Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on September 1, 2026. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 286; NAY on Roll Call No. 287; NAY on Roll Call No. 288; NAY on Roll Call No. 289; YEA on Roll Call No. 290; NAY on Roll Call No. 291; and YEA on Roll Call No. 292.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, United Steelworkers Rapid Response Coordinator Robert ``Bob'' Ryan, on his retirement after nearly two decades of leadership and advocacy with the United Steelworkers.

Bob began his career with United Steelworkers after previously working as a Machinist with Rock-Tenn. As the District 11 Rapid Response Coordinator, Bob advocated for Steelworkers in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. In Minnesota alone, Bob helped represent over 13,000 workers, including those at Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota.

In his role as a Rapid Response Coordinator, he worked tirelessly to improve wages, strengthen benefits and create safer working conditions for workers across the country. Bob helped mobilize members to advocate for union priorities and has been a strong partner for my office in advocating for organized labor.

I am deeply inspired by Bob's commitment to his fellow Steelworkers. His leadership in the labor movement will have a lasting impact on our community, and I am grateful for all he has done to strengthen workers' rights throughout District 11. It has been an honor working with Bob over the years.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Bob and in wishing him all the best on his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 228, H.R. 7757, and YEA on Roll Call No. 229, H.R. 7128.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a Minnesota hero, Michael Coy of St. Paul Park, Minnesota, who passed away on April 21, 2026.

Mr. Coy served his community for more than 35 years as a UPS delivery driver and was a committed member of Teamsters Local 638.

On April 18, 2024, while driving on the highway, Mr. Coy witnessed another driver, Samuel Orbovich, crash into a lamppost, setting his vehicle on fire. Mr. Coy immediately stopped to assist him.

Mr. Coy attempted to assist Mr. Orbovich from the passenger door but was forced away by flames. He was instead able to direct fellow bystanders to break the driver's side window and rushed over to assist others in pulling Mr. Orbovich out of the vehicle through the driver's window. Both men were taken to the hospital for injuries sustained in the accident.

Because of Mr. Coy, Mr. Orbovich is still alive today.

Mr. Coy's bravery was recognized by the Carnegie Hero Fund with a Carnegie Medal. He was one of fifty-two recipients of this award last year.

I offer my deepest condolences to Mr. Coy's family--his wife, son, siblings and the countless others who knew and loved him.

I want to thank him again for his service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes today due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 176 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1299), YEA on Roll Call No. 177 (Passage of H.R. 3234), YEA on Roll Call No. 178 (Passage of H.R. 4544), YEA on Roll Call No. 179 (Passage of H.R. 5317), YEA on Roll Call No. 180 (Passage of S. 2393), YEA on Roll Call No. 181 (Passage of S. 1003), YEA on Roll Call No. 182 (Passage of H.R. 1993), YEA on Roll Call No. 183 (MTR for H.R. 2616), NO on Roll Call No. 184 (Passage of H.R. 2616), NAY on Roll Call No. 185 (Previous Question, H. Res. 1300), and NO on Roll Call No. 186 (Adoption of H. Res. 1300).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding.

As co-chair of the bipartisan Biofuels Caucus, this has been a longtime coming. Getting year-round E15 across the finish line has been a priority of mine since the day I came into Congress. In fact, I led the charge for Democrats when we were in control of the House in 2022, the only other time that year-round E15 has passed the House of Representatives.

Back then, the farm economy wasn't great, but now it is downright terrible. Farm bankruptcies in the Midwest are up 70 percent year over year. Our family farmers are hurting, and so are our working families in this country.

Tariffs and trade wars have shut corn and soybean farmers out of their largest markets, and the war in Iran is hitting every single person I know in the pocketbook when it comes to gas prices.

We have the opportunity today to expand market opportunities for farmers who badly need them while at the same time lowering costs at the pump.

Make no mistake about it: It is going to lower costs to allow for year-round E15 if the adoption rate goes up as retailers put in more infrastructure at the pump so that people will have broader access to year-round E15.

