Representatives Gosar, Mace, and Grothman drive the House floor debate on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, passing amendments to define woody biomass, update dairy funding, and restrict USDA research in adversarial nations like China. While Gosar seeks liability protections for ranchers against Mexican wolves, Mace codifies a new Office of Seafood to combat foreign imports, and Grothman pushes grazing permits despite opposition over environmental reviews. The session concludes with a contentious vote on banning sugary drinks from SNAP benefits, which passes despite warnings that restricting choices harms struggling families, alongside broader legislative moves extending FISA surveillance and immigration enforcement funding. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Forest Fire Risk Reduction00:14:48
For their support of this amendment.
The amendment falls within the Farm Bill under Title VIII, Forestry, and Title IX, Energy.
Consistent with these titles, this amendment will incentivize the removal of excess fuel from our forests, thus reducing fire risk and improving forest health.
And it will make possible the productive use of what otherwise would be considered waste.
For too long, federal policy has treated wood fiber from federal lands in only two ways: either as merchantable saw timber with commercial value or as waste with no value whatsoever.
This policy ignores an entire category of low-value woody material that could be removed from federal forests, including slash limbs, storm debris, thinning materials, small diameter trees, and other byproducts that do not fit neatly in traditional lumber markets, but still carry real economic value.
And this amendment would help realize on that value.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a practical fix.
It treats federal forest material as an opportunity, not a liability.
It creates value where federal policy currently perpetuates waste, and it provides land managers, mills, and rural communities with another tool to make federal forests healthier, more productive, and less dangerous.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlemen of Reserves, for what purposes does the gentlelady from Ohio seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Wildfires are a significant threat to rural communities, and I support efforts to bring down the cost of forest treatments that would help protect these communities.
This amendment, though, just uses those rural communities as a prop in order to disguise the fact that it would expand the renewable fuel standards definition to every single tree across our public lands.
It is not limited to the wildland-urban interface where thinning would have the most impact.
There are no limits on this, not for protected wilderness, beloved recreation areas, or old growth.
It does not matter if the tree is cut down as part of a responsible forest restoration project or a clear cut.
This proposal is reckless and would endanger our public lands.
I urge my colleagues to oppose.
And with that, I reserve.
Gentlelady Reserves, gentlemen from Oregon's recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman.
Gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend from Oregon, Mr. Bence's amendment.
This may be the most simple, straight-to-the-point, easy-to-understand amendment.
It does one thing.
It corrects the definition of woody biomass.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that woody biomass is biomass that comes from wood.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, you heard that right.
Woody biomass is biomass that comes from wood, and this amendment would fix that definition.
Mr. Chairman, only in the federal government would this clarification be required.
For the love of trees everywhere and for basic human understanding, I encourage everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back.
I reserve.
Gentleman from Oregon Reserves, gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Reserve.
Gentlelady from Ohio Reserves, gentleman from Oregon's recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield one minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank Mr. Bence, Mr. Westerman, for their work on this issue.
It is a very simple proposal, and I think the most important thing for the forestry industry and the forestry industry is not healthy right now.
And it doesn't matter if it's the logger or the person who drives the truck or the person who actually owns the land with the trees on it.
It creates value for what otherwise would be waste.
It's a good amendment.
It's a simple amendment, and I encourage the adoption of it.
And again, I thank Mr. Bence and Mr. Westerman for their work on this issue.
With that, I respect.
Reserve.
Gentleman from Oregon Reserves, gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
I reserve.
Gentlelady from Ohio Reserves.
Gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
We're prepared to close.
Gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill, and we need it in Oregon.
We have 30 million acres of trees, and we absolutely need what this bill would provide.
With that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose this amendment, and with that, I yield back the balance of my vote.
The gentlelady yields.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
I'd like to request the yays and nays.
Does the gentlelady request a recorded vote?
Yes.
I like it.
It is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in part B of House Report 119, text 628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee for the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Brownlee, and I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number three, printed in Part B of House Report number 112-628, offered by Ms. Brown of Ohio.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized.
The NRCS currently includes composting facility as a conservation practice standard, but assistance under this standard is limited to the construction of a structure to facilitate composting.
This amendment proposes specifically to designate composting as a practice standard that is not tied to a structure, but simply on activities to produce compost from organic waste.
The amendment also requires review of the current composting facility practice standard and has provisions to address greenhouse gas emissions.
This proposal would allow farms that use compost to more fully participate in and benefit from conservation programs regardless of whether they build a structure.
This could also reduce food waste, and I support the amendment.
With that, I reserve.
Gentlelady from Ohio Reserves, gentlemen from Pennsylvania is recognized.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition, although I'm not opposed this amendment.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
I thank the gentlelady from California who offered this amendment.
Improving conservation practice standards and further incorporating science, technology, 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 and on a reoccurring 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 compost.
And while I don't view these particular activities to be specified in the programs or need of a separate standard, I am going to support this amendment today.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
I reserve.
Gentlelady, reserves.
Mr. Speaker, once again, or Mr. Chairman, once again, I support and encourage members, I encourage the adoption of this amendment into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
And I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
I'm prepared to close.
Gentlelady is recognized.
I urge all members to support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Ohio.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part B of House Report 119, Act 628.
For what purpose the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number four, printed at Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Carver Hall of California.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from California, Mr. Cullahall, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage every member of this chamber to support my Dairy Business Innovation Initiative amendment.
The Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives support dairy businesses in the development, production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products.
They provide technical assistance to dairy businesses directly or through industry experts and research institutions.
USDA initially awarded three equal grants through a competitive selection process to the University of Tennessee, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, and the University of Wisconsin.
While a fourth initiative was later awarded by USDA in 2021 to the Pacific Coast Coalition Dairy Business Innovation Initiative, DBII, at Fresno State University, which serves California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and 135 grantees from 34 congressional districts.
Even with the addition of the fourth initiative, Congressional Appropriations has consistently directed the majority of funds to be equally distributed between the three original initiatives outside the Pacific Coast Coalition region.
That's even when accounting for California being ranked number one in milk production, number one in butter, number one in milk powder, number one in ice cream, and number two in cheese with over 140 manufacturing facilities.
Despite the Pacific Coast Coalition's region of six states producing 29 percent of all milk in the U.S. and 45 percent of total experts, they still do not get an equal amount of funding.
My amendment simply would update the statute to recognize that there are four regionally located initiatives and ensure that each of these initiatives are accounted for when funding is administered, just achieving parity.
This could also allow for more equitable distribution of funding between the four initiatives, which has historically not been the case since the inception of the Pacific Coast Coalition.
So again, I ask this body to join me in passing my amendment to ensure more equitable distribution between the four dairy business innovation initiatives.
I reserve.
General Reserves, for what purposes the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
Without objections, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate my good friend from California, Salud Carbohal, for bringing this amendment forward that aligns 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 in the development, production, marketing, and distribution of their products.
The technical assistance and sub-awards provide under this program play an important role in supporting the profitability of our nation's dairy producers.
USDA currently supports four centers, as you've heard, located in California, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
And this amendment allows the statue of DBII to bring certainty to all four centers.
I'm supportive of this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.
And I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Gentleman from California is recognized.
I thank the gentleman for speaking on the merits of this amendment.
With that, I'll reserve.
Gentleman has the only time left.
With that, I would close and yield.
Gentleman is recognized.
Gentleman yields.
Yes.
Gentleman yields.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendments agreed to.
It is
now in order to consider amendment number five, printed part b of house report 119, tax 628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Connecticut seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a designee for the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, and I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number five, printed Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Hayes of Connecticut.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Thank you.
Raw Food Safety Standards00:11:03
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, which is based on the Bipartisan Trees Act.
The Forest Service has long supported urban and community forestry, especially since a single tree can reduce energy cost of homes by 8 to 12 percent.
That's why Democrats provided $1.5 billion for the urban and community forest program at the Forest Service in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Of course, Republicans were not satisfied to just let that program continue, so they rescinded the remaining money in HR1, along with the $187 billion in SNAP funding cuts.
The existing urban and community forestry program requires a 50% cost share.
However, while the program established by Representative Cleaver's amendment would provide up to 90 percent, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady reserves.
For what purposes gentlemen from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
I rise in opposition to this amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
Without objection, the members recognize for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentlelady for representing the gentleman from Missouri for his amendment that he's 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.
And that point I'll reserve.
Gentleman, reserves.
Gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more.
I just urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Okay, good enough.
Well, you know, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlelady from Connecticut for serving as his proxy this evening on this.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentleman yields questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It's now in order to consider amendment number seven, printed in Part B of House Report 119, text 628.
For what purpose did the gentleman from Arkansas seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number seven, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, and the member opposed each will control five minutes.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today on behalf of rural communities in support of my amendment, which clarifies that USDA Circuit Rider Program activities that are necessary to prevent imminent harm to life or property shall be treated as accepted activities during government shutdowns.
The USDA Circuit Rider Program is a hugely successful initiative that provides necessary technical expertise and training to rural communities.
The technical expertise is critical to communities to operate safe and clean drinking water systems and helps ensure compliance with current water regulations.
Circuit riders, as these experts are referred to, are in the field every day helping these communities with water system compliance, operations, maintenance management, and training.
