PRECISE Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7606 because, simply put, this bill does nothing in the immediate future to lower food and fuel costs.

Long before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, America's farm families and consumers were struggling with fractured supply chains, skyrocketing input costs, and historic levels of inflation, each of which continue to contribute to increased food prices and diminished inventories.

Despite these crises, Democrats have neglected to take serious action to incentivize increased American production. In fact, we are here today to debate a bill that compounds the situation, further limiting American farmers' abilities to meet global food demand and doubling down on the idea that more spending and big government will feed the world.

Adding insult to injury, the White House has been quick to blame the private sector and alleged industry concentration for the current crisis.

Economists across the spectrum--including former Obama and Clinton administration officials--have dismissed the strategy as misleading, at best, or otherwise, blatantly political.

So it is not surprising that at the behest of the White House, we are debating a package where the anchor piece of legislation perpetuates a tired narrative of blame, duplicates existing authorities, ignores industry and producers, and undermines the Department of Justice.

It is also not surprising the party of defund the police also has become the party of more cops for cows. At every turn, this administration has obsessively pointed the finger at the packing industry, in particular, blaming them almost singlehandedly for rising food costs.

They have done so via blog posts, contrived public events, and press briefings, all without any acknowledgment of the culpability of their own reckless spending and heavy-handed regulatory agenda.

My Democratic colleagues have dutifully played along, executing sensationalized hearings and political theatrics designed to support unvetted and controversial bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder many of us question the seriousness of the bill before us today. If this were a serious exercise, my Democratic colleagues would not have paired such an egregious example of legislative overreach with several other very thoughtful, very bipartisan bills.

If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would not have added two unvetted Democrat amendments that are more about political point-scoring than genuine near-term policy solutions.

If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would have worked with Republicans to form a concrete, immediate policy solution with a chance of consideration in the Senate.

Now, I know both parties understand the gravity of these issues. While we may have disagreements on policy, I was confident that we could find common-ground solutions, if given the opportunity.

I am dumbfounded as to why Democratic leadership would choose this moment--when consumers are deciding between gas in their cars or food on their tables--as an attempt to score political points, especially on the heels of a nearly 9 percent increase in consumer prices, the worst this Nation has seen since the Carter administration.

So, Republicans forged ahead, and we developed solutions. Earlier this week, Leader McCarthy and I, along with nearly 100 of our Republican colleagues, sent a letter to President Biden outlining administrative actions that he could take immediately to mitigate rising input costs, and strengthen the role that American agriculture plays in global food stability.

And yesterday, I, along with many of those same Members, introduced H.R. 8069, the Reducing Farm Input Costs and Barriers to Domestic Production Act. This bill would reverse many of the more harmful regulatory burdens spearheaded by this administration, address escalating input costs, and provide certainty to farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses, and other entities across the food and agriculture supply chain.

Specifically, the bill provides relief from EPA's unprecedented actions related to pesticides and other vital crop protection tools; offers clarity related to WOTUS regulations; rescinds the SEC's harmful proposed rule on climate-related disclosures; reinstates the 2020 NEPA streamlining; and requires an economic analysis on the costs and the benefits of GIPSA rules. These are all actions which would provide immediate relief to our farm families and households across the globe, and they all were rejected by the Rules Committee majority as amendments to the bill before us.

The letter and this bill stand in stark contrast to what we have seen from the White House and the Democrats in Congress and their efforts to scapegoat private industry for skyrocketing gas prices and sustained supply chain failures.

So, in short, the crises we are facing cannot and will not be mitigated with unfunded mandates, duplicative authorities, politicized agencies, and Big Government, all of which are laced into H.R. 7606.

I remain opposed to this bill and the process which got us here but stand willing to work with my colleagues on commonsense, near-term solutions to provide immediate relief to farmers, ranchers, foresters, and American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the full House Agriculture Committee, who continues to this day to be an incredible advocate for agriculture and a mentor of mine as I have worked my way into this leadership role.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should see an extension, a little bigger of that poster that we saw there. That concentration occurred because of exactly what we are seeing today of government and Democrats leveling regulations. It was regulations that caused the concentration within the meatpacking industry. What happened when you put on more regulations, small- and medium-sized processors weren't able to continue to work. They couldn't cope with the compliance costs. They just couldn't handle those increased regulations.

