of revenue. Deep cuts to SNAP, like those proposed by House Republicans, risk destabilizing these businesses and reducing access to food.
When a local grocery store closes, communities often lose their only reliable access to fresh food. That creates ripple effects, including job losses and increased food insecurity. The Trump administration and House Republicans have not adequately accounted for these downstream impacts. This amendment simply asks for clear evidence-based assessment so that Congress can understand the full consequences of these policy choices. Let's not put our heads in the sand.
Let's understand what it is we're doing and what the expected, ordinary, and probable consequences of these parts of decisions will be. That's all that this amendment asked for. Let's get the facts and understand what damage we can potentially be doing, and whether or not it is worth it. I support the adoption of the amendment, commend the gentleman for offering it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman from New York is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 18
Mister chairman, thank you. Certainly, I oppose the work requirements. As I said earlier, food stamps are equivalent to less than $7 a day per person. Imagine what that combined. So it's really not a program that will necessarily provide healthy eating in a way or fashion that families could lift themselves up from a food insecurity area, but it is helped nonetheless.
And, what I'm what we're asking for through this amendment is simply a study of the impact of such practices. I oppose the work requirements, but this amendment is not referring to the work requirements. It's saying, can we look at this practice and see how it impacts small independent grocers, both rural and urban? And as stated by the ranking member, the subcommittee, the SNAP program, it's an important program in our local food economy, particularly in areas that are traditionally ignored or cannot provide the kind of opportunities for families there that other communities do. So this is simply an ask to study this issue and see what kind of an impact it can have on the community and small business owners.
It may very well be that the result is that everything is fine, or that it leads to unemployment. That, in fact, when these cuts are perpetrated, people will be out of a job. It could very well be that these small independent groceries are closing down, and that, therefore, is impacting the tax base of those communities. That's why we want to see the kind of impact that it is having on the local economy. The other policy issues, we can debate as well, but this is not what this amendment is asking for.
And I still ask my colleagues to consider it and support this adoption. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Mister Aguilar, aye. Mister Alford?
Mister Alford? No. Mister Amaday?
Speaker 10
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mr Case? Aye. Mister Case, aye.
Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein? Mister Klein?
No. Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde?
Mister Clyde? No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole, no.
Mister Cuéar. Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine? Aye. Mistine, aye.
Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? No.
Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mister Edwards? No. Mister Edwards, no.
Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye.
Mr Escobar? Ay. Mr. Escobar? Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin?
No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter?
Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? No. Doctor Harris, no.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson, no. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
No. Lolota? Miss Lee? Hi. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Mr Mullinar? No. Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore.
Mister Morelli?
Speaker 10
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Morvan? Mr Newhouse? Mr Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez? Aye. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree? Aye.
Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pocan? Aye. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley?
Mister Quigley, I'm Mr. Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? No. Shreev?
No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong?
Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Ms. Watson Coleman?
Speaker 10
Missus Watson Coleman? Mister Womack? No. Mister Womack? No.
Mister Zinke? No. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? General lady from Oklahoma.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to change? Okay. In that case, the court for Tally. A gentleman from West Virginia.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 27 and noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania. Miss Dean's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of my amendment, which restores the majority's proposed 300000000 cut to Food for Peace Title two grants and requires a comprehensive study on how recipient countries are selected for food assistance. At a moment when global hunger is rising, driven by conflict, climate change, and economic instability, this is not the time to retreat from one of our most effective humanitarian programs. Title two grants deliver lifesaving aid to countries facing acute food shortages, helping stabilize vulnerable regions before crises escalate into famine, mass displacement, or broader conflict. This amendment also comes at a critical inflection point.
With the dismantling of USAID as it was previously existing and the transfer of Food for Peace to USDA, Congress has a responsibility to ensure this program remains effective, transparent, and guided by humanitarian need, not by politics. That is why the study requirement is so important. It ensures accountability in how recipient countries are selected, and helps safeguard the integrity of the program during the period of transition. We need these grants. Let's be clear.