Additionally, this assistance protects the federal government's sizable investment in rural water infrastructure.
Under most government shutdowns, the circuit rider program has been deemed essential because of the critical role it plays to prevent imminent harm to life and property until the most recent shutdown in October.
Circuit riders routinely serve as first responders for the rural water sector, providing immediate assistance during system failures, water quality violations, natural disasters, and other emergencies, often as the only available technical resource.
Therefore, it's essential even during a government shutdown that this program continues.
My amendment simply clarifies that during a lapse in appropriations, the circuit rider program will continue to be funded and operational.
Even during a government shutdown, folks in rural communities continue to need safe and clean drinking water.
And for that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve.
Gentlemen, reserves, for what purpose does the gentlelady from Ohio seek recognition?
Connecticut.
Mr. Speaker, I rise and claim time in opposition, but I'm not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield myself as much time as I may consider.
Without objection, gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you.
I rise in support of this amendment.
USDA technical assistance for rural water systems is key to maintaining their safety and effectiveness.
This is a common sense approach to governance that would ensure that the Circuit Rider program would be available to rural communities that rely on it during government shutdowns.
These professionals help small communities with management, regulatory compliance, water quality, and infrastructure maintenance to ensure sustainable service.
I support this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady Reserves, gentleman is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
Gentleman yields, gentlelady is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support Mr. Crawford's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It's now in order to consider amendment number eight, printed in part B of House Report 119, TAC 628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Arkansas seek recognition?
I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number eight, printed in Part B of House Report No. 119-628, offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to introduce my bipartisan hot rotisserie chicken amendment number eight to H.R. 7567, Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026.
My amendment seeks to add hot rotisserie chicken to the list of foods eligible for SNAP recipients to purchase.
By expanding access to hot rotisserie chicken, we're providing families with a high-quality, nutrient-dense protein source.
This directly aligns with the new dietary guidelines for Americans established by the Department of Agriculture and is a step toward making America healthy again.
Hot rotisserie chicken is available at most local grocery stores that accept SNAP and is often around $5 or $6.
That's a great bargain considering the multiple meals you can get from one chicken.
Plus, there's no financial burden on the taxpayer associated with this amendment.
Currently, SNAP participants may only purchase cold rotisserie chicken, which is simply refrigerated hot chicken.
This requirement not only degrades quality but also wastes energy and adds unnecessary cost.
Additionally, some Americans lack easy access to reheating methods, making it difficult for them to warm and consume the cold rotisserie chicken.
By allowing the purchase of hot rotisserie chicken, we give families the opportunity to use it as a meal or as an ingredient in countless recipes such as chicken salad, enchiladas, soups, casseroles, and the list goes on and on.
This meaningful change will allow families to enjoy a wider variety of wholesome meals.
Governors from states around the country and my great state of Arkansas have pending waiver requests at the US Day to allow their states to make hot rotisserie chicken SNAP eligible.
Their leadership demonstrates the growing recognition that this amendment is not only practical and targeted, but essential to our constituents.
Together, we can make our nutrition assistance programs more effective and make a positive impact on American families with this sensible, targeted addition.
And with that, I reserve.
Gentleman Reserves, for what purpose does the gentlelady from Connecticut seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you.
While I agree with the premise of this amendment, I'm not interested in picking winners and losers.
The Hot Foods Act addresses this issue the right way by ensuring that all foods that are hot at the point of sale can be purchased with SNAP benefits, including not just pre-cooked rotisserie chickens, but hot sandwiches, soups, and much more.
This amendment lacks the proper guardrails to avoid unintentional opening up to SNAP to restaurants.
This fix should be allowed to all hot foods.
I will be opposing this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote no as well.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady Reserves, gentlemen from Arkansas is recognized.
I'd like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the House Ag Committee, Mr. G.T. Thompson.
Gentleman is recognized.
Well, 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 food 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 at the ban on hot food and 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 purpose of SNAP.
And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman from Arkansas Reserves, gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields.
Gentlemen from Arkansas is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I urge adoption of the amendment and yield the balance of my time.
Gentleman yields questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have.
Recorded vote.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Ask for a recorded vote.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment number 14 printed in Part B of House Report 119, TAC 628.
For what purpose the gentlewoman from Washington seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 14, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Perez of Washington.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Perez, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized.
Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment to direct the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop a low-risk classification for healthy, fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods that are typically consumed raw.
Child Care Nutrition Rules00:14:24
And I'd like to tell the body a little bit about how this came to be.
I have a four-year-old.
I was touring a daycare like many in our state, and I learned a daycare worker came up to me and she asked me, Hey, Congresslady, why can I legally open a bag of chips for the toddlers, but I can't peel a banana?
Which was perplexing and annoying to me, and I dug into this and I kept asking questions.
And what I heard from regulators and licensors over and over and over was that this woman was stupid, that her boss had lied to her, that she just didn't understand the rules.
And when I dug and I dug and I dug, what I found was that, yes, buried deep in the bowels of the 1,200 pages of documents a licensed daycare provider has to follow in my state, a number of sinks they would need per exterior linear wall foot.
I am not kidding.
And this daycare would have needed six more sinks before they could legally Legally peel a banana because peeling a banana, apparently, is considered food preparation.
But opening a bag of chips is not.
And I doubt anyone on God's Green Earth would have chosen to advantage Cheetos over a banana.
But that is what has happened through a lack of respect and regard for people who actually work in child care, through candidly, an establishment that is so old they don't have kids in daycare, or so rich that they had nannies instead of ordinary daycare.
But what this body, I am so proud of this body for listening to this issue, for hearing me, and for helping me to find a way to legitimize fresh fruits and vegetables in daycares again.
And so what this does is it directs the Secretary of Ag to develop a list of food.
It says, look, handling a raw chicken cutlet is not the same thing as peeling a banana.
Let's have a different classification.
Let's post these on a website somewhere.
And let's say that states who are taking money for child care will not negatively impact the licenses of daycare centers based on their provision of these foods to children given a hand washing sink is available.
A very simple, common sense, right-sizing of legislation, and one that I have heard from people across the country.
This is not an issue just in my state.
This is across the country where legislation has not paid attention or genuine flexion to people actually doing the work of taking care of children, who has mistaken following a checklist with care for children.
Those are not the same things.
And we need to empower the people who are actually doing the work.
We need to bring down the cost of child care, and that's what this legislation does.
And I am so grateful to the body for working with me to find a way to do this.
And I reserve the remainder of my time.
Gentlelady reserves.
For what purpose does for what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek claim time in opposition.
Gentlemen is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield myself such time as they may consume.
Gentlemen is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleagues' interest in ensuring that children in child care have access to healthy and fresh foods whenever possible, this amendment, unfortunately, as written, could wind up doing more harm than good.
Child care has been underfunded for decades, leading to an inadequate supply of programs, high cost of prosthetic families, and low wages for providers.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation, only 15% of federally eligible children currently receive subsidies under the Child Care and Development Fund, and many more don't even qualify for the fund who actually need the assistance.
That's why I introduced with the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee, the Child Care for Working Families Act, which would make historic investments in child care to raise the pay and improve access to families.
This amendment, submitted by the gentlelady from Washington, requires the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Agriculture to, quote, update relevant nutrition and food safety preparation regulations and guidelines that are, quote, related to nutrition and food safety preparation in child care facilities.
This amendment provides broad discretion for the secretaries to usurp state and local food safety guidelines.
And if states don't conform their child care regulations to whatever the secretaries deem appropriate, they could lose funding, which as indicated is already inadequate.
There are no real guardrails to the scope of the changes that the secretaries could propose under the amendment, and states could be punished if they do not adopt the same standards as mandated by the secretaries.
This amendment, therefore, is too broad, allows too much discretion to an administration which has already shown its willingness to cancel or freeze funding for social service programs in Democratic states.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same and reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
I think we all agree that child care is underfunded.
What we don't agree about here is the question of whether and how to appropriately fund it and who is the one who decides where those dollars should go.
I would say that in my case, in the case of the daycare worker I was speaking with, they would have had to install six more sinks to comply with the regulations as written.
How much money do you think that takes?
Do you think that's going to make daycares stretch further and provide more daycare to more families?
No, these rules were not written.
They were not perfect.
We should not treat legislation as if it's manifest from God in a perfect form on our notebooks.
The reality is that doing legislation is more similar to doing the dishes, where you do the dishes, to do the dishes, to do the dishes.
It's never done, and you have to keep going back to the people who are actually doing the implementation of it to understand if it's being implemented and if it's the point of the legislation.
Nobody wanted us to spend these limited dollars installing myriad sinks, maybe the plumbing industry, but I doubt that.
And I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady, reserves.
Gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Do you want time?
Okay, okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I give myself such time as they may consume.
Gentleman is recognized.
Other than to say that that assumes that the federal regulations that they come up with will be better than what they've already come up with.
This could be worse, could be better.
The problem is if you don't actually comply, you could lose your funding.
And I think that would be a step backwards.
So I would hope we would oppose the amendment as it is written and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlemen from Washington is recognized with one minute remaining.
I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for one minute.
I thank the gentlelady for bringing forward this common sense 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, 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 child care regulators, work together to ensure the child care regulations governing the preparation and handling of low-risk fruits and vegetables do not present unnecessary red tape for providers.