Today, we are seeing not just additional regulations, but a whole new police officer being created under the poison pill within this legislation, special investigator bill.

I would argue that maybe we ought to blow that chart up a little more so we can see and project just how much more concentration occurs when we force more small- and medium-sized processors out of the business. It will result in increased concentration with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), a

great member of the Agriculture Committee who represents the Big First Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During the recent packer hearing, Chairman Scott mentioned that he used a chart compiled of what really was cherry-picked data with zero context to accuse all four of the major beef packing CEOs of price- fixing and collusion.

The packing executives explained the multitudes of supply and demand dynamics supporting the data, including the cyclical ebbs and flows of cattle production. Each of them denied the chairman's accusation under oath.

Despite their denial, this week at the Rules Committee, the chairman accused the packers of lying under oath. According to the chairman, a price-fixing scheme is the only plausible explanation for increased meat prices. It is no wonder I have serious doubts about this administration's ability to objectively carry out these new authorities.

I agree with the chairman, who is a dear friend. We work well together on well over 99 percent of everything that we engage on, just not this particular poison pill today. USDA is the right place to be the cop on the beat for this. In fact, they already are.

USDA already has an entire Packers and Stockyards Division charged with enforcing the Packers and Stockyard Act that has been in place since the 1930s. Based on the latest available data, they have filed and closed almost 1,900 cases just in 2020 alone. The division already consists of a team of seasoned attorneys, market specialists, and auditors, and it has the option to pursue administrative enforcement through USDA's Office of General Counsel before an administrative law judge or through the Department of Justice in Federal court.

I agree the USDA is the place for oversight of the packing industry, and it is already in place. This duplicative mandate with all the issues it brings is not warranted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the vice ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), a member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a strong agriculture advocate and a leader in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a great member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is another great member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to replow some of the fields and the comments that have been offered here today. One of my friends on the Agriculture Committee on the other side, Ms. Spanberger, claims industry support. She referenced two specific organizations. But it is certainly not widespread support among farmers and ranchers.

I will offer up this fact: Organizations that are constituted by farmers and ranchers, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which is a large cattlemen's association throughout this country made up of men and women in the cattle industry, and the National Pork Producers Council are organizations that oppose this piece of legislation. The National Pork Producers Council is made up of farmers who raise hogs in so many different States in the United States of America. It is a huge industry in terms of agriculture. That organization opposes this bill.

The National Chicken Council--poultry--is huge certainly in the State of Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of Georgia. They oppose this piece of legislation that is on the floor today. The same thing with the National Turkey Federation and the North American Meat Institute. All are in opposition to this bill that we are voting on today.

The American Farm Bureau Federation is not opposed publicly to the bill, but they have raised a litany of concerns and unanswered questions.

This bill comes with an additional price tag of $700 million, not offset, on many of the other provisions. Quite frankly, there are zero dollars for this duplicative poison pill part of this bill, the special investigator for cattle and pork. That leaves me concerned that the existing enforcement resources that I have already made reference to with USDA and the Department of Justice is going to be drained. We are actually probably going to see less effective investigations as a result of this.

We are going to see an increase in consolidation because it is a new layer. If you are a packer of any size, not just the four big ones, but medium and small size, and you have a new cop for cows on the beat, then you are going to have to add compliance staff to be able to prepare when, quite frankly, the Department of Justice and the Packers and Stockyards Division is already doing an incredible job. Active investigations are going on.

I agree with an earlier speaker, I think it was Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma, if there is evidence of price-fixing and collusion, we have a regulatory mechanism and a litigation mechanism. People should be held accountable to that.

Although there are some really good parts of this bill, I am also disappointed. We know that the only way we really get legislation through the other side of the Capitol, in the Senate, is where we show cohesion and where we stick together and work together. We have complete consensus on basically all the other aspects of this bill. We did request that this bill be divided and that the special investigator portion come out of the bill.

I think we could be scoring some victories for the American people and for the American farmers. But, quite frankly, I think to be in line with President Biden, because President Biden's approach to everything, all the problems that have been created with his ill-fated policies, is that it is somebody else's fault.