But the dynamics of the policies in this country are not changing today. As we think about the administration, the tariffs, the war in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz and the problems we have there, fertilizer costs, diesel costs--we can stand here all day long and say this is a good bipartisan bill, and I believe it is. In 2022, we passed a bipartisan bill. But until this administration changes its actual policies that impact family farmers, there is going to be pain throughout farm country.

As we think about E15 and biofuels in our country, E15 is homegrown, renewable, and available. All we are asking to put into law is that we not arbitrarily limit this cheaper option for consumers to a few months out of the year. In fact, what we are putting in place today, should this pass, is a status quo because we are seeing waivers every single year anyway.

Let's make it available to any American anytime they want to choose it. Year-round E15 is a win for consumers, and it is a win for farmers who desperately need these domestic markets because of so many bad policies on the part of this current administration.

I urge my colleagues to support this package, to support our family farmers and working people across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, just wow. Just wow. That entire speech is just wow. At the end of the day, we are sitting here talking about the farm bill, and this amendment does nothing to materially address the very real issues farmers are facing as they look at planting season today.

All I could really hear is the word ``Brazil.'' We have forced our largest export markets, like China, to Brazil and Argentina because of bad policies from this administration.

I am pretty sure that my farmers back home in Minnesota are far more concerned about how they are going to afford fertilizer to make it to next year without a substantial loss than they are about emissions standards on their tractors.

The cost of diesel has gone up 50 percent since the start of the war in Iran.

Where are my colleagues' amendments today forcing this administration into policies that actually help family farmers?

The tariffs have sent our trading partners to other markets, perhaps never to come back.

Let's talk about the domestic markets that we could be expanding into in this country, like year-round E15. However, are we taking a vote on year-round E15 today? No, because my Republican colleagues cannot even get themselves pulled together.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about helping farmers' bottom line, this bill and this amendment do nothing to help them. We are going to be right back where we are 1 year from now asking what is going to save family farms if we pass this version of a farm bill. This amendment does absolutely nothing to help anyone.

When we think about this farm bill, we think about the $187 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. That is $25 billion, Mr. Chair, directly to farmers' bottom line.

Do you know what else is $25 billion so far, according to the Secretary of Defense? The war in Iran has cost $25 billion. We are here talking about a skinny farm bill that adds no cost to anything when we just spent in the last 60 days $25 billion on a war in Iran that no one wants.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is terrible, not to mention the critical role of the Clean Air Act in making sure that the health and safety of Americans across this country is secure.

Do you know why Brazil is getting all our business? It is because they are cutting down the rainforest, and they are planting our commodities, our business.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my beautiful congressional district in Minnesota is 40 percent covered in corn and soybeans every single summer, and right now those farmers have nowhere to sell their crops.

Why is that? It is because we have systematically, under this administration's policies, created a situation where there are no export markets.

Mr. Chair, I don't know where we are talking to family farmers, but the ones that I talk to, their input costs are so high, and that is being driven by bad policy. Their input costs are high because fertilizer costs are out of control, and apparently the administration doesn't even know how much farmers have already secured their fertilizer.

It is just nonsense what the Secretary of Agriculture said about, no, they have already bought their fertilizer, so this doesn't matter whatsoever.

What about diesel costs? We know that farmers are facing a loss. Instead of standing here today and talking about more farm relief because of the bad policies of this administration, the Farm Bureau says that our farmers have lost $54 billion in the last year, and the administration offers $12 billion in relief, a small fraction of what is needed.

We had an amendment--it wasn't made in order--$17 billion in additional relief to our family farmers, but this administration doesn't want to do that. They want to keep promising the world and telling the farmers that they love them, and then doing absolutely nothing to help our family farmers. E15 is a good example. We could expand our domestic markets in this country today, but, no, we said-- Lucy with the football again on E15--we are going to take it away, and, oh, we will come back in 2 more weeks. Reporting is that they are going to change the bill at this point.