I appreciate the gentlelady.
I encourage yes vote, and I yield back whatever time is left to the gentlelady.
Gentlemen yields, gentleladies from Washington is recognized.
States that choose to negatively impact the licenses of daycare providers based on their provision of a peeled banana to a child, I think we ought to consider whether or not that's the best place for us to be spending our limited federal resources.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Time has expired.
Gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the assumption is the regulations that these secretaries will get together and provide will be better than what's already there.
We don't know what they're going to come up with.
We do know, however, that if the state, if the local people don't comply exactly with those regulations, they're going to lose funding.
There's broad discretion on the secretaries.
And as I've said, these secretaries have been known to cancel programs in Democratic states.
I don't think that broad discretion is appropriate, and I hope we defeat the amendment.
And I yield back the balance of my.
The gentleman yields.
Questions on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 15, printed in part B of House Report 119, text 628.
For what purpose did the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have a member at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 15, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and in particular, my amendment number 15 to ensure Arizona farmers are not left behind.
The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the desert southwest.
In my state, it sustains families, small agricultural businesses, and entire rural communities.
Yet today, the lifeline is under growing strain, not just from drought, but from broken commitments.
Under the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the United States.
The deadline passed in October of 2025, and once again, Mexico failed to meet its obligation.
Meanwhile, Arizona continues to deliver water in good faith.
That imbalance has real consequences.
It means lost crops, lost income, and increased uncertainty for hardworking producers already operating on razor-thin margins.
My amendment is straightforward.
It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide Congress with a full accounting of the tools and programs available to assist Arizona producers impacted by those losses, just as this base bill already does for Texas.
If we're going to address the consequences of treaty noncompliance, we must do it comprehensively and fairly.
This is about accountability.
It's about preparedness.
It's about standing with American farmers when they are forced to shoulder burdens not of their own making.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment number 15 and pass the farm bill without a reserve.
Gentleman of reserves, for what purpose does the gentlelady from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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've 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 basin states also experienced some loss, why restrict his amendment only to Arizona?
So with that, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady reserves.
Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he can assume to the chairman of the full coach.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona, good friend, Congressman Gozar, 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, and I yield back.
I reserve.
Gentleman from Arizona Reserves, gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields.
Gentlemen from Arizona is recognized.
Yes, you know, if the gentlelady would have known, Arizona is a terminal ending out of the Mexico of getting they have to take the cuts.
And so we've taken several cuts, and there's plenty of members from other basin states, but they can actually look at those as well.
So this is about the state of Arizona taking terminal ending of the Colorado River, taking cuts.
And with that, I would ask everybody to vote for my amendment and to vote for the farm bill.
And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendments agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 16, printed in part B of House Report 119, TAC 628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 16, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Suit pass resolution 1224.
Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and in strong support of my amendment number 16, to restore fairness for ranchers in Arizona and across the Southwest.
Wolf Conservation Funding00:15:28
For years, ranchers have lived with the realities of predation from the Mexican wolf.
They've understood the balance between conservation and livelihoods.
But what they cannot accept is a federal standard that makes it nearly impossible to receive compensation when their cattle are killed.
Under current guidance issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, ranchers must prove depredation primarily through subcutaneous hemorrhaging, which is blood that forms under the skin.
Now, in the harsh desert climate, where heat and scavengers can quickly degradate a carcass, that standard is often unrealistic and unworkable.
Before 2023, federal policy allowed multiple forms of evidence to confirm predation.
Sticky paper.
My approach simply restores that common sense approach.
It ensures that ranchers are not denied reimbursement because of overly narrow and impractical rules.
This is about fairness.
It's about recognizing real-world conditions on the ground.
And it's about standing with men and women who feed this country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment number 16 and pass the farm bill.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlemen from reserves, for what purpose does the gentlelady from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment forces USDA to revise the existing APIS 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% 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.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady Reserves, gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Yeah, I would like to address the gentlelady first.
Obviously, she doesn't, the previous standards were used for 2004 to 2022 by W. George Bush, Obama, and the beginning of Biden's terms.
So if the Democrats disagree, do they disagree with Obama's agricultural policy as well?
And with that, I yield to the gentleman from the full committee chairman, Mr. Gigi Thompson.
Gentlemen from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to 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 from 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.
So ensuring their livestock producers are able to more accurately receive indemnification of livestock depredations by Mexican wolves and yet another step to continue to provide producers with the most adequate coverage possible.
Providing new evidence standards within livestock, the livestock indemnity program will no doubt help more accurately determine depredations for unfortunate losses.
I support this amendment and I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Gentleman from Arizona Reserves, gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields.
Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Yeah, once again, I'm only asking for fairness because what we see here on the ground was there were other ways of looking at this.
And they're not asking for handouts.
They're wanting just to be treated fairly.
And with that, I ask for my amendment to be actually adopted, and I would like them to actually do the farm bill.
And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It's now in order to consider amendment number 18, printed in part B of House Report 119, TAC 628.
For what purposes?
Gentlemen from Arizona seek recognition.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 18, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
That's resolution 1224, gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, and a member opposed.
Each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today in support of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and in support of my amendment number 18.
This bipartisan common sense amendment puts guardrails on taxpayer dollars by restricting the USDA funding for animal research conducted in adversarial nations like China and Russia, countries that pose clear risks to our national security.
In recent years, Americans have seen the consequences of risky, unaccountable research conducted overseas.
Yet, despite these lessons, federal dollars have continued to flow to foreign labs, including collaborations tied to entities associated with the Wuhan Institute of Irology.
My amendment ensures that it does not happen without serious consequences or justification.
It prohibits the USDA funding for such research unless there is a compelling national security or public and animal health need and requires Congress to be notified in advance.
This is about accountability.
It's about safeguarding taxpayer dollars.
And it's about ensuring Americans' resources are not used in frivolous ways that could undermine our own safety.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment number 18 and pass the farm bill.
And with that, I reserve.
Gentlemen of Reserves, for what purpose does the gentlelady from Hawaii seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield to myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Though I understand wholeheartedly my colleague's position on this topic, I must oppose this amendment.
The United States benefits from broad animal disease monitoring networks that extend worldwide.
Through these scientific connections, our scientists here at home can prepare for and mitigate new and emerging pathogens that would affect livestock here in America.
Global health and safety also depends on shared data.
And just because we remove ourselves from collaborative efforts doesn't mean the research stops.
We simply remove ourselves from receiving any of the benefits shared research could yield.
This amendment would also prohibit education activities on animal research in those countries.
And I would ask my colleagues, do we really want to limit education that could prevent the next outbreak of a zoonotic disease, even if the education is in a country of concern?
I, for one, am not eager to see another pandemic threatening the United States and understand the devastating risks if we are isolated and alone against these threats.
I humbly oppose this amendment and strongly encourage our colleagues to vote no.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Gentlelady Reserves, gentlemen from Arizona is recognized.
Obviously, the gentlelady is not understanding the bill.
My amendment ensures that it does not happen without serious justification.
Yeah, you can share information, but you also have to have the parameters.
I'm a dentist, so I understand these things.
You have to have the parameters and safety aspects, which were not followed in the Wuhan COVID-19 situation.
So with that, you need the proper protocols and the proper aspects.
And it still allows for the public financing of doing that, but it has to be justified.
That's what we want, accountability and transparency.
And with that, I yield to the gentleman, the chairman of the full committee.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing forward this amendment.
It's 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.
And it's 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.
So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and I yield back.
I reserve.
Gentlemen from Arizona Reserves, gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I continue to urge all members to oppose this amendment again while I understand the perspectives and the point of views of the majority.
Again, eliminating ourselves from the opportunity to engage in shared research to the benefit of the health and wellness and the lives of all American people.
We cannot support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlelady yields.
Gentlemen from Arizona is recognized.
Well, once again, affording this type of legislation is about affording COVID or the Wuhan virus or anything else that may come about this.
So we have to make sure that we are accountable to the scientific methodology and to the patients and to the public and to the citizens of this country.
This is about fairness.
It's also about transparency and accountability.
So with that, I ask all folks to vote for my amendment, and with that, I yield back.
The gentleman yields a question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order considering the amendment number 20 printed in Part B of House Report 119, TAC 628.
For what purposes the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 20, printed in Part B of House Report No. 119-628, offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, and a member opposed to each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Thank you.
My amendment will help continue to strengthen the recent SNAP reforms by requiring a report on the SNAP eligible food pilot programs and directing the Department of Agriculture to provide Congress with recommendations on potential updates to the definition of eligible foods under the program.
SNAP is one of the largest nutrition programs in the country.
It's intended to help low-income Americans put food on the table and it plays an essential role in supporting families of need.
At the same time, it is funded by taxpayers and we have a responsibility to ensure it is working as intended.
As part of the broader nutrition programs in this bill, Congress has taken steps to strengthen the connection between federal nutrition programs and improved health outcomes.
This is part of the Maha movement.
This amendment supports that effort by ensuring we evaluate the results of SNAP pilot programs and make informed, data-driven decisions about the program's future.
We know there's a growing concern about how taxpayer dollars are being used within SNAP, particularly regarding which types of foods are eligible for purpose for purchase.
