Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7567. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise…
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7567.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress.
Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension, and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026. It is time to get this critical legislation done. I have said it before and I will say it again, because it is important: This bill was not written in Congress. It was written out in the fields and pastures of our great Nation while the Agriculture Committee held over 150 listening sessions. We went to farmers and ranchers in rural communities, and we asked them what they needed from Congress. Every provision in this bill is directly informed by what we learned in these listening sessions.
Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill, and even more, on what is not in the bill.
I would like to remind everyone of the facts. This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan. Upon introduction, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act included or drew upon 150 bipartisan marker bills.
During the committee's 22-hour markup, over 100 amendments were offered and debated with 46 adopted, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It passed the committee with strong bipartisan support. It also enjoys the endorsement of over 500 agriculture stakeholder groups.
I am asking Congress to join the hardworking men and women who feed, fuel, and clothe our country in supporting this farm bill. Now is not the time to turn our backs on rural America.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that most of what the gentlewoman, a good friend of mine, says is not in this bill is not in our jurisdiction. It is not a part of the farm bill because it doesn't fit.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee and chair emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad), chairman of the Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, facts matter. There was no reduction in the amount of the monetary value of SNAP benefits. In fact, there is some really good enhancements to the SNAP program within this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), the vice chair of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee,
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am so proud of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. It actually doesn't cut conservation. We add 24 percent to the baseline, a significant amount of money for conservation, more than we have ever had.
Quite frankly, this bill protects health, food affordability, and our Nation's sovereignty. Unfortunately, Ms. Luna's amendment that was made reference to will do harm to all three of those.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), the vice chair of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, just a reminder, farm bill 1.0, which was signed into law last July, is the single largest investment in our farm families in a generation.
There were $66 billion in benefits in so many ways, and quite frankly, specialty crop growers love this farm bill we are working on right now. This farm bill does restore the farm-to-school and farm-to- food bank provisions.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), who is the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Illinois for mentioning our former colleague whom we all miss dearly, David Scott. I am proud this bill actually memorializes him by naming the 1890 program permanently in his honor. I am sure glad that we did that in the bill markup in committee when he was there versus waiting to do it here on the House floor.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland. In the first part of her presentation, she clearly made the case of why we need the Farm, Food, and National Security Act when she very accurately talked about all the challenges and difficulties our farm families are facing. Just a reminder, SNAP benefits have not been cut.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz), vice chair of the Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, what can I say? I am not sure my good friend, the ranking member, would recognize a bipartisan bill because this one truly is. This was not written in Washington. This was written while traveling the country, Republicans and Democrats, 43 different States, 1 territory, over close to 160 different listening sessions. We did it in a tripartisan way, Republicans and Democrats. We invited Republicans and Democrats in those given States we were visiting who were not on the committee. Certainly, the tripartisanship was the farmers, the ranchers, the folks in rural America, the people from nutrition organizations, and the people involved in conservation and wildlife who all came out to help write this bill.
The base bill, when it was in committee, had 40 provisions in there that were led by Democrats. I didn't put them in there to gain votes, obviously. They were there because they were good provisions. It contributed to a great product--140 provisions that were completely bipartisan, at least one Republican and one Democrat, probably more of both on those provisions.
As you heard in the amendment process in committee, we had 100 amendments that were debated. Quite frankly, what was accepted was really 50/50. It was equal. There must be a definition of bipartisanship I am just not aware of.
Mr. Chair, I hear a lot of discussions here about things that are not in the bill, but they are not in our jurisdiction, things like financial assistance. I helped lead the first financial assistance over a year ago for our farmers, and we need more, but it is not within the scope of the farm bill.
I hear about E15. I don't think that is such a bad idea, year-round E15, but that is the Energy and Commerce committee. That is not the Agriculture Committee.
I hear about trade. Trade is the Ways and Means Committee. I will say we did double foreign market development and market access program, which are tools to help our farmers get access to trade, but we don't have trade itself in our jurisdiction.
There are no SNAP cuts. The amount of money that families get is the same as what they got under the Biden administration. Now, we increased accountability. If you are here illegally, you are not eligible because this is something that is really meant for citizens.
We have done enhancements to the SNAP program. We are going after criminals within this farm bill, looking to increase the technology with the EBT cards to prevent misuse of it, enhancements, dairy incentives, adding protein incentives with SNAP.