If you want to change the bill, change it back to my bill that would allow for year-round E15 that actually would save money. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I will say it is great news. It is good news. We got a new date. We are going to get a vote on year-round E15 on May 13. That is terrific news, Mr. Chair.

I remember, though, that there was a partisan working group put together earlier this year, and we were supposed to get a deal by February 15. Then, it was supposed to be on the floor by February 25.

Mr. Chair, I would say, forgive my skepticism, but this certainly looks like every time we have a deal for a vote on year-round E15, there is an uprising in the Republican Conference and somehow my Republican colleagues from Midwest States, where farm bankruptcies are up 70 percent this year, get rolled.

Mr. Chair, I remind my colleague from the other side of the aisle that everybody here is running for election to

something in the next election cycle, so I clearly don't understand why it is being raised what I am running for--except the people retiring from the Republican Conference in record numbers who are not seeking reelection.

Currently, the vote on the farm bill, I remind us all, can't go to the Senate. The farm bill cannot go to the Senate without a vote on

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

Mr. Chair, it is extremely important to support a regulated, safe supply of honey products in the United States. While I believe we can move forward on testing and creating a more consistent market, the complete exclusion of testing in some of our most reliable trade partners is an issue in this text.

I believe there is a compromise between better testing and creating rifts between trusted exporters.

I look forward to working with the Congressman on honey regulation through the FDA, but I will have to vote ``no'' on this amendment today.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, again, with respect to this amendment, I do believe there is a compromise between better testing and creating rifts between our trusted exporters. The minority would be happy to work with the majority and the Congressman on honey regulation through FDA, but we don't believe that this is the answer.

Mr. Chair, many of us were here pretty much all night last night, and what was interesting on the House floor during that time is after hours of delay in actually starting general debate on the farm bill, both sides of the Republican Party, both factions in the Republican Party who were negotiating for and against E15, came back claiming victory. I am just raising this issue because I personally witnessed both sides saying that they had a gentleman's agreement to bring E15 to the floor and not to bring E15 to the floor. I would just caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe that there is a deal to get E15 to the floor that there are some antics and tricks related to going back to the Rules Committee that folks may be planning.

At the end of the day, unfortunately, Republican leadership has a history of promising something different to a number of different factions within the Republican Party. I mean, hell, the Democrats over here, you don't need us to be your adversary because you are your own worst enemies these days. We just sort of pop the popcorn and watch this stuff happen.

But as this happens, I am not rooting for you all to be at war with each other. I am rooting for good public policy in this country. Year- round E15 is not getting a vote today. To me it is a really sad day when the Republican Conference can't vote for a commonsense bill that is going to lower the cost of gasoline at a time when the war in Iran is driving up gas prices.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleague mentioned Minneapolis. Let's talk about Minneapolis since this is a rules debate.

Mr. Speaker, in this rule is additional funding for ICE and CBP. Let's talk about Minneapolis. Let's talk about the fact that two U.S. citizens were murdered on the streets of Minneapolis.

There is no way in hell Democrats are going to give one more penny to ICE and CBP until reforms are in place. So if you want to bring up Minneapolis, we can bring up Minneapolis, but you better bring it up with the full context of what the Trump administration is doing in our country that we will not stand for.

Mr. Speaker, related to the farm bill, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to improve this legislation which falls way short of the 5- year, 12-title farm bill that we should be here discussing today.

We should have addressed the tariffs that are bankrupting America's family farmers. Farm bankruptcies are up 50 percent across this country over the last year in the Trump administration. Farm bankruptcies are up 70 percent in the Midwest.

Trump's trade wars are destroying American farmers. They are sending China to Brazil and Argentina for that business. When we think about what the Trump administration is doing--the Iran war has increased fertilizer costs. It has increased diesel prices. This is not putting America's farmers first. Anytime this President tells you that he loves you, ask him what his actions are doing to help you.