It's something I hear about every time I go to the grocery store.
Through recent reforms, Congress authorized pilot programs allowing states to test ways to better align SNAP purchases with healthier food options.
This amendment ensures that work continues by requiring USDA to report back to Congress on the feasibility, implementation, and effectiveness of these pilots, along with recommendations for any necessary statutory changes.
It takes a measured approach, gathering the facts first and allowing Congress to make thoughtful decisions based on real-world results.
Ultimately, this is about improving outcomes for family, providing better nutrition, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
I look forward to it leading to a thinner, healthier America.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
For what purposes does the gentlelady from Hawaii seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise and claim the time in opposition, but I'm not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield to myself such time as I make assistance.
Without objection, the gentlelady recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I 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, and for many, like my constituents that live in food deserts.
We shouldn't make a program that is supposed to provide relief too confusing and too frustrating for anyone to want to participate in or be able to participate in.
And it's not that SNAP recipients buy different foods than other Americans.
USDA research has shown that SNAP participants purchase foods at rates similar to non-participants.
Despite this, USDA has now approved 22 different state waivers, each of which have different restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP through restriction pilot programs.
One restricts soda and candy.
One restricts soda and energy drinks.
One restricts soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts.
And another one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mince, fruit, leathers, sweetened baking, chocolate, fruits, or nuts with any sugar or honey added, granola bars, unless they include flour.
And some types of popcorn, if it has sugar in it, like kettle corn, are excluded.
So that's just way confusing for too many people.
Better ways to address diet-related chronic disease include investing in fruit and vegetable incentives like GusNP and nutrition education programs.
Unfortunately, as we know, funding for SNAP-Ed, which benefited many states, including mine, which provides grants to states and local organizations in all states and territories to teach people how to stretch their SNAP dollars, cook healthy meals, and lead active lifestyles, was eliminated in the big ugly bill.
The cherry on top is that these restriction pilots depend on the now non-existent SNAP-Ed program to evaluate their effectiveness.
The study proposed in this amendment can provide valuable data about the lack of effectiveness of the waivers, though it is certainly not going to be making up for the loss of SNAP-Ed.
And I cannot emphasize enough that we must seek to restore the funding to this essential program.
Grassland Grazing Permits00:08:28
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Reserves, does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to reclaim his time?
Gentlemen from Wisconsin.
Yes.
Gentleman is recognized.
Just one follow-up there on that.
We talk about making life easier.
Life is easier if you don't become diabetic.
Life is easier if you're thinner.
And as a result, the overall effect of this amendment will make life easier for people.
And you've got to remember, a lot of this food spot on food stamps is going to wind up on the table of young children.
So we particularly want to look out for them.
Gentleman yield.
I yield.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
I thank the gentleman and I thank the chairman.
I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward amendment.
I think it's important for Congress to get more information from USDA and states on the pilot projects to restrict SNAP purchases as it is this body who ultimately decides what changes, if any, are made permanently to federal level.
So I've looked warily at USDA offering all these waivers.
Today, 22 states have been approved by USDA to test a ban.
And I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii really laying out just the confusion and chaos.
I guess we'll look at it as a laboratories of innovation to test a 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 said, so I really support the gentleman's amendment because I think we need to have feedback.
And so, however, only 10 of those waivers are in effect with the remainder to begin 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 1 to determine that.
And so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's amendment.
And I yield back.
Gentlemen from Wisconsin is recognized.
I have no more.
Gentleman yields.
Yeah.
Gentleman yields.
Gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this amendment, and I yield back.
Gentlelady yields.
Question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Vote.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18 for the proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be postponed.
It's a good amendment.
The USDA should not be doing our job.
I don't care who the Secretary is.
Which one will be on?
21?
21.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 21, printed at Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
I rise as the designee for the gentlewoman from Wyoming, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 21, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment number 21 to the farm bill, which would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other federal lands.
Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, authorizes grazing permits for 10 years on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance.
Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for 10 years, but is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLPMA.
Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experienced unnecessary hurdles with the USDA in obtaining these renewals.
When this topic received a legislative hearing, Ty Checkitz, the president of the National Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face.
He stated, the exclusion of national grasslands under FLPMA creates two classes of permits with the grasslands having fewer rights.
He testified that the lack of assurance leads to real-world harms, pointing to the loss of AUMs on multiple grasslands across several states.
U.S. Forest Service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between national forests and national grasslands.
This amendment is a permanent fix to this issue, providing much-needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to 10-year permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve.
Gentleman reserves.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Hawaii rise?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to oppose this amendment, which would extend automatic grazing renewals to the national grasslands, eliminating environmental review, public participation, and tribal consultation in the management of our public lands.
Our national grasslands are extraordinarily precious ecosystems.
62% of similar landscapes have already been lost globally.
As stewards of these public lands, we therefore must ensure that they undergo fulsome analysis to prioritize their restoration and long-term conservation.
This amendment would allow grazing permits to be renewed indefinitely when agencies fail to complete the NEPA on time.
In a time when the Forest Service has lost more than 15% of its staff due to forced retirements and doging, this is the wrong approach.
Though I support responsible grazing of our Republic lands, this amendment would incentivize the Trump administration to keep cutting staff and degrade these landscapes, which are our national heritage.
I must oppose, and Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves.
Gentleman from Wisconsin.
Pennsylvania.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And 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.
And 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 lands.
It's an efficiency measure as well.
So I support this amendment.
I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
The gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to support Amendment No. 21 to support grazers on our national grasslands.
I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Animal Disease Tracking Tags00:07:27
It is now in order to consider amendment number 22, printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk, and this amendment has also been drafted by Representative Hagman.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 22, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment 22 to the farm bill, which repeals and prohibits future implementation of the electronic identification or EID ear tag rule.
In 2013, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, issued the Animal Disease Traceability Rule, which allowed the use of ear tags, brands, and tattoos for livestock identification in interstate commerce.
In November 2024, APHIS amended the ADT rule to mandate EID ear tags for cattle and bison moving interstate despite overwhelming opposition to such efforts.
Ranchers and producers are opposed for a multitude of reasons.
The rule is the product of a flawed rulemaking.
APHIS did not conduct a federalism analysis, even though states have identification regulations and laws.
It did not conduct an adequate small business analysis, even though APHIS admitted the rule would burden small operators, and APHIS intentionally undercounted the cost of the rule, basing it just on the cost of the EID tags and not an entire EID system.
EID is a government mandate on farmers and ranchers, and one which the Animal Health Protection Act does not authorize APHIS to create or enforce.
Because APHIS incorrectly calculated the cost of the rule, it is also an underfunded mandate, and because the demand for EID tags is driven not by actual market demand but by government mandate, ranchers are facing tag shortages, harming their ability to comply with the rule.
If the government cannot provide tags to the regulated community, then this mandate is cost prohibitive for producers, which jeopardizes their future operations and risks additional vertical integration in the increasingly consolidated food supply change.
This government mandate also raises privacy concerns for ranchers and their herds based on information collected through EID system through the EID system, concerns which APHIS never adequately addressed in the rule.
And the rule's application to bison also disadvantages tribal bison ranchers who manage bison as wildlife, not livestock.
Because of all these issues, it's nearly two years later, and ranchers are still facing EID tag shortages and the cost of EID tags on the private market increased because of the fallout.
All this harm for regulation that's not needed as the U.S. already had a well-functioning animal disease traceability system, and APHIS even conceded in the rulemaking that foreign animal disease had largely been excluded from the country.
Ranchers and farmers should be allowed to adopt the best practices for their business and herds voluntarily when it makes sense for them, not at the behest of a federal agency.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve.
Gentleman Reserves.
For what purposes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
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.
And for this reason, I must respectfully oppose the gentlelady from Wyoming's amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin.
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
And I reserve.
Gentleman Reserves.
Gentleman from Wisconsin.
I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment number 22 and finally end the EID ear tag mandate on Americans ranchers.
I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentlemen from Pennsylvania.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii, the ranking member of the Conservation Research and Biotechnology Subcommittee, Ms. Takuta, for one and a half minutes.
Gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for one and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would send us backwards when it comes to animal disease tracing and herd management.
Electronic ear tags for cattle and bison reduce human error and empower veterinarians and animal health experts from APHIS to track potential outbreaks.
The American Veterinary and Medicine Association has prioritized the implementation of unique identification of animals and premises, which is essential for tracing origin and destination of all livestock, and in particular food-producing animals, in order to protect the nation's livestock industry and public health.
That's why the electronic ear tag proposal was supported by the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, and the American Veterinary and Medicine Association.
The USDA has provided free tags to producers to combat any economic burden while enabling the fastest possible response to animal disease.
At a time when highly pathogenic avian influenza has been proven to affect additional species, a new world screw worm is again threatening American cattle herds.
We should not take tools out of the USDA's toolbox to prevent the spread of disease.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentlewoman yields back.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Well, I couldn't agree with the gentlelady more.
We've seen significant examples of how important these EID tags have been in tracking the highly pathogenic avian influenza as it's gotten into our dairy cows in different parts of the country.
And she referenced the New World screw worm.
That is a huge threat to the United States.