This is a great bill. This is a bill for today. This is a bill also for tomorrow, and I am proud of the bipartisan work that went into it.
I am a little disgusted, actually, by the politics that have come into this by folks who are running for higher office or are looking to November. I don't look to November. I look every day to how we can help our farm families, ranch families, forestry families, and everyday Americans who pick up the tools of agriculture, be it a knife, fork, or spoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to bring this bill forward and encourage, in the end, a positive vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I offer amendments en bloc.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 strengthens SNAP by cracking down on criminals who swipe benefits from EBT cards; increasing access to SNAP nutrition center programs, specifically adding protein to those opportunities; and making SNAP online purchasing a permanent option nationwide, which is a tremendous service for perhaps older adults and people living with disabilities who are not able to get to the grocery store. Many of these vendors are not charging for the shipping. That is something they will do for free.
So yes, I am rather proud of this. Would I sooner be doing this bill? I think my good friends on the Agriculture Committee have heard my golden rule. I would sooner not do anything after 11 o'clock or midnight, but that is the hand we were dealt here. Quite frankly, our farmers need it, and they need it now. This was the hand we were dealt for time, so this is when we are getting it done.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say a few words, and then I will yield back for the gentlewoman to do the same.
It is kind of interesting. I am hearing good things about bipartisanship in this en bloc. This en bloc is about half of the amendments that we have on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. Just a few minutes ago, I heard there was completely no bipartisanship, and now I am hearing good things about bipartisanship.
Again, there must be a different definition for ``bipartisanship'' than the one that I normally follow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
I have had the opportunity to travel to his area and to just see how critical this amendment is. Water is life giving. Water is about being able to, obviously, provide for food.
This amendment will ensure that areas of the Columbia Basin Project will be included in the Western Waters Regional Conservation Area. Including this area within that designation would allow for more opportunities for conservation activities in this region.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from California, who offered this amendment.
Improving conservation practice standards and further incorporating science, technology, and innovation throughout the programs has been a priority for me as this bill has been developed.
This farm bill contains language requiring USDA to more frequently update the practice standards on a recurring basis, along with a robust public process to gather input requests and suggestions.
While NRCS already does have an existing practice standard to cover the construction of a structure to facilitate the composting process, this amendment goes beyond that to create a new standard for the production and/or use of composts.
While I don't view these particular activities to be specified in the programs or in need of a separate standard, I am going to support this amendment today.
Mr. Chair, once again, I encourage the adoption of this amendment into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend from California, Salud Carbajal, for bringing this amendment forward that aligns the underlying statute with current practice at the USDA. This is another great bipartisan improvement to this farm bill.
The Dairy Business Innovation Initiative supports dairy businesses and development, production, marketing, and distribution of the products.
The technical assistance and sub-awards provided under this program play an important role in supporting the profitability of our Nation's dairy producers.
USDA currently supports four centers, as we have heard, located in California, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. This amendment allows the statute of DBII to bring certainty to all four centers.
I am in support of this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for representing the gentleman from Missouri on his amendment that he has offered.
This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a tree-planting grant program that results in a reduction of residential energy consumption. It is simple: More trees make for more livable and enjoyable communities.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlewoman from Connecticut serving as his proxy for bringing this amendment this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Arkansas for raising this issue.
We can all agree that rotisserie chicken is a healthy and convenient option for families. SNAP was designed by Congress to purchase food at eligible retailers to be cooked and prepared at home, meaning hot prepared foods are not eligible for purchase at this point. I have concerns about the unintended consequences that may arise should Congress begin to chip away piecemeal like that the ban on hot food in SNAP without considering the broader ramifications, particularly for program integrity.
A change of this kind, especially one that singles out a specific food item, presents a slippery slope and deserves careful consideration and debate about the purchase of SNAP.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing forward this commonsense amendment. We are talking about archaic regulations. We are not talking about payments or anything like that. We are talking about peeling a banana, preparing an apple slice, or preparing a carrot. We want kids to eat healthy versus prepackaged, processed foods.
This amendment would ensure that USDA, the food safety experts, and HHS, the childcare regulators, work together to ensure that childcare regulations governing the preparation and handling of low-risk fruits and vegetables do not present unnecessary red tape for providers.
I appreciate the gentlewoman and encourage a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, a good friend, Congressman Gosar, for offering this amendment, and President Trump for a successful negotiation with Mexico regarding their water treaty obligations.