Title two grants are not just about assistance abroad. It's also a smart assistant right here at home. By purchasing US-grown commodities, we invest in American farmers. We support ranchers, our agricultural producers, strengthen rural economies, and reinforce our agricultural supply chain. And we know American farmers are already under real pressure from this administration's tariff policies and the rising costs tied to the conflict in Iran.
Now is the time to do more to support them, not less. This program advances our humanitarian values while also serving our strategic interests, building goodwill with partner nations, promoting global stability, and helping prevent the conditions that lead to conflict and insecurity. Cutting 300000000 from this program sends the wrong message at the wrong time. It weakens our ability to respond to global crises, undermines our credibility as a reliable partner, and risks ceding American leadership to others. My amendment restores these critical funds and adds a layer of oversight to ensure the program is administered fairly, effectively, and in line with both our moral obligations and our national interests.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reaffirm our commitment to fighting global hunger, as we support American farmers. With that, I yield back. Thank.
Speaker 1
You, General Lee. For remarks, the gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill already provides $900,000,000 for the Food for Peace program. That's 900,000,000 above the president's request, and reflects the committee's commitment to this important domestic commodity program. I appreciate the gentlelady's interest in supporting this program, but we feel the bill already provides sufficient funding.
Her amendment is improperly offset with emergency funds, adding $300,000,000 in new spending. I will say that I suspect the senate may take a different position from this, and, we'll go to conference and we'll, you know, figure out where we end up, which is what happened last year. But without an offset, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend the gentlelady for her amendment. I rise in support of it. This amendment will restore funding for food for peace to the fiscal year 2026 enacted level, and will provide Congress with answers on the implementation of the program. Food for Peace is a foreign aid program that consistently puts America first, while helping those on the brink of starvation abroad. It supports American farmers, millers, and mariners, while delivering critical assistance to people facing famine worldwide.
According to USDA, the US lost 15,000 farms in 2025. Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, and Nebraska lead the nation in farm bankruptcies, which are this year up over 46%. And I've heard from farmers that they're selling off land to make ends meet and pay their debts from last year. At a time when farmers are already facing rising input costs, tight margins, and economic uncertainty, we should not cut off programs that help them. And our farmers are proud to contribute to a program that helps people, knowing that their commodities are making a global difference.
I support the adoption of the amendment. I urge your support of it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The general lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Dean's amendment. The majority on this committee paints the deep cuts to popular programs as the result of balancing what they call tough choices. This amendment is about a choice as well. Will The United States continue to lead with strength, compassion, and common sense, or will we walk away from one of the most effective tools we have to fight hunger, support American farmers, and project our values around the world?
To me, supporting Food for Peace is not a tough call. I've seen it in action when I traveled around the world. It isn't some abstract program with a complex formula. It deploys American-grown crops to stop hunger and save lives. It's that simple.
There is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everyone on the planet, but hundreds of millions still go hungry every year, and this program helps close that gap. This program rewards the hard work of American farmers, growers, shippers, and longshoremen, leveraging their success into a force for global stability, while investing in critical sectors of our economy. Food for Peace sends an essential message. The US government is not just an insurance company with a navy, but a force for good and healing the world. For generations, America understood that feeding people wasn't separate from our national security.
It's an essential part of it. If parents can't feed their children, desperation, instability, migration, extremism, and conflict inevitably follow. For many people around the world, a bag of American grains is the only time they come face-to-face with an American flag. And in places where Americans don't travel, where nobody has met a US soldier or a diplomat, that sack of lentils leaves heck of an impression. It tells them something about who we are.
When there's someone in need, America shows up. Turning our back on food for peace while millions around the world face famine, conflict, and displacement, and while American farmers get choked out of business by Trump's trade wars, is strategically foolish. Doing so, knowing that you're taking food from vulnerable children who will starve, is a moral outrage. Perhaps some of you remember when I spoke before this committee about what it looks like when a child starves to death. Babies who are too weak to cry, kids who can't stand up or speak because their muscles have dissolved away, four year olds who will never grow tall with failing organs and sunken eyes.
When I offered that description last year, 350,000 children have been deprived of US food aid. Today, that total stands in the millions, millions of hungry children. Don't desensitize yourself to those numbers. Where is your outrage? And I don't wanna hear ignorant comments about money being better spent here.