This is blaming the private sector, which works hard to provide us with the food that we need. This is blaming them when, quite frankly, it is a failure to take responsibility for what has happened on day one, starting with President Biden.

We would love to work with President Biden to make sure we can address inflation, but adding this $700 million today, I have never seen, in my lifetime anyway, or my experience, how you can spend more money and spend your way out of inflation. It just doesn't work that way. The economics do not work that way. The inflation issue, again, I have never seen inflation reduced by spending more money.

I would respectfully encourage, because we can go back to the drawing board and take each of these bills that are really good bills, the bipartisan and strong bills, we ought to take those up individually and give Congress an opportunity to speak on behalf of the American people and affirm that these are good bills. Let the special investigator stand on its own.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7606, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation to the gentleman for bringing forth a concept that could provide relief, but not for many years.

This is an amendment to a bill that talks about immediate reduction in food prices, but this is kind of a long-term investment. I appreciate that concept, but it is not what this bill says. It really doesn't contribute to immediate relief to American consumers or reducing input costs for our farmers in the immediate or near term.

Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves problems. The committee has been working together with the Department to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its implications.

Mr. Speaker, the Department and I have agreed that this is not a near-term solution to the high price and limited availability of fertilizer.

As the gentleman knows, this amendment was pulled from consideration by my Democratic colleagues in a recent committee markup.

Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my opposition to it. Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden administration's half-baked initiatives, authorizing $100 million, specifying further use of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and minimally funded research programs is no way to tackle rising inflation or to address skyrocketing fertilizer costs. In fact, it leaves us in a rather more tenuous situation when it comes to our farmers.

The Commodity Credit Corporation is what we use and what we depend on and rely on when our farmers fall on difficult times. And they are there, these input costs.

Not in all commodities but in most commodities, we see a record price that they are getting for their commodity. But the fact is that agriculture is a business. Farming is a business. Ranching is a business. At the end of the day, it is the margin. It is not what you get paid. You have to consider what you are paying in input costs.

With this inflation, with these types of policies we are talking about today, there will be many commodities that soon will be upside down. They will be more expensive to produce than what they are able to get for price. There are commodities that are already at that point.

Draining the CCC in any year, in 2022, is not only wrong; it is dangerous. We are not going to have the resources to be able to help our farmers to keep them farming and to use the CCC for what its primary purpose and mission was about.

Even more perplexing is the idea we would want to solidify in law concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or policy, as the public comment period was just extended yet again.

Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through reversing the regulatory assault stifling the innovation and exacerbating strained supply chains.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman offered an amendment. He is a good friend. We do work together. Another area of jurisdiction on the Agriculture Committee that shocks people, actually, is cryptocurrency because it is a commodity and traded and overseen by CFTC. He has been such a great partner as we have worked together with those solutions.

The whole concept of bipartisan work, it is alive and well in the Agriculture Committee, but just not reflected with this poison pill that is in this particular piece of legislation.

With this amendment, I think, as I said before, yes, we need to be looking long term. But this legislation we are dealing with today, according to the Democrats, is supposed to have an immediate reduction in inflation.

While I believe we do need to do an investment long term and look at other methods of producing fertilizer, this doesn't really fit with reducing prices for American families today. To do it and do it right, we really do need USDA on board. We need to have their input. We need to have their ability to do this through their programming.

This is something I look forward to continuing to work on with the gentleman. I continue to voice my opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing forth an idea, and I do wish the same courtesy had been extended to my Republican colleagues who were denied the opportunity to bring their amendments forward for debate.

Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves problems, and the committee has been working together with the Department to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its implications.

As the gentlewoman knows, this amendment was pulled from consideration by my Democrat colleagues in a recent committee markup. Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my opposition to it being considered prematurely on the floor today.

I cannot support this amendment as written, an amendment that falls short of its advertised goals, and does not offer any immediate relief to farmers, ranchers, or consumers, because that is the myth that my Democrat friends are trying to sell with the overall bill today, which will not happen. In fact, I am afraid inflationary costs, more concentration, are going to occur as a result of a specific part of the package.

Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden administration's half-baked initiatives is no way to tackle rising inflation or address rising fuel and fertilizer costs.

Even more perplexing is the idea that we would want to solidify in law concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or policy.

Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through reversing the regulatory assault stifling innovation and exacerbating strained supply chains.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, in my comments, I said it was premature, and I do believe it is. I think that this is a concept that the gentlewoman is pursuing that is worthy of consideration, worthy of development and full development so that we can have an appropriate consideration of the text of this particular amendment.

I also think it is out of place with this particular bill because the context, the pretext that my Democratic friends are presenting here, is a false promise that whatever would pass, and if this would somehow find a pathway through the Senate and be implemented, that it would immediately lower food and fuel costs. That is just not the case.

This is more of a long-term vision. I appreciate that because I think we should be looking long term when it comes to the needs of input costs for our farmers because, quite frankly, when we have inflation, when we have burdensome regulations, when we have an administration that is really out of control from a regulatory perspective, sidelining their scientists at the EPA--which, by the way, actually, part of those are funded under a public-private partnership with agribusinesses to make sure that farmers can have access to crop protection tools, significant crop protection tools that have been sidelined by this administration, when these same scientists have found them to be safe in application in the past.

What I would say is that I look forward to working with the gentlewoman in the future on this concept, but I continue to remain in opposition.

This is not quite ready for prime time, not ready for consideration. We need to be working more. We need more time working in a bipartisan way and, quite frankly, hearing from the administration as well and

Mr. Speaker, I continue to offer my opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.

Congress cannot shy away from addressing the urgent economic challenges that face our local communities

and our entire country, and that challenge continues to be inflation. We know how rising prices, consolidation across industries, and supply chain challenges are impacting America's families, businesses, and seniors, and as lawmakers, our job is to listen to the people we represent and then respond with legislation that can help solve those problems.

Indeed, this package, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act, is just that. It is a compilation of bills put together by lawmakers who are responding to their constituents. I have heard from the other side of the aisle that, in fact, it would have been nice if we came together in a bipartisan way. So I would note that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle from Iowa, Arkansas, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Illinois, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Illinois, Iowa, Tennessee--it feels like I am practicing State capitals with my fifth grader-- Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Iowa, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Florida, Wyoming, Virginia, Minnesota, each of these are individual Members of Congress from the Republican side of the aisle who are leading on this issue.

In fact, two of the bills in this package are led by our Republican colleagues, and I am proud that I have joined with Congressman Dusty Johnson in support of the bipartisan Butcher Block Act. I am proud to be his co-lead as he leads that important piece of legislation. It is a commonsense step toward allowing American processors the ability to expand their operations, launch a new business or just make sure they are keeping--

Mr. Speaker, this is the first step towards lowering meat prices, but in addition to increasing processing capacity for American cattlemen and poultry producers, we need to go after anticompetitive practices in the meat industry.

That is why I am proud that this package also includes the bipartisan Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act. The bill would establish a special investigator at USDA to investigate violations of our existing antitrust laws that have been on the books for more than 100 years, and I thank Congresswoman Miller-Meeks for co-leading this effort.

This bill has broad bipartisan support and bicameral support. So I thank Senator Jon Tester, Senator Grassley, Republican; Senator John Thune, Republican; Senator Hoeven, Republican; and Senator Rounds, Republican, for joining with us in pushing this bill forward. It has support from the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, and this bill is responsive to the needs of the people I represent because the Virginia Cattlemen's Association supports this bill, as does the National Farmers Union.

Americans want lower meat prices both now and in the future. They want lower gas prices and to make biofuels accessible to more Americans. We have the opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this package.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of my amendment to include the American Food Supply Chain Resiliency Act in H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act. I thank Congressman Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio for his partnership on this bipartisan legislation.

Supply chain disruptions are impacting the operations of businesses in Virginia and across the country, leaving shelves empty and driving up prices for consumers. For crop and livestock producers, as well as agribusinesses, the current disruptions are a threat to their livelihoods and their ability to deliver high-quality products at an affordable price while still making ends meet.

Meanwhile, Americans are suffering from rising food prices at grocery stores, dollar stores, and restaurants. Rising inflation makes trips to the grocery store more and more stressful as the price of staple items like meat, eggs, and vegetables rise, sometimes going up monthly, even weekly.

Americans have shared the experience of going to the grocery store-- we all have--picking up our favorite food items that we have purchased for years and thinking, well, this is more expensive than last week. My husband and I were just talking about this issue over the weekend as we changed our own shopping list because of it.