Thankfully, so far we've successfully avoided that with the building of the different production facilities for sterile flies, which is really the proven solution or the remedy to that.
Being able to track the cattle.
So once again, you know, we cannot hamper our ability to improve animal disease traceability.
Reliable Internet Infrastructure00:03:59
And so with the greatest respect to the gentlelady who was the author of this amendment, I just encourage all members to oppose it.
And I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.
I'll ask for a roll call.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18 for the proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 24, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a designee for the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlihan, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 24, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Craig of Minnesota.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Ms. Craig, and a member opposed.
Each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman is recognized.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment.
The Biorefinery Renewable Chemical and Bio-Based Product Manufacturing Assistance Program is a popular and successful program at USDA to support new and emerging technologies for bio-based 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.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The gentlewoman reserves, gentleman from Pennsylvania.
For what purpose does he seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I'm not, I do not object to the objection.
The gentleman is recognized.
I want to thank the gentle lady 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 bio refinery, renewable chemical and bio-based 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.
Amendments like these improve bipartisan amendments like these continue to improve the bipartisan Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026.
And with that, I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
Gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 26, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 26, printed at Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
The gentleman is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of my amendment, which I am pleased to lead with the gentlelady from Illinois' 2nd District.
Pesticide Label Uniformity00:14:27
For years, large parts of my district and rural areas across America have lacked access to fast broadband connections.
Reliable Internet access is more than just being able to stream your favorite TV shows and movies.
It's the crucial link that connects us all.
Our people, nation, and economy run on reliable Internet connections.
Agricultural producers in Ohio and across America also know that reliable broadband connections are essential to their operations.
After all, it helps deploy technologies that increase their productivity, produces higher yields, and minimizes operating costs.
Today's smart agriculture technology from autonomous tractors and distributed soil sensors rely on Internet connections to share data.
In fact, our ag producers use information in real time to make smarter decisions on how to optimize inputs and whether and when to plant or harvest.
And when terrestrial or cellular networks are not available, satellite broadband steps in to make these technologies work.
However, it's not just advanced satellite broadband capabilities that improve precision agriculture.
Earth imaging satellites also provide important information that help farmers and ranchers identify visual trends that may require immediate attention.
In order to ensure our regulations maximize those opportunities, our amendment would require the FCC to review its current satellite rules to determine if rule changes can be made to promote precision agriculture.
I'm committed to ensuring our agricultural producers have the tools at their disposal to help them to increase productivity while minimizing costs.
This amendment is an excellent step forward in that mission.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The gentleman reserves, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from Maine seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I raise and claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
I want to thank my colleague for bringing up this amendment.
This bill, the bill this amendment is based on, has already passed the House by voice vote and now sits idly in the Senate.
I'm glad my colleagues are paying attention to this issue in supportive of promoting precision agriculture for our farmers.
I support adoption of this amendment and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlelady reserves.
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have nothing further, and if you'd like to close, gentlelady from Maine.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the overall bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
All time has yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Just read this first line.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 27, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Here.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 28, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida seek recognition?
I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 28, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mrs. Luna of Florida.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Luna, and a member opposed will each control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support this amendment.
As you know, I never thought I'd have to be debating liability protections for pesticide companies, yet here I am today.
And I'd like to share some stats with you.
A major study found that pesticide mixtures increase childhood leukemia by 23 percent, brain cancer by 36 percent, and overall childhood cancer by 30 percent.
We find that a majority of Americans specifically that do rely on SNAP and EBT are being fed massively processed foods that are increasing their cancer risk, not to mention, as a whole, I think that this is something that we should all get behind and that we do not want to ever provide or be on the side of cancer causing anything.
Research shows that maternal exposures to pesticides at home at work is linked to a higher risk of leukemia in children.
These chemicals are known to cross the placenta and impact fetal development.
In addition to that, a review of over 174 studies from 2013 to 2023 found consistent links between pesticides exposures and leukemia, brain cancers, rare childhood cancers.
Off record, I had a conversation in the cloakroom from a young member of Congress who was just elected in Georgia, who said that he suffered from thyroid cancer and it was known or that he thought it was due to an environmental factor.
The point is that this should not be partisan.
It's about the American people and protecting them.
Now, I understand that this place can get pretty heated sometimes, but I was also called a damn liar for defending my position, which is far from the truth.
The fact is that I'm not getting paid special interest money.
I'm trying to fight for my district and I think for the well-being of a majority of Americans.
The fact is that there's far too much special money and interest going into policies like these.
And so while people claim that they're non-opposition, if you pull FEC reportings and reports, of which we do have screenshots of all of that, it says quite the otherwise.
I would like to, ma'am, if you'd like to speak, yield as much time as you would like to speak in support of this.
Gentleman from Maine.
Thank you very much.
I thank the gentlelady for both presenting this amendment, which I also supported and speaking in favor of it.
Pesticide preemption has received an extraordinary amount of attention in the past year, as is appropriate when the federal government considers overriding states' rights.
Litigation on this topic was discussed at the Supreme Court on Monday.
A dominant pesticide manufacturer just announced a possible settlement of $7.25 billion, and President Trump has invoked national security powers to mandate the protection of glyphosate.
There is opposition to federal preemption of state liability laws on both sides of the aisle, yet the Republican majority insisted at every turn on including these provisions in what should be a bipartisan farm bill that delivers for farmers and families.
This amendment is not extreme.
It would not ban pesticides or require any additional regulatory burden on the manufacturers.
Quite literally, it would preserve the status quo and allow the Supreme Court to examine this issue separately and the complicated legal issues at its core.
The question of federal preemption also sits next to a truly poisonous provision that would waive all other laws for registered pesticides, including the Clean Water Act and Cleaner Act.
Registration under EPA's pesticide process provides instructions for use but does not include any requirements to guard against contamination of our air and water supply.
Let's be clear.
The Clean Water Act already includes a broad exemption for agricultural storm water runoff because Congress knew at some point about pesticide runoff was inevitable.
However, the EPA is obligated to separately permit intentional uses of pesticides that enter our waterways, as the Sixth Circuit decided in 2009.
It's astonishing to me that my Republican colleagues wrote this bill to abolish that protection for rural communities and water supplies.
I want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort by members in Congress and invested citizens on the outside whose relentless efforts are why this amendment was even allowed to be debated today.
I thank you, Representative Luna, for your tireless efforts on this front, and I hope my colleagues will heed your example and vote for this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I urge all members to support this and I yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields back.
Gentleman Reserves.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise in opposition to the amendment?
The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, as we listen to this debate, and no doubt as text messages and other things have been sent out about this piece of legislation, what I want the Mayhaw Amendment to know is that this has nothing to do with the actual pesticide in the jug.
Absolutely nothing.
This is uniformity of pesticide labeling requirements.
And so there are people out there that want to raise the cost on farmers by requiring that Florida would have one set of labels, Georgia would have another.
And we're simply saying that when the EPA says this is the appropriate label and the proper label to put the warnings on the chemical, that that is going to be uniform throughout the states.
Others want to go so far as to allow every individual city or municipality to come up with their own labeling requirement.
That's simply not feasible from the standpoint of the companies in actually getting a product to the consumer like I just bought to kill the fire ants in my yard.
By the way, the states, even with our amendment, maintain the ability to restrict the chemical from being used in their state.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, I just want the people to know, especially the Mayhoe people that have been texting and calling about the misrepresentation of this amendment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the pesticide in the jug.
It is uniformity of pesticide labeling that they are trying to take away with this amendment.
So, I just represent Georgia.
We're close to the Florida line.
If the EPA says the label is good, I don't see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer.
And again, we're not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the Mayhoe movement.
We're talking about just the label on the jug.
There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug.
And with that, I reserve gentleman reserves.
Speaker, how much time do I have?
The gentleman has 30 seconds.
I'd like to clarify that Section 10-205 blocks states and local governments from requiring any warnings beyond what the EPA provides.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone is trying to give something to my kid that causes cancer, I would hope to heck that Congress would block that.
And I'll end by saying I take zero money from pesticide liability in manufacturers, and my colleague takes $124,000 from them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield my time.
One yields back.
Gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is uniformity of pesticide labeling.
It has nothing to do with the actual chemical or the pesticide in the jug.
And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee, G.T. Thompson.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you.
I inquire how much time is left.
Much time.
The gentleman has two and a quarter minutes remaining.
Okay, very good.
Well, I find it sad that we enter into cheap shots regarding organizations that when they see something that you're working hard on behalf of the American farmer and they want to make a legal, ethical donation, that they can do that.
That tells me that the arguments on the other side are pretty shallow and they're emotional.
They're not science-based.
The sections that this amendment seeks to strike deliver common-sense 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 safe 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, I'm 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're, 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.
But the bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statute that the EPA is that.
This includes protecting states' ability to not register a product at all within the jurisdiction, regulatory certainty, and making sure that there's 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's disappointing that this body has to revisit and clarify existing statute to reaffirm that state labeling laws, such as California's Proposition 65, which has already been found to be in violation of the Constitution when applied to products containing glycophate, 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're able to submit.
Seafood Industry Stability00:07:39
The gentleman's time has expired.
I've encouraged the defeat of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for me.
All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
The opinion of the chair, the no's have it.
I request yeas and nays.