First off, it is spent here. The produce is bought right here from American farmers. And second, Republicans are cutting food assistance to American children again in this same bill. So let's be clear about the choice you make if you reject this amendment. It doesn't just mean more children die from the slowest, most painful death imaginable, while their parents watch helplessly right next to them.
Think about that. It also means more pain for American food producers, and more waste of taxpayer dollars from crops rotting in warehouses. And here at home, it means more volatility for American agriculture that will leave more American kids missing meals. This amendment offers a better choice. Sustain American leadership, support American farmers, cut grocery costs, and address the root causes of instability and violence abroad.
We must fund food per piece, and I'm glad to hear the chairman referenced the conference process. When our process functions well, we end up making sure that we can come together and do the right thing. I hope that happens in the conference committee at the end of this process. I urge support of this amendment so we can buttress it from our point of view. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized for comments on the amendment.
Speaker 34
Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of a representative's amendment that would reverse the Republicans' proposed $300,000,000 cut to Food for Peace, returning to FY 26 levels, and require a report on the program's effectiveness amid the transfer of responsibilities to USDA. Okay. Anyway, first, I just wanna say this.
I love the farmers. I appreciate the farmers. And I understand all the travails that farmers are going through today. I wanna offer a little different perspective here because this should not just be obviously about farmers. This program is called Food for Peace, p e a c e, Food for Peace, because it is part of a strategy to keep countries' areas stable so that we have peace.
And let's start with the reality we're facing. There's probably almost 700000000 people who are going to bed hungry every day. It's not just a humanitarian crisis. It is a national security issue, because hunger does not stay contained. When people can't feed their families, it fuels instability, migration, conflict, and extremism.
And desperation becomes a recruiting tool. Food for Peace for these last 70 years has been one of our smartest tools to address this issue. And it was a human, it is or it was a humanitarian program with a strategic purpose. Feed people today, so we don't send troops in tomorrow. And food, and I wanna emphasize this.
Food assistance works best when it's paired with tools like clean water, basic health care, nutrition support, even cash or vouchers so families can buy locally and recover. And that's how this program worked when it was implemented by USAID. So this move to USAID is becoming simply moving commodities, losing the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively in ways that actually stabilize communities. And so, that's why I do think the request for a report and for a study is so important, so we can really think through what we are actually doing. So, you know, we can ask, you know, what is the greatest need for where should we actually be sending these surplus?
And instead of prioritizing speed and flexibility and locals and local solutions. Because I'm very concerned that we are by this transfer, we're losing the experts. We're losing the experts that would understand all this. So to me, here, little different point of view, but feeding starving people and building resilience should be the mission. This program has always represented the best in American leadership, our generosity, our values, and our understanding that preventing hunger prevents conflict.
And, really, this, to me, this should have been a debate in yesterday's budget. And, obviously, we're dealing with something that the administration did without congressional consent. I want to emphasize again. They transferred, I mean, this is like they transferred this program that was in the state department to now the department of agriculture without even talking to us. Hello, folks.
We need to demand that the administration talks to us, and some thought goes into what they're doing. Anyway, I do urge the restoration of the funding and that we get this report so we can really focus on what Food for Peace has done best. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Cole. And I thank my colleagues for speaking so eloquently about this issue. You know, aren't we all critical of bogus names for legislation or for grants? But this is such a good, easy, understandable, well-stated, concise name. Food for peace.
The connection is so present. If we continue to not do our job as leaders in the American war in America as an indispensable nation, if we fail to recognize starving people around the world, we are only walking ourselves into greater global conflict. Food for Peace is an extraordinary program. It not only this amendment not only supports global security, our national security, it supports American farmers. How can we all not take that win-win?
And I wanna echo what Miss Frankel just said. Are we not offended by the administration just shifting money that we appropriated, that Congress passed and put into law, our article one, section eight authority, and shove it over to USAID without the oversight and without the legislative authority? So I wish that everybody here, Republicans and Democrats, would agree. Food for Peace is a very important program. We need to understand how it's working and how it is not.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say.