It is important that producers are as well informed as possible of the many programs out there to help the losses due to a lack of water, and this amendment is a great way to do so. I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for offering this amendment.
This is an issue I heard about years ago when we started this process of preparing for this farm bill. Actually, it was the president of the Arizona Farm Bureau who brought it to my attention.
These are Mexican wolves that are coming across the border and doing tremendous damage. Ensuring that our livestock producers are able to more accurately receive an indemnification of livestock depredations by Mexican wolves is yet another step to continue to provide producers with the most adequate coverage possible.
Providing new evidence standards within the Livestock Indemnity Program will no doubt help more accurately determine depredations for unfortunate losses.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Arizona for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is really important to understand what is and what is not in this amendment.
Preventing USDA from entering into unnecessary research relationships with adversarial nations, such as China and Russia, really is a critical step in ensuring the security of our U.S. research infrastructure. It is even more important when doing so prevents unnecessary research on vertebrate species.
This amendment affirms actions that have already been taken by the administration to prevent this type of work, while still allowing for narrow waiver authority in the case of unavoidable research in the name of national security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I thank the gentleman for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is important for Congress to get more information from USDA and States on the pilot projects that restrict SNAP purchases, as it is this body who ultimately decides what changes, if any, are made permanently at the Federal level.
I have looked warily at USDA offering all of these waivers. Today, 22 States have been approved by USDA to test the ban. I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii really laying out just the confusion and chaos.
I guess we will look at it as the laboratories of innovation to test the ban on the purchase of certain food and beverages with SNAP benefits. I think they missed the mark because the average SNAP beneficiary uses at least three forms of payment and plenty of their own cash or a check or a debit card to satisfy that sweet tooth that I find most families have. That is sad.
So I support the gentleman's amendment because I think we need to have feedback. However, only 10 of those waivers are in effect, with the remainder to be in later this year in 2027, early 2028.
This amendment ensures that, upon completion of the waivers, Congress receives a robust evaluation of the pilots, along with recommendations from the USDA regarding changes to the Federal definition of ``eligible foods'' because, frankly, that is our job under Article I to determine that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for offering this amendment.
Access to Federal lands for grazing is extremely important for supporting producers, particularly in the West. While the framework for grazing permits on Federal lands is provided through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the law references lands within national forests, rather than the broader National Forest System.
This amendment is intended to ensure permit renewals for grazing on grasslands is similar to and more consistent with such renewals on other forest land. It is an efficiency measure, as well. I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, animal disease traceability is an extremely important aspect of protecting our domestic livestock herds and our foreign trade markets.
We have already seen the importance of animal disease traceability and EID tags with dairy cattle due to the ongoing outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza.
USDA helps producers comply with this rule by providing the tags at no cost to producers, and the rule this amendment seeks to repeal has been in effect for more than 18 months already with no negative consequences.
Producers recognize that animal disease traceability is an essential component of protecting livestock during an animal disease outbreak.
We cannot allow ourselves to be in a position where efforts to improve animal disease traceability are hampered. For this reason I must respectfully oppose the gentlewoman from Wyoming's amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), the ranking member of the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with the gentlewoman more. We have seen significant examples of how important these EID tags have been in tracking the highly pathogenic avian influenza as it has gotten into our dairy cows in different parts of the country.
She referenced the New World screwworm. That is a huge threat to the United States. Thankfully, so far we have successfully avoided that with the building of the different production facilities for sterile flies, which is really the proven solution or remedy to that.
Being able to track the cattle--once again, we cannot hamper our ability to improve animal disease traceability.
With the greatest respect to the gentlewoman who was the author of this amendment, I encourage all Members to oppose it, 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 thank the gentlewoman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for her amendment and for the ranking member representing her this evening.
This amendment would increase the loan guarantee cap for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to $400 million. This mandatory funded program, last funded in 2020, has a large unobligated balance, and raising the loan caps will ensure needed projects get funded.
Bipartisan amendments like these continue to improve the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
Mr. Chairman, I find it sad that we enter into cheap shots regarding organizations that, when they see something that you are working hard on behalf of the American farmer, and they want to make a legal, ethical donation, they can do that. That tells me that
the arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they are emotional. They are not science-based.
The sections that this amendment seeks to strike deliver commonsense regulatory reforms that are critical for securing access to well- regulated pesticide tools for a variety of crop production and public health needs.
The language also reflects thoughtful changes to address stakeholder concerns, such as making sure it is crystal clear that the EPA can still respond quickly to new scientific findings and that existing State authorities are maintained.