The gentlelady look requests the report.
The gentlewoman requests a recorded vote.
Pursuant to clause six of Rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida will be postponed.
Now in order to consider amendment number 29, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 29, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you visit South Carolina's lowcountry, you'll understand commercial shrimping and fishing are not just the backbone of our coastal communities, but a part of our heritage and our way of life.
You'll find shrimp festivals, oyster roasts, and lowcountry boils nearly every weekend during the season.
In communities across South Carolina's first congressional district, from McCollumville to Mount Pleasant to Beaufort to Bluffton to Hilton Head and Hilton Head Island, you'll see thousands show up to bless the fleet of shrimp boats when they head out to begin their seasons.
Across the state of South Carolina, you see communities, neighbors, and families come together around local caught seafood and see people come from thousands of miles away just to taste it.
But talk to any shrimper or fisherman in this country, and you'll know the commercial fishing and shrimping industries are struggling.
For too long, the USDA has ignored our shrimpers and our fishermen, the farmers of the sea, who put nutritious, fresh seafood on our tables at dinner.
President Trump understands food security as national security and has recognized the importance of revitalizing our domestic seafood industry.
Last April, he issued an executive order entitled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.
Last fall, we saw the USDA establish a new seafood liaison in the Secretary's office to ensure the voices of our seafood harvesters are heard.
Just a few weeks ago, Secretary Rollins announced the creation of the first ever Office of Seafood within the Department of Agriculture.
This gives our shrimpers and our fishermen a seat at the table.
Our amendment would codify the newly established Office of Seafood at the USDA, ensuring our commercial shrimpers and fishermen, as well as our fish processes, are integrated into USDA programs.
The Office of Seafood would also be responsible for working alongside the Department of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative, NOAA, and other federal agencies and departments to revitalize the American seafood industry.
The hardworking South Carolinians who work our waters and put fresh local seafood on our plates deserve this.
This amendment would deliver it.
I will always stand with South Cona shrimpers and fishermen, and I urge all members to support our domestic seafood industry by voting in favor of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlewoman Reserves.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise and claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield to myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from South Carolina for introducing this amendment and wholeheartedly support it.
An office of seafood will be an important resource for coordination across the aquaculture sector.
I am fortunate enough to represent the state of Maine, so fishermen are an important part of our economy, our culture, and the communities that we all live in.
I'm lucky enough to live in the heart of lobster harvesting territory, so I know firsthand how important the fisheries is to our state and to all of you who hopefully come to visit our state and enjoy our delicious seafood.
I've been listening to GT throughout the night talk about how he did a lot of listening tours and traveled around the country.
I was very privileged to have him come and visit in the state of Maine.
And while he was there, we made sure that even though it was an agriculture listening tour, that because the Office of Aquaculture is an important part of the USDA, that we ensured that he got to visit an oyster farmer, that he ate some of our delicious seafood, that included scallops, oysters, maybe a little bit of lobster, and I think even a bit of seaweed he managed to choke down.
And we were appreciative of him trying all of the many seafood in our state.
I've always been surprised as a member of the Agriculture Committee and getting to know the USDA, knowing that aquaculture resides there.
There are fisheries issues that come up there, and fishermen often don't get the same opportunity to utilize the resources as farmers do.
We all in this country understand the important role that farmers play in producing American food, and we appreciate them so much.
But sometimes we forget that fishermen need to have access to many of the same resources.
Fish is an important part of our diet.
We should eat more of it, and we should certainly eat more domestically produced and harvested seafood.
So I think this office will go a long way to provide our fishermen with a central source of outreach and information that focuses on the seafood industry.
This amendment, codifying the office, will give the security needed to create working relationships within the USDA and across the seafood sector.
I've heard from many people in the seafood industry and the fishermen ever since this was originally announced by the USDA and Secretary Rollins encouraging me to support this, to do anything I could to make sure that this was a stable entity within the USDA.
So I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment and talk about the importance of making sure it's permanent and their fishermen continue to have this access.
I support this amendment to create this additional office and I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves, Gentleman South Carolina.
I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Thompson.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Chairman.
I thank the gentlelady.
I thank my good friend from Maine, who has the best tasting kelp I've ever had.
It was delicious, along with everything else.
I was happy to see USDA establish the 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's a vital part of American agriculture.
And codifying these off this office will ensure that this support continues for years to come by providing dedicated resources, time, and coordination for the industry.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back.
Gentlewoman from South Carolina.
I yield.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from Maine.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
Gentleman yields back.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 30, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
Lab Dog Protection Laws00:16:05
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 30, printed in Part B of House Report No. 119-268, offered by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
An onslaught of substandard foreign seafood, often subsidized by foreign governments or international financial institutions, is being dumped into our markets, devastating our domestic seafood industry.
For example, after hearing the testimony of some of my constituents, the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined in Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, we are illegally subsidizing dumping shrimp, imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
This foreign seafood is often caught through illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and employ brutal working conditions, including the use of child or forced labor.
These foreign actors also don't abide by the same stringent food safety standards we have in our country, using banned antibiotics and other chemicals in their seafood.
Just last year, there was a recall of foreign shrimp from Indonesia, which was contaminated with cesium-137.
The foreign shrimp was literally radioactive.
Imagine all the contaminated foreign seafood that slips into our food supply undetected.
This has all combined to push down dock prices for our domestic shrimpers and fishermen.
In some parts of the country, dock prices for shrimp fell to around $1 per pound in recent years.
This, coupled with the inflation we experienced under the previous administration and elevated fuel costs, is causing the perfect storm.
Facing anti-competitive foreign practices, following dock prices, and economic headwinds, fishermen and shrimpers are struggling not just to earn a living, but to even make it to the next season.
To illustrate the scope and scale of this problem, total value of U.S. commercial seafood landings has fallen 25 percent from 2021 to 2024 in just three years.
Landings by weight have fallen to their lowest level since 1988.
At the same time, our food supply has become increasingly dependent on foreign seafood.
Today, foreign imports account for approximately 94 percent of total seafood consumption in America.
This is exactly why I'm offering this amendment today.
Our shrimpers and fishermen put food on the table.
They are the farmers of the sea, and it's past time we started treating them like it.
The USDA has a variety of programs to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers, and it's time we allowed our commercial fishermen to take part in them.
This amendment would amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to include commercial fishing and fish processing as eligible agricultural activities for USDA programs, unlocking access to many grant loan and assistance programs for our shrimpers and fishermen.
This amendment would also ensure commercial fishermen and fish processors have access to USDA farm ownership loans and farm operating loans.
And best of all, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget neutral.
This is a common sense way to support the shrimpers and fishermen who feed our families and make South Carolina's lowcountry and so many places across our nation's coast very special.
I would like to thank Representative Carbajal for partnering with me on this amendment and urge all members to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlewoman reserves.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Speaker, 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 non-seafood 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.
And I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlewoman reserves.
Gentleman from South Carolina.
I yield as much time as you may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Thompson.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, 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.
Through commercial fishermen, 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 do to their unique business structure.
Adopting this amendment is one of the many actions we can take to expand access to credit for these vital businesses that serve as the 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, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentlemen from South Carolina.
I will yield.
Gentleman from South Carolina yields back.
Gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Those in favor say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 31, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 31, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Since I came to Congress, I've been fighting to end and put an end to taxpayer-funded animal cruelty.
We've seen great successes, including successfully in eliminating these painful and inhumane animal experiments across the VA, Department of War, and more.
Today, we seek to build on the significant progress with this amendment.
Based on our bipartisan bill, Violet's Law, which we named after a hound dog which was rescued from a government lab, our amendment would ensure the humane treatment of lab animals once they are retired.
Each year, thousands of animals like Violet are used in federal labs, many of them in non-invasive and non-terminal testing.
Too often, when that research ends, these animals, despite being healthy, are killed simply because there is no policy in place to retire them.
Our amendment fixes that.
Rather than being euthanized, my amendment would ensure federal research facilities establish procedures to facilitate the adoption or non-laboratory placement of dogs, cats, non-human primates, skinny pigs, hamsters, and rabbits used in government labs.
It would allow agencies to place these precious animals with animal rescue organizations, animal sanctuaries, and animal shelters to facilitate finding their new home or with an individual looking to adopt the animal.
This is a common sense idea which is already working.
We've already seen some federal agencies adopt policies allowing lab animals to be retired and rehomed.
Many states have adopted similar laws.
This idea is supported not just by animal welfare advocates but by leaders in the biomedical research community as well.
We can judge a man and a country by its treatment of animals, and our country can do so much better than euthanizing healthy, innocent animals created by God.
I would like to thank Representative Titus for partnering with me on this amendment and urge all members to support this amendment.
Together, we can save the lives of countless innocent dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hampers, and rabbits.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Reserves.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise and claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield to myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, 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'd like to thank Ms. Mace for her amendment, and I'd like to urge a yes vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlewoman reserves, gentlemen from South Carolina.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and vote for its passage, and I yield.
Gentlewoman yields back.
Gentleman from Minnesota.
Ditto, and I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
The chair understands amendment number 33 will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 36, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from West Virginia seek recognition?
I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 36, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Moore of West Virginia.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Moore, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment that, in my view, would correct what had taken place in the Agriculture Committee.