Speaker 1
All opposed, say no. No. Any chair of the nose have it? A recount. A recorded vote.
Probably a recount too in a minute, but a recorded vote's been requested, and sufficient sort of support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Aye. Mister Aguilar, aye.
Mister Alford? No. Mr Alford? No. Mister Amiday?
Missus Bice? No. Mister Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case? I.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? No.
Mister Klein? Mister Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde.
Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuellar. Mister Cuellar, aye.
Miss Dean. Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro. Aye. Mister Lauro, aye.
Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Mister Edwards? No.
Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elsi? Mister Elsi? No.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbat? Aye. Mister Esbat, aye.
Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? I know. Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel? Aye. Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harter? Aye. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? No.
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Miss Letlow?
Mister Levin? Aye. Levin ? Aye. Miss Malloy?
Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum? Aye. Miss McCullum, aye.
Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? No.
Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore? No. Morelli?
Aye. Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Morvan? Hi. Mister Morvan, aye.
Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Pingry?
Hi. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pocan? Hi. Mister Pocan, aye.
Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson?
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye.
Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? No.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? No. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Any members wish to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, clerical tally. Gentle lady from Nevada. Gentleman from Maryland.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Sorry. On this vote, the ayes are 27 and noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. A gentlelady from Texas.
Miss Escobar is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask or I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, I spoke on this amendment last year, but I will remind you about the conditions of what are known as colonias. And in Texas, in the state of Texas, we have a significant number of them. These are neighborhoods, small communities, generally in unincorporated parts of counties that have no water, no wastewater, or sometimes failing septic tanks. These are American cities, American families.
And because of the way that they developed, they, in many respects, are like third world country conditions. I am seeking a level of $60,000,000 funding. The current funding level in the bill for the work that is needed to bring up the conditions is 20,000,000, a cut, a reduction in the normal appropriation. I am seeking your support so that we can help these families turn on their water faucet, and they can get water so that they can have functioning septic systems or functioning wastewater access. And my community alone, we have 50,000 US citizens who are living without this very fundamental service of water and wastewater, and my community is not the only one in America.
And so the least we can do as one of the wealthiest countries in the world is to ensure that American families are not living under third world conditions. Mister chairman, thank you for the time. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. The gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do rise in opposition to the amendment. We address the need the gentleman from Texas spoke about for these communities to actually be enabled to tap into the resources that are available. I appreciate, you know, the amendments further would support the USDA's water and waste disposal program, which obviously serves important functions in rural areas, including that rural area. But we think the bill has already struck a balance, and already provides funding for the program.
Again, we have, in the manager's amendment, adopted language that will encourage the department to connect these communities into the existing programs to take advantage of them. The amendment is also not offset, and would force us to go beyond our allocation. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment restores funding for water and waste infrastructure in some of the most underserved communities in the country. The underlying bill cuts this funding from 60,000,000 to 20,000,000, a reduction of two-thirds. That's not a trim around the edges.
It's a significant cut that will have real consequences on the ground. These funds support projects in Alaska Native communities, Native Hawaiian communities, tribal Native communities, and colonias along the Texas border. Many of these communities still lack reliable access to safe drinking water and adequate wastewater systems. In some cases, families are living without basic sanitation infrastructure that most of us in America take for granted. USDA has documented persistent gaps in water access in tribal and rural communities, with public health implications.
Cutting funding at this level will delay or cancel critical projects that are already in the pipeline. It'll also increase long-term costs as infrastructure needs become more severe over time. The Trump administration and House Republicans are proposing to walk back investments in communities that can least afford it. This amendment simply restores funding to the level that Congress provided last year. It's a reasonable, targeted correction that ensures continuity for essential infrastructure projects.
Access to clean water is not optional. It is a basic necessity and a public health priority. It is life. I support the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Miss Glor, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in support of the amendment, and I urge your support. Let me also, though, say today that we need to recognize today is the birthday of our vice ranking member of the committee, Mister Morelli here. So not asking for anybody's, where's the crown? Where is the crown, Mr. Morelli? Where is the crown?