We should have included additional farm aid. The Farm Bureau says farmers have lost $54 billion over the last year--$54 billion over the last year. Believe it or not, this administration said they are giving our family farmers $12 billion. That is how much we are going to give our family farmers.

We should have bolstered SNAP. At the end of the day, it is unconscionable to me that we used reconciliation to plus-up crop insurance programs--Democrats would have supported that in a farm bill--and then cut SNAP by $187 billion. Don't say we didn't cut SNAP. That is absolute nonsense. What you did is you shifted the cost to States in our country, an unfunded mandate that is already increasing taxes in a State like Minnesota. Our counties are having to raise property taxes for constituents to pay for it, and, by the way, a lot of these constituents are Republican constituents.

We should have rallied around a bill that helped family farmers and working families in this country. Instead, this rule opens the door for a bill that rubberstamps tariffs. It does nothing to lower costs on farm inputs.

It opens the door for a bill that does not provide a single penny in additional farm aid. It locks in the $187 billion cut to SNAP that has already deprived 3.4 million Americans of food assistance.

Green-lighting this rule and the underlying bill is sending a message to every American that Congress does not have their back. It sends a signal to farm country that they are on their own.

This bill needs a do-over. My hope is the Senate will provide that do-over. It is not worthy of our support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, at kitchen tables across this country, millions of Americans--seniors, working parents, and farmers--are wondering how they are going to pay the bills or not lose money this planting season.

From tariffs that have cost our farmers' markets to a war that has increased the cost of fertilizer and diesel,

farmers are struggling to hold on to that third-or fourth-generation farm.

This so-called skinny farm bill in front of us today does nothing to stop these losses or to help offset the $54 billion in losses farmers have had to absorb. Worse yet, it doesn't fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place.

It turns a blind eye to the farmers calling for emergency economic assistance so they can afford to keep planting. It locks in the $187 billion cut to food assistance that Republicans made in the big, ugly bill--putting more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.

That is what the farm bill doesn't do. It doesn't lower costs. It doesn't help save one family farm from bankruptcy, which is up nearly 50 percent since this administration took office.

So what does this so-called bill attempt to do? It protects the world's largest pesticide companies from lawsuits, cuts farm conservation programs by $1 billion, and overturns the will of voters in States nationwide that set specific animal welfare and food standards for themselves.

Putting the harmful policies aside, the political calculus on this should be easy.

Do we want to lower costs for farmers and working people, or do we want to protect pesticide companies and lock in cuts to food assistance at a time when grocery prices are spiking?

Do we want to pass a farm bill that delivers for farmers on the verge of bankruptcy and families going hungry, or do we want to sit on our hands and make excuses?

I urge my colleagues to reject this version of the farm bill and force Republicans back to the table to negotiate a true bipartisan bill that prioritizes the cost of living crisis in this country.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

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

Mr. Chair, I remind my Republican colleagues that we didn't do a farm bill 1.0. What we did was a very partisan budget reconciliation process. Farm bills are intended to be 12-title, 5-year bills. Reconciliation does not qualify as that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. McClain Delaney).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I don't really know what I just listened to. There are 700 organizations that are opposing this farm bill. Maybe Texas, maybe lots of States around this country, have a lot of money just to spend. My Republican colleagues talk about unfunded mandates all the time. Shifting costs to the States for SNAP was an unfunded mandate.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues here tonight want you to think that this is a farm bill, but it is a collection of Republican excuses.

In reconciliation, they cut $187 billion from title IV of the farm bill. That isn't a bipartisan process.

President Trump said he would lower costs on day one. Republicans would have us believe that their top priority here tonight is supporting family farmers.

What about the tariffs? What about China taking all of its business to Brazil and Argentina? Where are my colleagues in actually standing up for family farmers?

My challenge to my Republican colleagues is to prove it because this farm bill does nothing to lower fertilizer costs or diesel costs for farmers or restore food assistance for millions of Americans, children or seniors.