Few products are more essential than the foods we eat. Farmers, particularly small- and medium-sized producers, have been left out of investments that are meant to mitigate supply chain challenges, and that has meant it is getting more difficult to get products from the farm to the market and, finally, to the table.

While big companies have the budget to invest in supply chain innovations, research, and experts, small- and medium-sized producers are paying higher prices than ever for fertilizer, fuel, shipping, and other input costs.

When farmers pay more to produce food, all Americans pay more at the

grocery store. That is why we must empower USDA to do more to resolve farmers' and food businesses' supply chain challenges. We must be prepared.

To address these concerns, I was proud to lead the bipartisan American Food Supply Chain Resiliency Act. This legislation would establish supply chain regional resource centers through cooperative agreements with the Agricultural Marketing Service at USDA.

These resource centers would offer locally tailored coordination, technical assistance, and grants to small- and medium-sized producers and agribusinesses, leading to stronger supply chains. This bill would also expand the great work of the Agriculture Innovation Program to include research and support on supply chains.

By establishing supply chain regional resource centers, this bill would provide additional support to family farmers and food businesses trying to deliver their goods at a lower price for consumers. These centers would help local producers get through lean years, obtain the inputs they need, and address challenges related to transportation costs, labor, and high energy prices.

In fact, USDA has already taken similar steps to build collaboration across sectors of local and regional food supply chains through regional centers. Our bipartisan legislation would support and build on these centers, as well as make sure they are a wise, tailored investment with a clear mission and fair reporting requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill. Once again, I thank Congressman Gonzalez for his partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned that this bill will not provide immediate relief, and I concur. This bill is not meant to provide immediate relief. The amendment before us would plan for the future and would recognize that we face disruptions in our supply chain, and frequently, when we do, it is our farmers and producers who are impacted, particularly smaller and medium-sized producers like those in our districts.

This bill, this amendment to the larger bill, is an issue of planning for the future, recognizing disruptions that may come, and being able to proactively plan for such challenges.

It is unfortunate that the gentleman feels that they were left out of the process, but I am heartened that the scope of concern relates to the process and not the underlying amendment.

This amendment is about long-term planning. It is about ensuring that our smaller and medium-sized producers and agribusinesses have the technical assistance, the support, and the coordination that they will need to weather challenges in supply chain disruptions that may occur today, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is no disagreement that across America's regions and across our commodities, our Nation's farmers and ranchers have gotten the short end of the stick, particularly when it comes to rising input costs as a result of supply chain bottlenecks and inflation.

The Lowering Food and Fuel Costs Act and this amendment take crucial, commonsense steps toward addressing these challenges, both now and into the future, planning for a future where we can be proactive, continually so, and ensure that small and targeted investments from USDA today can have impacts on small- and medium-sized producers' ability to get food to market and improve their bottom lines.

At the same time, these investments should also lead to lower food prices for Americans at the grocery store, convenience stores, and restaurants.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I look forward to working with my colleague across the aisle to receive additional, very specific feedback on how we can make some of these provisions stronger, better with that input into the future.

Today, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment in front of us and, ultimately, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, civilians and soldiers are dying in Ukraine and the American people are feeling it in their pocket, even as they rise up to support democracy. The American people know there is a problem.

As we stand on the floor today, the good news is that Democrats care. That is why we rise today to offer the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act because the American people see it. They see it at the gas station on their way home or to work, they see it at the grocery store when their carts are half empty, and they see it with their hard-earned paychecks that don't meet what they need. Inflation--they know about it.

You know what, they are looking for a fighting team like the Democrats to make something happen, not a whining, complaining, get- nothing-done. In my community, the interest rates are 8.5 percent of the cost of goods in Houston, Texas. I am not going home and telling them that we are out here working. I ask for our colleagues to recognize the importance of lowering costs at the grocery store, ensuring robust competition, and helping farmers. Let us fight to pass this bill. We care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act, that would shore up the food and agriculture supply chain, assure fair competition in the meat and poultry sectors, and lower food and gasoline costs to the American consumer.

The American people know that there is a problem.

They see it.

They see it at the gas station on their way home from work.

They see it when they leave the grocery store with a half empty cart.