Wish you a great day and evening. Vote yes, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
thank you very much. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in full support of this amendment, which I have cosponsored with my colleagues. And I want to start just by reading directly from your committee report in describing this particular program. And I quote, rural areas continue to face immense needs and challenges in attaining safe and clean water, and this program provides targeted and coordinated support for these communities and is essential for the delivery of safe, dependable, and affordable water and wastewater to rural America, end quote. I think that doesn't describe it any better than that.
I think we can all agree on that. I agree with your committee report in that way. And in that light, this app description describes why this invaluable program should not be reduced to start with. The overall reduction in this program is 60,500,000 from 145 million down to 385 million overall, and that takes many, many projects out of the mix. But there is a subset of rural America, a very unique subset that this amendment goes directly to, where this reduction of 60,500,000 is being felt disproportionately.
And this subset is especially vulnerable to the health, safety, and other crises from insufficient water and waste disposal capacity. And I refer to colonias, to American Indian lands, to native Alaskan lands, and to native Hawaiian lands. And this subset of 60,500,000 is being borne by 40,000,000 to that particular subset. And why is that? Why, when this subset is the most needy of all of the lands in rural America, are they being asked to bear this reduction?
And their challenges arise from really a combination of challenges that face indigenous peoples and related peoples throughout our country, and the particular conditions of the lands that they inhabit. And I use the native Hawaiians as one example. And this is both for the committee's education because sometimes native Hawaiian issues are quite a mystery to many of you, steeped in history, often unique to Hawaii, unique to the relationship between native Hawaiians, social, political, trust relationship between native Hawaiians and the federal government. But the history in this department goes back to 1921, some 23 years after Hawaii became a part of The United States. And at that time, native Hawaiians were literally on the verge of extinction as a people and as a culture.
And this congress adopted the very first law that directly impacted Native Hawaiians. It's called the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. And what this law essentially did was to set aside 200,000 acres of Hawaii for the use of native Hawaiians, to assist them with their housing, to assist them with the maintenance of their culture. And that law has stood for 105 years, and it has been enforced for 105 years. And there is a long body of history and application and funding that goes along with these Hawaiian homelands, the DHHL lands.
Now these lands, it was great news that they were set aside, but these lands were largely lands that were almost unusable for any real purpose. No roads, no water systems, no wastewater systems. And yet today, 105 years later, they are critical to the native Hawaiians and to our ability to provide for native Hawaiians and for the trust relationship between native Hawaiians and our country. And this particular program is critical to assisting native Hawaiians on their lands with their water systems, their wastewater systems, and their ability to utilize those lands. And in that sense, it is really no different, I suspect, from colonias, from American Indian lands, from Alaska native lands, in their need to provide the basic capacity to live safely, to operate effectively, and to maintain their cultures and their customs and their interaction with the rest of our country.
And so this is not just about, you know, rural water and wastewater. This is about, basically, a social compact that we've carried for a long time in the case of native Hawaiians for well over a century on a very, very specific law. Now I suspect the people that decided to cut this program had no clue about what I just described. They just looked at it and went, oh, what the heck? Let's just cut this program, not worrying about it.
They probably don't even know what colonia is. Colonias or colonia are. And they probably don't understand much of the Indian country also. So I'd expect and hope that as this bill goes forward, that this context is considered in future deliberations on what you do with this program going forward. These are real people.
There's a real reason for this program to apply in this case. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? A gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke, is recognized.
Speaker 13
Just so I understand it, is it by treaty, or is it by law, or is it mandated spending, or is it discretionary spending? How is it structured?
Speaker 31
The law is the Hawaiian Oaks Commission Act, and so the law sets up the Hawaiian homelands, which still exist in Hawaii and are resided upon by native Hawaiians. This particular program allocates specifically two American Indians, Alaska Natives, colonial, and native Hawaiians. And so that's the specific mechanism by which these monies go to these subsets.
Speaker 13
And is the funding then mandated within that, when the text of the bill, or how do they out of that?