Mr. Chair, I have created a vision of Lucy with the football so many times on this topic of E15 that I don't even know how to describe it anymore. The fact that, tonight, my friends on the other side of the aisle somehow negotiated to have E15 taken off the table to me is just unbelievable.

You destroy all the export markets in our country, and now you refuse to move forward in pushing for those new domestic markets. I know there is probably some deal cut on the side or a gentleman's agreement or whatever, but we are going to be back here in 2 weeks. There is going to be a lot of procedural movement on this thing, and I am telling you, tonight, I do not believe that we will see a vote on E15 come to this House floor, that standing down on E15 was walking away from our family farmers.

We will never stand down from looking for these export markets across the world or expanding domestic markets in our country.

We offered an amendment that would add another $17 billion in assistance to family farmers, as well as make sure that working families across our country are taken care of by delaying this unfunded mandate to the States.

For the life of me, to come here tonight, whatever time it is--if it is still today; maybe it is tomorrow--and declare that this is a bipartisan product, our colleagues took about 10 percent of what we offered. Then, they came back and tried to pick off one of us at a time with some little sweetener.

Republicans can't even figure it out among themselves on the other side of the aisle. Democrats stand ready to support a truly bipartisan farm bill. My hope is that throughout this process, just like in 2014 and just like in 2018, we can come to a bipartisan farm bill, ensuring that the Senate is part of this process.

Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. I would have offered the motion with an amendment to the bill.

I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

Ms. Craig moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7567 to the

Committee on Agriculture with instructions to report the same

back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:

Add at the end of title XII the following:

Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that we were able to work on a bipartisan basis here tonight on these amendments en bloc. It keeps us from having to be here even further into the night. I wish that this process overall was as collaborative on the underlying bill.

For example, we supported the addition of the Fedorchak amendment No. 12. However, this amendment does nothing to address the very real problems that family farmers are facing.

Unfortunately, it is the Trump administration's actions which make this study even necessary and timely. Due to the President's trade war against the world and his actual war against Iran, farmers have experienced skyrocketing fertilizer prices in addition to other input costs.

Had farmers received any warning of these actions, they could have better prepared themselves for the price shocks that they are now feeling. They could have invested in fertilizer storage facilities on their farms so that they would have had someplace to store their prepurchased fertilizer needs ahead of these price spikes.

When the war with Iran started, the Secretary said that 80 percent of farmers had already locked in their fertilizer needs, but we know now that that was radically incorrect. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, only 67 percent of farmers in the Midwest knew that their fertilizer needs had already been covered, and this was the high watermark for the country. In the South, less than 20 percent have their needs already covered.

This study is not going to solve the problems that farmers are facing now with these costs, but it could lay the groundwork to help farmers prepare for the next thing that perhaps this administration does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, better late than never bipartisanship. We are happy to agree to these amendments en bloc, and I would be proud to support it.

I just want to say that some of the rhetoric though coming out and the lack of fact-based--it is not that Republicans cut the dollar amount of SNAP per day for eligible individuals, they have just cut people from the program entirely. Republicans have shoved costs on to several States across this country that are just not going to be able to absorb those costs, and we know and CBO expects, that those States are going to have to kick people off the program.

We worked together to make this a little more efficient. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to produce a report on ways to help Arizona, one of seven States in the Colorado River basin, due to a lack of water.

This amendment also seems to imply that because Texas did not receive its water allotment through the 1944 Water Treaty, it is Arizona producers who should receive extra financial assistance.

I have supported many amendments from my Texas colleagues, who have rightly complained that Mexico has not met its obligations under that treaty, but it is Texas producers who suffered as a result. If the gentleman believes that the Colorado River Basin States also experienced some loss, why restrict his amendment only to Arizona?

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this amendment forces USDA to revise the existing APHIS Evidence Standards for livestock depredations by Mexican wolves.

It unwisely directs APHIS to update its standards to ignore traumatic bruising, which is, of course, clear physical evidence that the animal was attacked while alive rather than simply picked at by scavengers after it died for unrelated reasons.