They see it when their hard-earned paychecks stretch less and less.

Inflation rose by 8.6 percent in May, a 40-year high.

The price of all goods in the Houston metro area have jumped by 8.5 percent since April 2021--the highest year-over-year jump since 1981.

My constituents aren't suddenly making 8.5 percent more than they did a year ago, mind you.

No, they are now going without.

The cost of the most basic commodities--electricity, oil, meats, and dairy--have gone up at alarming rates, and our people are disproportionately bearing the burden of inflation.

An income that previously fed and housed a family, provided life- supporting medication, and got people to work and back is now capable of paying only half of those bills.

Our constituents are forced to choose between picking up a prescription or paying for childcare, between keeping the lights on and keeping the pantry full.

These are not choices American families should have to make.

Congress must act to rebalance the financial scales in this country.

This package includes the following bills:

H.R. 7606--``Meat and Poultry Special Investigators Act'' which Establishes an Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters in the Agriculture Secretary's Office.

H.R. 7764--``To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional payments under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for implementation of nutrient management practices'' which would provide additional assistance to specialty and row crop producers who undertake USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standards to use fertilizers more efficiently, do soil testing, or seek out other sources of plant nutrients.

H.R. 2518--``PRECISE Act--Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and Solutions for the Environment'' which explicitly states precision agriculture eligibility in Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program, allows a producer who receives payments under EQIP to also receive a conservation loan guarantee, and allows up to a 90 percent cost share for precision agriculture under EQIP.

H.R. 1542--``Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Investment and Market Expansion Act of 2021'' which would deploy additional storage and dispensing equipment to ensure that higher ethanol blends and other biofuels are more readily available across the country.

H.R. 4410--``Year-Round Fuel Choice Act of 2021'' which would build on a recent Biden Administration action allowing voluntary year-

round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, know as E-15 or Unleaded 88.

H.R. 7675--``Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Act'' which would create an Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force at USDA, headed by a Special Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis Response.

H.R. 4140--``Butcher Block Act'' which would provide assistance to create new and expand current local and regional livestock and meat processing capacity with direct or guaranteed loans.

From the soil in which our farmers plant their seeds, to the fuel that transports vegetables to our grocers, to the very meat on our tables, this package will enact positive legislation that the American people will be able to see.

The spike in food and energy prices are at the center of inflation.

Beginning at the root, as producers across the country face skyrocketing fertilizer prices, we must help producers reduce their input costs so planting decisions are not impacted.

Expanding access to precision agriculture technology is critical now, as we face climate change and fertilizer costs that have doubled or almost tripled.

Breakdowns and bottlenecks in the food and agriculture supply chain, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, have been well documented and have caused significant losses and concerns to our agricultural constituents.

Over the last few decades, there has been an influx of domination in the meat packing industry by four large companies resulting in raised prices and reduced options for products.

COVID-19 highlighted the country's dangerous reliance on large beef plants run by the four biggest processors.

The pandemic caused slaughterhouses nationwide to close to contain outbreaks of the virus among workers.

Ranchers were and still are frustrated that cattle prices drop when major plants close, while meat companies still benefit from rising meat prices.

Farmers' share of profits have gone down, while American consumers continue to pay more, with meat prices being the single largest contributor to the rising cost of food people consume at home.

A fair and competitive market is fundamental to a well-functioning U.S. economy.

When firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more innovation.

Strengthening enforcement of the Packer and Stockyards Act will lead to greater competition in the meat and poultry processing, fairer access to markets for producers, and more price stability for consumers.

Increased processing capacity will alleviate some supply chain bottlenecks and provide producers with more options to market their cattle and receive a fair price.

The supply chain will be more resilient and competitive long term as a result.

With regard to our energy and fuel crisis, further use of biofuels will reduce prices at the pump for all Americans and increase the supply of fuel available.

Biofuels adoption and investment helps reduce our reliance on foreign oil and the supply shocks facing our gasoline supply while also bolstering a revenue stream for farmers across the country.

E-10 gasoline, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, is currently sold year-round, while the sale of E-15 gasoline, gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, is dependent on receiving special waivers despite both having very similar emission profiles when it comes to smog formation.