Speaker 31
It is not technically mandated. It is discretionary funding. However, it is a line item within this program, and that's where the front of the, you know, reduction has occurred. So it's taken this reduction out of the height of those who need it the most.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to thank my cosponsors, Mister Cuéar and Mister Case, on this amendment. The federal government, when we look at where we spend our dollars, we spend a lot of money on a lot of things many of us do not agree on. But I think we all in this room and in this congress agree that US citizens and American families, when they turn on their faucet, should be able to have access to water, especially in communities that have been waiting and were promised this decades and decades ago. In my community, the families who live in Colonias are among the most economically disadvantaged in the country, some of the poorest ZIP codes in the country.
And they work hard. They pay their taxes. My local governments raise taxes, and we tax ourselves to help many of these families. But these water and wastewater connections are exorbitantly expensive. It cannot just be on the backs of these families and on the backs of these local governments.
We have an obligation to uplift these families. It is a priority of mine. I know all of us in this room feel the same way about ensuring this kind of dignity to American citizens in our country. I would urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Amendment is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk of the call roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday. Missus Bice? Missus Bice?
No. Mister Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Yes. Mister Carter, aye.
Mr Case?
Speaker 10
Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde. No. Mr. Cole. No.
Mr. Cole. No. Mister Cuellar. Mister Cuéar? I.
Miss Dean? I. Miss Dean, I. Mister Lauro? I.
Mister Lauro? Mister Diaz Pollart? No. Diaz Pollart? No.
Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No.
Miss Escobar? Aye. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espeyat? Aye.
Mister Espeyat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman? Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel? Aye. Mister Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Harder?
Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye.
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye.
Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye.
Miss Captor? Aye. Mister Lolota? No. Mister Lolota?
No. Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow?
Mister Levin? Aye. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum? Aye.
Miss Ming? Miss Ming? Aye. Mister Molinar? No.
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? Mister Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann?
Speaker 10
Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry. Aye. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pokan.
Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No.
Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Torres, aye. Missus Torres, Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? No. Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke?
Yes. Mister Zinke, aye. Good for you, Mister Zinke. Let's see if I can break it up. Profile on coverage.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change to vote? Gentlemen from Virginia?
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 29. The notes are 29. The amendment is not adoptable. Oh. Gentle lady from the state of Washington, Miss Perez, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The ag subcommittee hosted Secretary Rollins earlier this month, and I was able to speak with her on something that's really impacting farmers back home. One of those things is how the avian flu is impacting egg producers in southwest Washington. And I actually am the number one egg-producing district in my state, which I think is excellent. But right now, the avian flu is a threat to the farmers.
And if you talk to them, right now in this country, we're really heavy, all of our eggs are in the basket of depopulation. We are all in on depopulation, which is really hard on our farmers, to see their flocks, you know, being dispatched, especially given the fact that we produce the vaccine in this country that other countries use. And they would like to have some of us more flexibility in how we respond to avian flu, not just through depopulation, but also having the option to pursue vaccination. Because the reality is, you know, without the vaccine, we've really impacted the free-range egg production. Chickens are being kept inside.
They're not out feeling the wind in their feathers. And whatever it is chickens do all day. But that matters too. We ought to have the choice to be able to choose between the vaccine or the free range. And so, you know, I am at the desk, would recognize the impacts on waiting on a vaccine it's had on our production.
It would also encourage the secretary, when making these decisions about pilot programs, to expedite them and prioritize our egg producers' experience, because we all know egg producers need these vaccines the most. They do some of them need them now. So I appreciate our colleagues' consideration of the amendment, and with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, the gentlelady. The gentleman from Maryland, Doctor Harris, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And, I appreciate the gentleman's position because as you are the largest layer district in the state. Mine's the largest broiler district in my state. And that's where the conflict arises. So I arise in opposition and amendment because authorization of a vaccine at this point in time, because the vaccine's being developed, and some countries use it, but we'll get into why they may be able to get away with it.
We won't. The authorize authorization of action would possibly benefit a single segment. It would benefit the lawyers. There's no question about it. But it would guarantee harm to almost every other segment of poultry production.
And that's because most US trading partners don't accept any poultry exports from countries that vaccinate a segment of poultry production. Now, I personally am not sure how that makes sense, but a lot of trade policy doesn't make sense. But that's the world in which we exist. That if we vaccinate one segment of our poultry production, then we may not be able to export any of our poultry products. And the reason is interesting is because other countries test for presence of HPAI by testing for antibodies.