The current standards already have provisions in place for making determinations in instances where there

may be little to no evidence of subcutaneous hemorrhaging.

USDA reimburses producers for 100 percent of the value of animals killed by Mexican gray wolves, but there are just a handful of those wolves left who still call the United States home.

This proposal would open the door for USDA to cover the cost of many more livestock per year than those few wolves could possibly kill.

Virtually any livestock death could be attributed to Mexican wolves because you wouldn't need to observe the primary indicator of a live attack.

I support the assistance we provide to producers who experience losses to wolves, but unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Houlahan, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, rise in support of this amendment. The Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Assistance Program is a popular and successful program at USDA to support new and emerging technologies for biobased products. This means innovation here at home, and it means opening up new markets to our farmers.

I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward to provide higher loan guarantees for this program to support a wider variety of projects.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, USDA loan programs have helped thousands of farmers and ranchers access the capital they need to feed people throughout the Nation and beyond.

Opening up these critical loan programs to the vague and broadly defined ``fish processing businesses'' in this amendment could lead to unintended consequences.

By their definition, a food manufacturer that processes fish, fish sticks, and 100 other nonseafood products would qualify for a USDA direct Farm Operating Loan, even if they are thousands of miles from the nearest seafood source.

I encourage the sponsors of this amendment to seek technical assistance to close these giant loopholes, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment itself.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add Violet's Law to the farm bill.

The amendment would allow for the adoption or placement in another home for animals once they are no longer needed for research in Federal labs.

Several other Federal Government departments, including NIH, DOD, and the FDA, allow for the retirement of lab animals, but the USDA has been slow to follow.

This amendment would make sure that these animals who have contributed so much of their lives to advancing the cause of science would be able to live out the rest of their lives in a loving home or sanctuary.

I thank Ms. Mace for her amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, ditto, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment, and of course, all of us here support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles for all Americans, but I have serious concerns with any policy that would make life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Across the country right now, chaotic waivers restricting different kinds of foods and drinks from being purchased with SNAP are already creating massive confusion for participants and for retailers.

We don't know the result of the effectiveness of these waivers at this point, although things aren't looking good. We certainly shouldn't be codifying any type of restrictions and picking winners and losers among foods without getting those results first.

If the intention is to address diet-related chronic disease, we would be better off investing in fruit and vegetable incentives, like GusNIP, and revive SNAP-Ed, a nutrition education program that was eliminated in H.R. 1.

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

Mr. Chair, I will just end with this. I want you to imagine a single mom who is on the SNAP program--remember, this is $6.20 a day--who wants to put a four-pack--remember, no one can afford six-packs anymore because everything is too expensive--wants to purchase a four-pack of soda as a treat once a week for her children. The idea that we are going to force that family, that single mom, to say, no, I can't choose to do that--we are going to take that choice away from them.

Mr. Chair, there are lots of people who live in families that need just a little bit of help right now, and it is getting worse under this administration. You cannot deny it. At the end of the day, this is one more way that we are attacking poor people in our country.

Mr. Chair, we are all for healthy, but let's not be mean at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Public Safety Director Pete Koerner, on his retirement after 34 years with the city of Cottage Grove. Chief Koerner is a dedicated public servant and an outstanding leader in our community.

Chief Koerner began his career with the Cottage Grove Police Department in 1992, where he served as a community service officer. Throughout his tenure, Chief Koerner served in several roles including as a school resource officer, a detective, a Project D.A.R.E. officer and a crisis negotiator. He was first promoted to sergeant, then captain, and in 2018, he was named Director of Public Safety.

As Director of Public Safety, Chief Koerner strengthened community trust through his commitment to transparency and service. He was kind enough to facilitate a ride-along for me with his department, which provided me with new insight into the valuable work Cottage Grove police officers, like Chief Koerner, do every day. He was instrumental in advocating for the construction of the HERO Training Center in Cottage Grove which provides public safety personnel with access to critical educational resources. I had the privilege of touring this outstanding facility and am grateful for Chief Koerner's work to make it a reality.