So there's an amendment to eliminate dog racing, greyhound racing, specifically in the United States.
The only problem with that, there's only one state that continues to do that, and that is the state of West Virginia.
One of the issues surrounding this is the revenue that is generated from that track.
40% of the revenue sharing from the track supports the pension funds of police and firefighters.
And we've had the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Firefighters actually come out in support of this amendment because it will decimate those pensions of our retired police and firefighters, some of which are disabled.
And so those union members who are just trying to scratch by in the state of West Virginia are no longer going to be able to do that.
This amendment leaves the full ban in place for the other 49 states, grandfathers in the two tracks that are in West Virginia.
No new tracks can open in West Virginia or any state in the country after this.
And lastly, this really is a question of states' rights where we have voted on this in the state of West Virginia.
They've affirmatively voted on it.
And this question will come up again before the state legislature.
Perhaps they'll vote at some point not to.
But we're really worried about not only those pensions, but the almost 2,000 employees that are also involved in this industry.
I reserve the balance of my time.
For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise and claim time in opposition to Amendment 36.
The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, Greyhound racing is cruel and inhumane, resulting in hundreds of injuries and deaths of otherwise healthy dogs.
It is already prohibited in 44 states and only exists in one, West Virginia.
Despite existing only in West Virginia, federal legislation to end greyhound racing is necessary because greyhound races are still transmitted to betters across the United States, and bets placed on these simulcast races prop up this cruel but dying industry, both in the United States and abroad.
The bipartisan Greyhound Protection Act, did I say bipartisan, has been a legislative concept since 2020, building off of the work of former Representative Tony Cardinas and now United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz.
I have been the lead sponsor of this bipartisan legislation for the past four years, alongside my colleagues Randy Fine, Zach Nunn, and Don Davis.
During these six years, the Greyhound Protection Act has earned dozens of Democrat and Republican co-sponsors.
It is endorsed by over 250 animal protection groups, local humane societies, and community leaders.
In March, the bipartisan Greyhound Protection Act passed the House Agriculture Committee by voice vote during the Farm Bills Committee markup.
Since that time, a final greyhound protection language in the bill has been modified to ensure it applies to greyhounds and nothing else.
That change to protect sportsmen and hunting dogs was something Representative Nunn and I recognized and expressed our willingness to the Ag Committee on amending this language.
It represents a diligently crafted compromise between animal protection groups and hunters, exactly the type of bipartisanship we come to expect from a farm bill.
If this amendment were to pass, it would effectively gut the Greyhound Protection Act and give a free pass for greyhound racing to continue to operate in one state in the United States.
My door has been open for years to discuss this language, and I know the Agriculture Committee's doors were open all this time as well.
While I understand the concerns surrounding the impact on a very small group of individuals, no pension solvency should hinge on a single volatile revenue stream, particularly one tied to an inhumane industry in long-term decline.
I have served in local government myself, and I know that states routinely adjust revenue frameworks when passing out activities deemed inconsistent with public values or policy priorities.
West Virginia already has an alternative gaming revenues, including lottery and casino operations, that can be recalibrated if needed.
This amendment runs counter to public sentiment and ensures more greyhounds will not continue to live lives of confinement in stacked metal cages and be subjected to predictable and preventable risk of injury and death on the track.
It has taken decades of work by Greyhound rescuers to reach this point, and as well as the work done by myself, my colleagues, and committee staff over the last number of years, I ask that you please oppose this amendment and in the cycle of government-mandated cruelty.
Guam Police Support Measure00:14:56
I reserve gentleman reserves, gentlemen from West Virginia.
It's time to have, Mr. Chairman.
Excuse me.
Time.
Three minutes remain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just real quickly, is you know, it's really kind of like a sick obsession of this town to just want to control and destroy jobs in one of the poorest states in America.
It really is.
And I will just note that this is destroying guys who have union pensions.
It is against the unions to vote for this bill, to vote for this, or to vote against this amendment.
It is against the unions.
You are hurting their membership.
And with that, I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank the gentleman for yielding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the gentleman for introducing this amendment.
I did not support the amendment that passed out of committee by voice banning greyhound racing nationwide.
I think the ban is heavy-handed.
It sets a dangerous precedent, and it doesn't take into consideration the tracks that are currently in operation, which basically is 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.
And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the amendment.
I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from West Virginia.
Reserve.
Gentleman Reserves.
Gentleman from California.
Mr. Chair, I support unions, but this is about cruelty to animals.
And we are trying to justify one good over a lot of evil.
And it is important that we not use this issue and call it just jobs for a very, very small amount of individuals, one state in our nation When it comes to really protecting humane approaches to how we deal with greyhounds and animals,
Mr. Chair, I reserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is in support of the unions, those union members.
You vote against this, you're against the unions.
That's a fact.
You are trying to take their pensions away from them.
That is what you're doing.
Ask the fraternal order of police, ask the firefighters union, go ask them about that, and they will give you an answer.
That is exactly what's going on here.
I'm standing up for those members, standing up for the individuals that are supported by this track.
And look, maybe someday the state of West Virginia is actually going to, maybe they'll vote to get rid of it.
But that's up to the state of West Virginia.
As we've just heard from the gentleman, over 40 states have voted to end dog racing, and that is their right to do that.
But this obsession with the state of West Virginia, less than 2 million people, and what we're doing inside of our borders, I don't really get.
But just to be clear, this bill right here is in support of the police.
This amendment is in support of police.
It's in support of the firefighters.
You're taking away their pensions if you don't support the amendment.
And I think it's a pretty fair compromise, as the chairman said.
And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from California.
You know, in this country, we've done a lot of inhumane things, whether it's animals or people.
And we oftentimes try to justify it in one way or another.
But it's hard to justify jobs over being humane.
It's a matter of values.
And that's really what it's about.
Mr. Chair, I reserve.
Time has expired.
All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Chair?
Yes.
Gentleman.
I would request a recorded vote.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be postponed.
To consider amendment number 38, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Michigan seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from Colorado, and I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 38, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mrs. Scolton of Michigan.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Scolton, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to you all for being here burning the midnight oil with us.
This amendment would make it easier to carry out emergency watershed protection measures after a disaster.
The western United States is experiencing record-setting drought and high temperatures, even in the winter months, exponentially increasing wildfire risk.
Wildfires do not end when the fire does.
They have significant impacts on our watersheds, and emergency measures are often needed to clear out debris and protect water supplies in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.
This amendment would add the text of Mr. Nagoos' bipartisan bicameral bill, the Making Access to Cleanup Happen, or Match It Act, which would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a list of approved watershed protection measures that local governments and tribes can undertake in an emergency and establish an approval process for additional post-fire actions that might be needed.
This measure would remove burdensome red tape and allow for expedited emergency response after a wildfire.
In the face of what is likely to be a devastating wildfire year, it's important that we equip our communities with all the tools they need to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and join me in taking action to protect our communities after disaster.
That I reserve.
Gentlewoman reserves, for what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
I rise in opposition of the amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentlelady 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.
I support the amendment and urge a yes vote, and I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
All times yielded back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 39, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Michigan seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a designee for the gentleman from Colorado, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 39, printed at Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Scolton of Michigan.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Sculton, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On this, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment by the form that I've placed at the desk.
Clerk will report the modification.
Modification to amendment number 39, offered by Ms. Sculton of Michigan.
Strike page 430 each time it appears and insert page 431.
Objection, the amendment is mine.
Objection, the amendment is modified.
Gentleman from Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would expand federal support for sustainable agriculture and innovative sustainability solutions through the AGARDA program.
AGARDA helps to find cutting-edge solutions to food, agriculture, and environmental challenges.
This amendment will build upon the already proven success of this program by expanding its research to include innovative sustainability solutions.
This amendment will give our agricultural producers the tools they need to increase sustainable and efficient use of water, soil, and other natural resources, and will help farms adapt to challenges like extreme weather events and drought.
This effort is bipartisan, done in partnership with Rep Flood, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Without a reserve.
Gentlewoman reserves.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman is recognized.
I want to 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 AgARTA.
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 AgARTA and takes away from its mission.
We see substantial investment from the private sector and miscellaneous non-government organizations on this topic, and it would be inappropriate to add to this program when these activities are already well funded.
So, for this reason, I will not be supporting this amendment's inclusion, and I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
Gentlewoman from Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle nonetheless will support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Gentleman yields back.
All time has yielded back.
The question is on the amendment as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no?
No.
In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.
The amendment as modified is not agreed to.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 41, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 42, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Guam seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise as designee and co-lead for Representative Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 42, printed in Part B of House Report No. 119-628, offered by Mr. Moylan of Guam.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Guam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Aquaculture has the potential to transform island economics and nutrition.
By encouraging small-scale and commercial agriculture, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands could lower the cost of fresh, nutritional food, increase food self-sustainability, and drive down reliance on foreign imports.
This amendment simply directs USDA to consult with Guam and U.S. Virgin Island agencies to identify locations in the islands, our islands, that are suitable for the development of aquaculture small businesses, including water quality assessments, coastal access, infrastructure needs, and applicable environmental and regulatory requirements.
This study is the foundation to developing sustainable aquaculture sectors.
And I urge my colleagues to support the territory aquaculture and vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.