They test the chicken, the products coming in, to see if they have antibodies. And, obviously, you can't tell a naturally occurring antibody to an infected chicken from a vaccinated one. They're the same antibodies. So we don't have the technology right now. At some point, we might.
We don't have it right now. Because of that, the commerce department is very hesitant, and the USDA, very hesitant to go forward with vaccination programs right now. Just a reminder, the US broiler industry is the second largest exporter of chicken in the world, but it's highly competitive. But we're the second largest exporter. We export about $5,000,000,000 in chicken meat.
And, again, those exports, a lot of them would immediately cease with expedited approval of vaccine because a lot of the countries we export to will not accept a poultry product, from a country where any segment of the poultry production is vaccinated. So while it's possible the vaccine will play a role in HPI containing in the future, I think it will as technology gets advances and perhaps we're able to tell the naturally occurring antibodies from the vaccine derived antibodies. We must be smart about how these vaccines are currently used. The process has to be dictated by science, data, public policy, and trade policy. So I don't believe it should be expedited right now.
So I oppose this amendment, and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Bishop. He is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rising support for the amendment. This is report language, and it should again be easy for the committee to agree to. Language simply encourages the department to consider expediting pilot programs for avian flu vaccines. Avian flu has been a significant challenge for producers for years.
It seems imminently reasonable to encourage the consideration of a pilot program to address the issue. I support the adoption of the amendment. I congratulate the lady for offering it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 26
I thank the committee for their consideration of this and, thinking about this, that the attention it deserves, that we have more options.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Washington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any chair of the noes have it, and the amendment is not accepted. General Lady from Washington, Miss Perez, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You all might vaguely remember. Last year, I was up here talking about an issue that I had heard about from childcare providers in my district. I was touring and somebody said, hey, congresslady. Why am I legally not allowed to peel a banana for the toddlers, but I can legally open a bag of chips?
And I was like, are you kidding me? And I spent weeks chasing this issue down, and I kept hearing that either this childcare worker was stupid, lying to me, their boss was lying to her, and there was just no credence given at all to this woman. And we dug. And sure enough, they're in the statute, the state rules, there was a provision about how many sinks they would need per exterior wall foot. And they would need, like, six more sinks before they could legally peel a banana, because peeling a banana is considered food preparation.
So any of you have ever had a young child in your life, know that food preferences are really durable for kids. What they're exposed to has an impact on their preferences for the rest of their life. And so when we have policies that, wittingly or unwittingly, make Cheetos more accessible to a toddler than fresh fruit, we have a crisis brewing. And I think it's something that really demands attention. And I don't think that anyone wrote these rules intentionally.
There's no, this was not like Frito Lay being like, I know how we'll get them. I think this was just a lack of attention on how policy plays out in implementation. And somebody's good idea ended up being a real, you know, burden around the necks of people trying to take care of the kids. So, we've had some evolution in this bill since the last time it was before the committee. Right now, what the amendment does is, we're trying to get the Department of Ag to make a list of foods, peeled bananas, peeled oranges, that kind of thing, that are very low risk.
Recognize that preparing a chicken cutlet, a raw chicken cutlet, is not the same thing as peeling a banana. And say that for states who are accepting the money that we provide in this committee, to childcare providers, that their licenses won't be negatively impacted if they serve that kid a banana. Their licenses won't be negatively impacted if they are providing carrot sticks, the kind of things that build national health. We spend a lot of money treating the negative impacts on health. Let's talk about the precedent of good health.
What precedes good health? Good eating, healthy tastes, a relationship to our food and local food, fresh food. And let's make that easier. Let's listen to the people who are actually taking care of our kids and hear them out and make their lives easier. Give them more of a play in this.
So it's a very simple recommendation. It's a simple report language, and I would love your support for this bill. I think it will fundamentally change the way that our child care providers are able to operate in this country and, ultimately, bring down the cost of providing child care in this country. And with that, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, general lady, for the remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, doctor Harris, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Look. I appreciate the general lady's enthusiasm for common sense government stuff. I mean, because you're right. The fact that some states have some regulations somewhere that you can't peel a banana in childcare is just crazy.