Chief Koerner's community involvement extends beyond his official role. In his free time, Chief Koerner has coached baseball and basketball for the Cottage Grove Athletic Association. He also served as a board member for several community groups, including the Friends in Need Food Shelf, the Holiday Train Committee, the Strawberry Festival Committee and the Cottage Grove Lions.

I am deeply inspired by Chief Koerner's commitment to serving his neighbors. His leadership in public safety will have a lasting impact on Cottage Grove, and I am grateful for all he has done to protect and support our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Koerner and in wishing him all the best on his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Captain Gary S. Tomczik, United States Army-Aviation, who passed away on March 20, 2026.

Captain Tomczik was originally from St. Cloud, Minnesota, and graduated from St. Cloud Cathedral High School. While attending St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, he was accepted into the ROTC Aviation program and began flying lessons in St. Cloud and St. Paul. In 1967, he was commissioned as Second Lieutenant, and attended Helicopter Flight School at Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Shortly after, he was sent to Vietnam for his first tour of duty. During this tour, he served with distinction as he conducted airlift missions transporting troops and supplies into and out from theater, engaged in medical evacuation missions for injured troops, and flew numerous night missions.

During his second tour in Vietnam, he served as the executive officer in his unit, directly assisting the unit commander, and oversaw the maintenance and repair of aircraft. This role required him to test choppers before their return to combat, a particularly risky task. Despite the danger, Captain Tomczik served his country with courage and conviction.

Following his tours in Vietnam, he served as an instructor to new pilots at Ft. Rucker. As an instructor, Captain Tomczik took the safety of his students very seriously and worked tirelessly to ensure they had the tools and training they needed to succeed. Captain Tomczik was unwavering in his dedication to serving his Nation and instilled in his students their responsibility to always put the American people first in the performance of their duties.

Captain Tomczik's courage and skill during his service were recognized with numerous Army commendations, including the Bronze Star, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60-device, the Vietnam Service Medal, three Army Overseas Service bars, the Army Aviator Badge, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Following his service in Vietnam and at Ft. Rucker, Captain Tomczik continued his work with helicopters for Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. His career took him all over the world, before he and his wife of 53 years, Hilary, settled in Santa Barbara, California.

I offer my deepest condolences to Captain Tomczik's family--his wife, Hilary, his sons Graham and Damien, and his siblings Ron, Janet, Mel, and Patrick. I want to thank him and his fellow veterans, including his three brothers, for their service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Chief Hugo Searle, on his retirement after 34 years with the fire service. Chief Searle is a dedicated public servant and an outstanding leader who has served Minnesotans with courage and commitment.

Originally from Wales, Chief Searle made Minnesota his home and devoted his career to protecting our communities. He served 19 years with the St. Louis Park Fire Department and 10 years with the Brooklyn Park Fire Department before being appointed Chief of the Eagan Fire Department in 2021.

During his tenure as Chief, he strengthened community relationships, invested deeply in personnel and guided the department through a period of growth and change. His leadership enhanced emergency response capabilities and fostered a culture grounded in professionalism, compassion, and service. Chief Searle has earned the respect of his colleagues from across the state and is widely regarded as a leader within Minnesota's fire service community.

Chief Searle's commitment to excellence extends far beyond the state. In his free time, Chief Searle serves as a high-altitude mountain guide and has summited Mount Everest.

I am deeply inspired by Chief Searle's commitment to public service and exceptional leadership. His career in the fire service will have a lasting impact in Eagan and across the state of Minnesota and I am grateful for all he has done to support our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Searle and in wishing him all the best on his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the list of the Trump administration's reckless attacks on SNAP, our country's largest and most efficient anti-hunger program, is miles long:

Taking food assistance away from 4 million Americans, illegally demanding SNAP participants' personal data, spreading misinformation about SNAP and fraud, failing to uphold their duties to states and program beneficiaries, eliminating 30 percent of USDA staff, haphazardly eliminating and relocating many regional offices and more.