Island Aquaculture Development00:04:02
I reserve.
Gentleman Reserves, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise and claim time in opposition, but I'm not opposed to the amendment itself, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield my time.
Gentlewoman yields.
Gentleman from Guam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate my colleagues' support.
I look forward to moving this measure forward.
I yield.
Gentleman yields back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Guam.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the aye has it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 45, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Michigan seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 45, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Scolton of Michigan.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Scolton, and a member opposed.
Each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Thank you.
I rise today in support of this amendment, which would incorporate the text of my bill, the bipartisan, bicameral promoting access to local agriculture act, into the farm bill.
Too often, local farmers and ranchers struggle to accept benefits through critical federal nutrition programs designed to feed communities like SNAP and WIC.
This is not because of a lack of need or demand, but rather because the system itself is too complicated to navigate.
Now, I fully believe in cutting this red tape to connect more communities to the healthy food that they need.
In a state like Michigan, where we grow more than 300 commodities, that makes us one of the most agriculturally diverse states in the country.
Bureaucratic roadblocks mean less businesses for hardworking farmers and less fresh food on the table for families.
I deeply believe that food is medicine, and this is an agricultural issue.
It's a food supply issue, but it's also a matter of health.
This provision would cut red tape to make it easier for farmers to participate in these essential programs while also ensuring that families have better access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food.
This bipartisan, bicameral effort is about making the government work the way that it should and advancing practical solutions that are responsive to the farmers and the families that we serve.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and join me in taking action to protect our communities in this time of need.
With that, I reserve.
Gentlewoman reserves, for what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I'm supportive of the amendment.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
I want to thank the gentlelady 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.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentlewoman from Michigan.
Thank you.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support this important amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The gentlewoman yields back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Habitat Conservation Program00:03:39
It is now in order to consider amendment number 46, printed in Part B of House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Washington seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 46, printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Ms. Schreier of Washington.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Schreier, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of my amendment to the Farm, Food, and National Security Act that would codify the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement, or SAFE, initiative.
The SAFE initiative was established in 2007 as part of the Conservation Reserve Program.
It helps landowners restore land that would otherwise be unproductive for agricultural purposes.
The initiative is unique in that it specifically supports wildlife populations by restoring critical habitats and providing food sources.
This is great for agricultural producers, a win for wildlife and the environment, and it allows states to work toward their high-priority conservation goals.
For example, in parts of Washington state, land enrolled in the SAFE Initiative can provide habitat for two of our native birds, the sage grouse and the core sharp-tailed grouse.
There are fewer than a thousand of these birds remaining, and a lot of their habitat is on private farms across our state.
This program protects those species.
In other areas of the country, the program can be used to protect habitats for species like the New England cottontail, grassland birds, deer, and even pollinators.
This program is entirely voluntary and gives farmers an opportunity to earn money through land that they no longer can use or they may not need.
I've heard from farmers who are thrilled to have this opportunity to restore their land, which of course benefits them financially, but also protects habitat, improves soil health, limits erosion, and sequesters carbon.
Instead of producing lower and lower yields or being forced to sell their land, farmers can receive annual rental payments and additional financial assistance to establish long-term, easy-to-implement conservation practices like increasing vegetative cover.
This program is a common-sense solution that gives farmers an opportunity to diversify their income while ensuring their land can be used by future generations.
It's great for the environment, it's phenomenal for our nation's farmers, and it creates lasting state partnerships with producers.
It's pastime for this initiative to be signed into law, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would codify the SAFE initiative and ensure land can be continuously enrolled in this program.
A reserve.
Gentlewoman reserves.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose this amendment.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
I thank the gentlelady 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 case of SAFE and other programs like the Voluntary Public Access Habitat Incentive Program.
Since ACRES is typically enrolled in SAFE through the continuous enrollment option, this amendment would simply codify that.
Healthy Food Choices Debate00:07:43
As such, I support the amendment and I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentlewoman from Washington.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I encourage my colleagues to vote to codify this SAFE initiative program, and I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington.
Those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
And opposed, those will say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 47, printed at Part B and House Report 119-628.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment number 47.
Printed in Part B of House Report number 119-628, offered by Mr. Self of Texas.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Self, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
I yield as much time as I may consume.
Gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure that a program called Nutrition Assistance actually delivers nutrition.
Today, SNAP is funding billions of dollars in purchases of sugary soda, products with zero nutritional value, and well-documented links to obesity, diabetes, and long-term health costs.
That is not what this program was designed to do.
My amendment is straightforward.
It adds soda to the list of ineligible SNAP items alongside alcohol and tobacco and defines soda clearly as any carbonated beverage containing more than one gram of added sugar, artificial sweetener, or flavoring per serving.
Now let's address the obvious concern: choice.
SNAP participants already use multiple forms of payment at checkout.
This amendment does not take away anyone's ability to purchase soda.
They remain fully free to do so with cash, credit, or debit.
What this does is ensure that taxpayer-funded nutrition dollars are not used for products with zero nutritional value.
We already do this in WIC.
We already do this with alcohol and tobacco.
The authority exists.
The precedent exists.
At a time when taxpayers are funding both the purchase of these products and the health care costs that follow, we should at least stop financing the problem on the front end.
This is a narrow, common sense reform that restores integrity to SNAP and aligns it with its core mission.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve.
Gentleman reserves.
What purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Gentlewoman is recognized.
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.
And 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.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlemen from Texas.
I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for one minute.
Thank you.
Wisconsin is recognized for one minute.
We could talk at length the degree to which our welfare system allows people to buy things or use services that the average person in our society, at least if they're appropriately frugal, do not use.
But the easiest one that we should put an end to is this idea of unhealthy, sugary drinks.
I mean, the lady talks about making life easier.
If you want to make life tougher, you give people a lot of Mountain Dew and increase the amount of obesity and increase the amount of diabetes.
That's not a good thing.
And it's particularly not a good thing when you consider a lot of, or some of the money that you get in your food stamps goes to your kids.
I mean, I feel horrible if I'm in a grocery store and I see somebody use food stamps for these soft drinks and they got little kids with them.
I mean, we should just not do that.
And like I said, I think the average person in our society does not spend money on this stuff and we shouldn't be giving it to people in the welfare program.
Thank you.
I yield back to how much time do I have?
The woman has two minutes remaining.
Ah, very good.
I'd like to address the assertion that this is too complicated to implement.
EBT systems already block thousands of ineligible items in real time.
Retailers already categorize products at the UPC level.
This is standard.
WIC proves product level restrictions are fully operational nationwide.
Technology has significantly advanced since earlier implementation concerns.
The definition of soda is clear and administratable.
Retail systems already distinguish between eligible and not eligible goods.
This is not something the store has to do.
And implementation is a logistics issue, not a policy issue, and I reserve.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlewoman from Minnesota.
I'll just end with this.
I want you to imagine a single mom who is on the SNAP program, and remember, this is $6.20 a day, who wants to put a four-pack, you know, no one can afford six-packs anymore because everything's too expensive, wants to put 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, nope, I can't choose to do that.
We're going to take that choice away from them.
Folks, there are lots of people who live in families that need just a little bit of help right now, and it's getting worse under this administration.
You cannot deny it.
And at the end of the day, this is one more way that we are attacking poor people in our country.
Folks, we're all for healthy, but let's not be mean at the same time.
House Adjournment Motion00:02:59
And with that, I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back.
Gentleman from Texas.
I just want to ask one question.
This amendment asks a basic question.
Should a nutrition program pay for products with zero nutrition?
If the answer is no, then the vote should be yes.
I yield back.
Gentleman yields back.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
Those in favor say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Request a reported vote.
Pursuant to clause six of Rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Mr. Chair.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
Seek recognition.
Mr. Chair, I move that the committee do now rise.
The question is on the motion that the committee rise.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The motion is adopted.
Accordingly, the committee rises.
That's all right.
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Chair, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, having had under consideration H.R. 7567, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon.
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union reports that the committee has had under consideration H.R. 7567 and has come to no resolution thereon.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at 9 a.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania stand again?
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
I thought you guys wanted to hang around you.
Well, the ayes have it.
The motions adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Today.
Today, man.
And the House concluding business after debate and votes on several key legislative goals.
Democracy Unfiltered Broadcast00:02:42
Lawmakers passed an extension to FISA warrantless surveillance authorization by a vote of 235 to 191, setting up a vote in the Senate ahead of the expiry Thursday at midnight.
They also approved funding for immigration enforcement agencies through the remainder of President Trump's term after a marathon vote that stretched hours due to GOP holdouts.
The House is expected to continue work on the five-year reauthorization of federal farm and agriculture programs, known as the Farm Bill, when they return tomorrow.
We'll have that live here on C-SPAN.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides.
Neither does C-SPAN.
In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the people and institutions that shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption so you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected non-profit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gabble coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
Coming up Thursday morning, Axio's Chief Economic Correspondent Neil Irwin will talk about the Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates and possible new leadership, plus current economic conditions.
Then Idaho Republican Congressman Russ Fulcher reviews the latest on the Iran war, followed by California Democratic Congressman Jim Costa on the Farm Bill and other congressional news of the week.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the chair of the Joint Chiefs General.