It's just crazy. So I appreciate that the gentlelady worked with the committee. We have I think we've put together an amendment that sends a pretty clear signal that we think USDA should identify this as an issue and encourage states. First of all, come up with a list of low risk foods that, in fact, you don't need to sink every so many feet of wall, you know, if you're gonna serve that food, and to encourage the states to adhere to that list. I think that's reasonable, thing is common sense.
We're gonna end on a high point for the amendments because I will suggest that we vote for this amendment, and yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman heal. From Georgia. Mister Center or Mr. Center. Mister, bishop is recognized.
Speaker 3
I'm glad the committee will accept the amendment. I think it's a good amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And if there's no further debate, gentlemen, ladies are recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 26
I am elated. I'm thrilled. I love you all. Thank you so much. And I sincerely appreciate the support of this amendment.
It's a big.
Speaker 1
It's a big say, don't get carried away. I can give you a list not to love on both sides of the aisle.
Speaker 1
Congratulations. Question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from Washington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no.
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Amendment is accepted. Seeing no further amendments, I now recognize Chairman Rogers for a motion.
Speaker 1
Mister chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027. Agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bill. Questions now in the motion to favorably report fiscal year 2027 agricultural, rural development, food, and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations bills to the house. Those in favor, say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no.
Speaker 1
In the chair, the ayes have it. Roll call has been requested. I really do need to see a lot more hands-on that.
Speaker 1
Okay. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 10
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Mr. Aguilar. Mister Aguilar. No.
Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. I. Mister Amaday. Missus Bice?
Missus Bice, aye. Mister Bishop? No. Mister Bishop? No.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, aye. Mister Carter? Mister Carter, aye. Mister Case?
Speaker 10
Mister Case? No. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siskemani, aye. Mister Klein?
Aye. Mister Klein, aye. Mister Cloud? Aye. Mister Cloud, aye.
Mister Clyburn? No. Mister Clyburn, no. Mister Clyde? Aye.
Mister Clyde, aye. Mister Cole? Aye. Mister Cole, aye. Mister Cuéar?
Speaker 10
Mister Cuéar? No. Miss Dean? No. Miss Dean?
No. Mister Lauro? No. Mister Lauro? No.
Mister Bellart? Mister Diaz Bellart? Aye. Mister Edwards? Aye.
Mister Elzy? Mr. Elzy? Ay. Ms.
Escobar? Ms. Escobar? No. Mr.
Espeyat? No. Mr. Fleishman? Mr.
Fleishman? Mr. Frankel? No. Mr.
Franklin? Mister Franklin, aye. Mister Guest? Mister Guest, aye. Mister Harder?
No. Mr. Harder? No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris, aye.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson, aye. Mister Hoyer? Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy.
No. Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce, I miss Captor. Miss Captor, I, mister Lolota.
Speaker 10
Miss Captor. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, aye. Miss Lee? No.
Miss Lee? No. Miss Letlow? Miss Letlow? Letlow?
Aye. Mister Levin? Mister Levin? No. Miss Malloy?
Miss Malloy? Aye. Miss McCullum? No. Miss McCullum, no.
Miss Ming? No. Miss Ming? Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar, aye.
Mister Moore? Mr Moore? Aye. Mister Morelli? Mister No.
Mister Mervann? Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, I. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, I.
Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, no. Mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, no. Mr. Quigley.
Mister Quigley, no. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, I. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, I.
Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, I. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, I. Mr. Simpson.
Mister Simpson. Mr. Strong. Mister Strong, I. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres.
No. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood. No. Mister Valadao.
Mister Valadayo, aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, no. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, no.
Mister Womack?
Speaker 1
Any member wish to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, could you tell me how I'm. Yes, ma'am. Recorded, dear? How am I recorded?
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 35, the noes are 25, and the motion is adopted. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and informing changes to the bill. Our report was just approved three days ago. Seeing no objection, so ordered. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned, and the legislation is passed.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.