Year-round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol (E-15) will reduce the price at the pump for American drivers by giving consumers the choice to purchase a fuel that is substantially cheaper than standard gasoline.

The American people need legislative intervention in a market that is increasingly becoming more concentrated and suffering from supply chain disruptions.

This package provides small concrete actions that will invoke change and provide both short-term immediate and long-term continuous relief.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I commend him and the members of the committee, as we just heard from Congresswoman Spanberger, for their very important work recognizing the needs of America's working families with their kitchen table issues, recognizing the needs in rural America for us to have legislation that strengthens rural America's hand in the decisions that we make as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, the war continues in Ukraine. It is an unprovoked, outrageous act of aggression on the part of Putin and Russia invading the territorial borders of Ukraine.

At the same time, doing that has driven up prices here at home, driven up prices at the pump; it is a Putin price at the pump. That is the main reason, in the short period of time following the invasion of Ukraine, the price at the pump went up its highest amount in a very long time.

Russia is also a source of fertilizer, a big source of fertilizer to our country, and of course, diminishing the supply coming in raises the cost of fertilizer and contributes to the cost for our farmers, and of course, then contributes to the price of food at the grocery store. It is an important kitchen table issue.

Putin's price at the pump is exacerbating the skyrocketing costs weighing heavily on our families. Again, since Russia began its saber- rattling against Ukraine, gas prices in many places went up $2 per gallon.

Meanwhile, the World Bank reports that global food prices in March and April spiked 16 percent over the 2 months prior, and while Putin works to fuel inflation today, the Democratic House--hopefully, in a bipartisan way--takes a strong step to bring down crucial kitchen table costs at the pump and grocery store and across the board.

Our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act does precisely what the name suggests in three major areas.

First, the bill brings down the costs for farmers in the field. As we know, oil, gasoline is an important factor of production for farmers in order for them to produce. The war in Ukraine has restricted the supply of fertilizer, as I mentioned, and sent the costs through the roof. By taking action to lower the costs on the farm, we lower the costs on the shelf in the grocery store and on the kitchen table.

Second, this bill bolsters competition in the meatpacking industry, and I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership. Cracking down on the market power of big conglomerates and increasing competition will ensure ranchers get a fair deal for their livestock while families get a good price for meat and poultry.

Third, this bill will help make cheaper, cleaner homegrown biofuels more widely available. This summer drivers who choose to fill up with Unleaded 88 could save an average of 40 cents a gallon, and by making this fuel more widely available it will unleash the power of America's farmers to help break the grip of foreign autocrats on energy markets; lower gas prices, while keeping our dollars here at home; and reduce pollution because biofuels are cleaner than petroleum.

Today's action to lower food and fuel costs is the latest manifestation of House Democrats' unyielding commitment to fight inflation.

Last month, our majority voted to hold Big Oil accountable for price gouging and war profiteering, which has kept energy prices excessively high.

This week, we passed legislation to crack down on exorbitant ocean shipping fees, leveling the playing field for American businesses and lowering costs for American consumers. Proudly today, President Biden will sign this legislation into law. It is called the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022.

As we speak, the Congress is hard at work on a bold, bipartisan, bicameral competitiveness package to make more goods in America; strengthen our supply chains; diversify our STEM workforce; and reinvigorate research and development. We look forward to sending this strong cost-cutting legislation to the President's desk.

Here is the thing: Inflation springs from higher costs. Higher costs spring from shorter supply. Shorter supply is there because of COVID preventing certain products from coming into our country, so short supply. Short supply of factors of production coming into our country.

That is why the COMPETES Act is so important because it will make us more independent, more self-sufficient on the products we need; for example, chips. Chips are a very important part of that bill. To make a car it takes 1,000 chips; an electric car, 2,000 chips. But we can't do that manufacturing unless we have chips, and if other countries are saving chips for themselves at home or the high fees of transporting them make it just unaffordable to people, we need to make these chips at home, and that is what the COMPETES Act enables us to do.

So lowering costs for our families; when we ran in 2018--just to bring back promises made--we said we were going to lower costs by lowering the costs of prescription drugs, and that is what we are in the midst of doing now. We are going to lower costs in every way for America's working families. That is what this legislation does here.