The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statutes that the EPA is the authoritative voice for making safety findings related to pesticides communicated through legal, binding labels while retaining States' authority for the sale, use, and distribution of crop protections.
I don't know if Maine and Florida have toxicologists on staff. I would tell you that I am absolutely confident that less than half of the States have the qualified individuals in order to put forward labeling.
The gentleman from Georgia is right. This is about a labeling bill and making sure that we are--and, by the way, the States can weigh in with the EPA. They just have to go through the EPA if they have special circumstances for labeling.
The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statute that the EPA--this includes States' ability to not register a product at all within the jurisdiction. Regulatory certainty in making sure that there is a clear science-based regulatory system that is rooted in scientific review from the EPA, not courtroom science that overrides Federal findings, is what producers need.
Frankly, it is disappointing that this body has to revisit and clarify existing statutes to reaffirm the State labeling laws, such as California Proposition 65, which has already been found to be in violation of the Constitution when applied to products containing glyphosate, which are not allowed under the existing law because trial lawyers have scrambled to find every possible loophole in Federal law.
Additionally, this package also provides States who have a formal relationship with the EPA as co-regulators on pesticide products with clarity that they are able to submit.
Mr. Chair, I encourage the defeat of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for managing it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. I thank my good friend from Maine who has the best tasting kelp I have ever had. It was delicious along with everything else.
I was happy to see USDA established a new Office of Seafood this month to better support and serve our seafood industry, helping to enable the administration's America first seafood strategy.
American seafood is a vital part of the U.S. food supply. I think it is a vital part of American agriculture. Codifying this office will ensure that this support continues for years to come by providing dedicated resources, time, and coordination for the industry.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for many of our Nation's coastal areas, fishermen represent not just a way to make a living, but they are the embodiment of the community's culture.
Although commercial fishermen catch 8.4 billion pounds of seafood each year, they do not qualify for the same access to credit as many of our Nation's other food producers due to their unique business structure.
Adopting this amendment is one of the many actions that we can take to expand access to credit for these vital businesses that serve as a lifeblood of their coastal communities, and our ag lenders are already uniquely suited to provide this capital.
That being said, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for introducing this amendment.
I did not support the amendment that passed out of committee by voice vote banning greyhound racing nationwide. I think a ban is heavyhanded. It sets a dangerous precedent, and it doesn't take into consideration the tracks that are currently in operation, which are basically just two in West Virginia.
There are only two greyhound racetracks left in the country, both of which are located in West Virginia, one of the tracks being located in Mr. Moore's district.
Mr. Moore's amendment strikes a fair compromise by maintaining the ban on any future operations outside of West Virginia while preserving the tracks and associated jobs that already exist.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Colorado.
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program offers financial and technical assistance to eligible participants for watershed impairments after flooding, fires, or other natural disasters.
This program is important for addressing such urgent threats, including the removal of debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges protecting stream banks, establishing vegetative cover on eroding lands, and repairing some conservation practices.
This amendment would help encourage quicker response by ensuring that partner costs can be considered as part of the match if incurred prior to entering into an agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their interest in a program with tremendous potential to deliver solutions for our Nation's producers, the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority Program, also known as AGARDA.
Modeled off of similar programs in the defense and energy sectors, AGARDA is focused on filling high-risk areas where there is high payoff potential, but the private sector is unlikely to undertake research alone.
While I appreciate the interest in strengthening this program, promoting climate solutions does not fit into the underlying mission of AGARDA and takes away from its mission.
We see substantial investment from the private sector and miscellaneous
nongovernment organizations on this topic, and it would be inappropriate to add to this program when these activities are already well-funded.
For this reason, I will not be supporting this amendment's inclusion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing forward this amendment. This is a win-win for agriculture and for our neighbors in need.
By streamlining applications for nutrition programs redeemed at farmers' markets and stands, this amendment will remove bureaucratic red tape and expand markets for our farmers and ranchers while increasing access to fresh, locally grown food for lower-income families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. Our system of voluntary, incentive-based, and locally led conservation is a proven model providing benefits to both producer and the environment.
Conservation programs also provide important benefits for wildlife habitat as we see in the case of the SAFE Initiative and other programs like the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program.
Since acres are typically enrolled in SAFE through the continuous enrollment option, this amendment would simply codify that. As such, I support the amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.