Today, in response to these attacks, MAZON delivered more than 47,000 postcards to USDA. These postcards flooding USDA send a clear message: that no one deserves to go hungry and SNAP must be protected, not cut.

The more than 47,000 handwritten postcards MAZON delivered today also represent the more than 47 million Americans that are facing financial instability and aren't sure where their next meal will come from.

They are an expression of concern and outrage over the state of hunger in America and the need to take positive action to address it-- not exacerbate it, as Republicans in Congress and the White House have chosen to do over the past year.

These postcards were sent from people's homes, synagogues, schools, community organizations, and nonprofits; some even hosted postcard writing parties where they invited their loved ones to take part in communal action with them.

It is an important reminder of what can happen when we refuse to lose hope. A reminder that we should continue challenging politicians who say that America can't afford to feed its people.

My hope is that these postcards refocus this administration on the things that matter. I hope that they remind the Secretary of her duty to carry out SNAP in good faith and as it was intended: to provide for the basic nutritional needs of the American people; to provide a hand up at a time when so many need help affording groceries, rent, utilities and childcare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Chief Jeff Tate, on his retirement after 28 years with the Shakopee Police Department. Chief Tate is a dedicated public servant and model for community first policing.

Under his leadership, the Shakopee PD launched Minnesota's first-ever police recovery assistance program in 2015. The Shakopee Police Recovery Assistance Program (RAP) provides people in active addiction with scholarship money to seek treatment and has served dozens of Minnesotans since its inception.

Chief Tate's work to address the addiction crisis extends well beyond Minnesota. In 2023, he became one of eleven officers to join the Public Safety Council for the Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative (PAARI), helping spread the importance of this work across the country. Last year, he received recognition from PAARI and was presented with the ``Leadership Award for Advocacy and Community''.

I first met Chief Tate after becoming the Congresswoman for Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District in 2019. Over the years, I've sought guidance from Chief Tate, especially on topics related to law enforcement, community policing, mental health and addiction. I have also had the honor of working with him through my Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Advisory Council, where his insights have been invaluable.

Chief Tate's compassionate approach to policing is respected and recognized by his peers. He has won numerous awards including the MN Chiefs of Police Association ``President's Award'' and the MN Department of Public Safety's ``Distinguished Public Leadership Award''. Last year, Mothers Against Drunk Driving awarded Chief Tate and the Shakopee PD their ``Outstanding Law Enforcement Agency Award''.

I am grateful for Chief Tate's public service and share his love of country music--especially Garth Brooks. His impact in Shakopee and across Minnesota will be felt for generations to come. I wish Chief Tate the best in retirement.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to start by thanking my colleagues in the Democratic Party who did everything in their power to make these bills as best they could under very difficult circumstances.

Over the past month, President Trump has made it his mission to incite chaos and fear in Minnesota. He has taken his quest for political retribution to our communities, and Minnesotans have paid the price.

Through President Trump and Kristi Noem's reckless and lawless ICE operations, the administration has targeted communities of color, ripped families apart, detained U.S. citizens, and made it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs. As a result, it has endangered every single Minnesotan.

Earlier this month, the President's political stunt got a Minneapolis mother, Renee Good, killed. That didn't prompt the President to withdraw ICE or attempt to deescalate the unfolding situation in our cities. Why? Because escalation isn't a symptom. It is the whole point.

I won't vote to give Kristi Noem's ICE one damn penny, but the truth is, I refuse to play any part in this administration's cruel and dangerous agenda. While there are certainly some important provisions in these bills, and I commend my colleagues for working to get them to the place that I know we are now, I can't in good faith support any funding package that enables this administration in any way until ICE de-escalates in Minnesota.

This is not how we operate in America. It is certainly not how we operate in Minnesota. As Members of Congress, we must do everything in our power to fight this administration at every turn, and that means using the power of the purse to curb the President's executive authority.

I urge my colleagues in this body to support me. Enough is enough.