We are going to have bigger paychecks. And we have had, since President Biden took office, working with the private sector and the nonprofit sector and the public sector, 8 million jobs have been created. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages have gone up. That also contributes to inflation, which must be addressed, and this legislation is part of doing that.

So this legislation is a strong step in that direction, and I salute the relentless leadership of the Agriculture chair, David Scott, and the Energy and Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, who is an important part of this, as well as Representatives Spanberger, Craig, Axne, and Harder and the dedicated staff of both committees.

Together, they have assembled a package of popular bipartisan legislation with a laser focus on fighting inflation.

Make no mistake, a vote against this bill is a vote to keep the cost of gas and groceries high, when we can do just the opposite by voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has done a wonderful job as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I know that you are working together to bring people together. One of the things that I most admire about Chairman Scott is that he wants to have a bipartisan result coming out of his committee, and I think in this bill he has.

Mr. Speaker, every day Americans across the country must contend with

the rising prices caused by inflation. Whenever they pull up to the gas pump, they face the repercussions of Vladimir Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine, which has made gas prices skyrocket--not just because of the sanctions, not because of Russia's production, but because of the lack of confidence in the future that this war has caused.

Whenever our people go to the grocery store, they suffer the consequences of the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted on global supply chains. Unfortunately, we cannot erase the past crises that led to our current economic situation.

I say to the Members of this Congress that we can take the meaningful steps today to lower prices for consumers and to stimulate America's economy in the weeks and months to come. That is why House Democrats are focusing all week on easing inflation and bringing costs down. I know that is what my Republican colleagues want to do as well.

While this may not be a perfect alternative--there are no perfect alternatives--this is a positive step toward decreasing the costs to our people of things that they must buy: fuel and food. To support that mission, I am proud to bring the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to the floor today, at Mr. Scott's request.

America's farmers and ranchers have long fed our Nation, and indeed, much of the world. Despite their essential work, however, they have often struggled to turn a reliable profit in recent years because of rising expenses, associated particularly with fertilizer--the costs of which have gone up very substantially as a result of the crisis that we confront.

By making fertilizer more affordable and by improving farmers' access to loans for precision agricultural technology, this legislation will help lower these production costs, which burden smaller farmers and contribute to higher consumer food prices.

Additionally, this bill will lower gas prices by increasing biofuel adoption and investment, and by giving consumers greater fuel choices at the pump.

Lack of competition in the meat and poultry processing industries has also jeopardized many of our family farmers and the people they feed. Competition is the essence of a free market. Competition is the essence of establishing prices that are reasonable and fair, both to producers and to consumers.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help level that playing field for small and independent producers trying to break into the industry, which will both boost our meat processing capacity and stoke healthy competition and innovation, which both sides of the aisle believe is the way we have created this extraordinary economy we know as the American economy: competition and free markets.

Similarly, this bill establishes a dedicated office within the Department of Agriculture to strengthen enforcement of existing antitrust authorities to consult on trade practices, ensuring a fairer, more competitive industry that works better for consumers.

We know that if just a few producers have a monopoly--and that is one of the problems with oil prices. We have OPEC nations who have constricted supply when demand was up. What inevitably happens in a free market? Prices rise.

This is about free markets. This is about competition. This is about fair pricing for consumers. These reforms will enable our farmers to produce food more efficiently, driving down costs for Americans at the grocery store.

Not only will this legislation help us respond to the ramifications of crises like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but they will also make our agricultural sector and our economy more resilient to future shocks.

This legislation is a crucial step toward reducing inflation. I thank Representative Spanberger, Representative Craig, and Representative Axne, and my friends on the Republican side who have worked on this, and my friends on the Democratic side who have worked on this.

This is an important piece of legislation for the people--all of them. All of our Members listened closely to the concerns of their constituents and took a collaborative approach to come up with legislation that addresses some of the most pressing needs of the American people.

I thank the ranking member of this committee for his thoughtfulness in approaching this issue.

Today, every Member of this House has an opportunity to do something to ease inflation. Every Member has an opportunity to vote to ease inflation today. We are eager to take that action, which is why we are bringing this to the floor and voting to pass it.

I hope all of our Members will join us so we can show our constituents that their Congress is addressing inflation and working together on their behalf, not on our political behalves, but working together to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: vote ``yes.''