We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
07Expenditure Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
25 public bills, H.R. 8566- 8590; and 13 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 94; and H. Res. 1225-1236, were introduced.
Pages H3294-95
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 1224, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7567) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2616) to require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035; providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1318) to direct the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a program to identify American-Jewish servicemembers buried in United States military cemeteries overseas under markers that incorrectly represent their religion and heritage, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1346) to amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for Reid Vapor Pressure under that Act, and for other purposes; and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-628).
Pages H3293-94
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Haridopolos to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H3135
Recess
The House recessed at 1:25 p.m. and reconvened at 2:45 p.m.
Page H3147
Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act
The House passed S. 1318, to direct the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a program to identify American-Jewish servicemembers buried in United States military cemeteries overseas under markers that incorrectly represent their religion and heritage, by a yea-and-nay vote of 235 yeas to 191 nays, Roll No. 142.
Pages H3160-68
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-27, modified by the amendment printed in part C of H. Rept. 119-628, shall be considered as adopted.
Pages H3160-61
H. Res. 1224, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 141, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 140.
Pages H3146-47
Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035
The House agreed to S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 211 nays with answering ``present'', Roll No. 143.
Pages H3147-60, H3168-69
H. Res. 1224, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 141, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 140.
Pages H3146-47
Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
The House considered H.R. 7567, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031.
Pages H3169-H3290
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-22, modified by the amendment printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-628, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill.
Pages H3176-H3259
Agreed to
Thompson (PA) amendment en bloc No. 1 consisting of the following amendments printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628: Crane (No. 6) that grants the Secretary of Agriculture emergency contracting authority to support recovery efforts following the White Sage Fire in the Kaibab National Forest, enabling the Department of Agriculture to expedite contracts, streamline procurement processes, and rapidly deploy resources necessary for rehabilitation, restoration, and hazard- mitigation activities; Davids (KS) (No. 9) that revises Section 5507 to expand eligibility to Indian Tribes; Ellfreth (No. 10) that it is the sense of Congress that investing in agricultural programs at two-year institutions is crucial to the success of the industry, economy, and environment; Ezell (No. 11) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, to identify priority Federal lands for ecological restoration involving vegetation removal on a recurring basis; Fedorchak (No. 12) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the feasibility to provide storage facility loans to producers to construct or maintain facilities for on-farm fertilizer storage; Fong (No. 13) that enhances forest management practices in an effort to protect the last remaining Giant Sequoia groves from catastrophic wildfires (identical to the Save Our Sequoias Act; Gosar (No. 17) that prohibits painful dog and cat testing; Gray (No. 19) that prohibits USDA from imposing additional requirements on the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program; Hill (AR) (No. 23) that directs the Department of Agriculture to study the status of mental health among agricultural professionals and recommend ways to improve access to, and the effectiveness of, mental and tele-mental health care for agricultural professionals; Langworthy (No. 25) that revises the ACER program to specify that appropriated funds shall remain available until expended; Mannion (No. 32) that adds immersive technologies (such as virtual or augmented reality) to the definition of precision agriculture technology, for use in conservation efforts; Miller-Meeks (No. 34) that reauthorizes the United States Grain Standards Act; Min (No. 35) that requires an assessment of wildfire mitigation methods in shrubland ecosystems; Mullin (No. 37) that directs the USDA to study whether retired batteries can be used as power for farms and ranches; Ogles (No. 40) that requires a report from the Secretary of Agriculture on barriers to organic farms taking part in programs authorized under this act; Schmidt (No. 43) that directs the secretaries of USDA and HHS to conduct collaborative research related to enhancing domestic production of crops that produce natural color additives; Scholten (No. 44) that strengthens biological pest control practices on farms by encouraging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to engage in further research and development around its best uses; Spartz (No. 48) that provides for the transparency of federally mandated commodity checkoff boards; Steube (No. 52) that requires consultation that would establish a federal definition for honey that promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and the honey market, and ensures consistency in labeling and enforcement; Tenney (No. 53) that requires a report on national grape production, including total acreage, production, utilization, acreage by type, variety, county, and year planted; Tokuda (No. 54) that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to provide online enrollment options for USDA disaster assistance programs; Vasquez (No. 55) that authorizes the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to enter into cooperative agreements with community-based organizations in each state that are able to identify and build on established and burgeoning peer-to-peer networks and create new ones; Westerman (No. 56) that adds biostimulants to Sec. 8434 (Biochar Application Demonstration Project); and Whitesides (No. 57) that provides the US Forest Service the flexibility to direct wildfire resources toward suppression, fuels management, and technology development;
Pages H3259-68
Baumgartner amendment (No. 1 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that requires the area encompassing the Columbia Basin Project be included in the Western Waters Regional Conservation Area;
Pages H3268-69
Brown amendment (No. 3 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that requires the designation of composting as a conservation practice and activity under various conservation program;
Page H3270
Carbajal amendment (No. 4 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that revises requirements for the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives program to ensure equitable distribution of funding between the four regionally located Initiatives;
Pages H3270-71
Hayes amendment (No. 5 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program to facilitate tree planting that reduces residential energy consumption;
Pages H3271-72
Crawford amendment (No. 7 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that allows essential Circuit Rider program activities to continue during a lapse in appropriations;
Page H3272
Perez amendment (No. 14 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop a low-risk classification for fresh fruits, vegetables, and other foods that are typically consumed raw or with minimal processing, and update relevant nutrition and food safety and preparation regulations and guidelines for child care providers;
Pages H3273-74
Gosar amendment (No. 15 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that reports on assistance available to agricultural producers in Arizona for certain losses of Colorado River water;
Pages H3274-75
Gosar amendment (No. 16 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that revises the USDA standards to confirm livestock depredations by Mexican wolves;
Pages H3275-76
Gosar amendment (No. 18 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that prohibits animal research in China, Russia, and other countries of concern;
Pages H3276-77
Grothman amendment (No. 21 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that adds the text of H.R. 6300 the Grasslands Grazing Act to put ranchers with permits to graze on National Grasslands in parity with those grazing on other federal lands;
Pages H3278-79
Craig amendment (No. 24 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that increases the loan guarantee cap of the USDA Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program from $250 million to $400 million to support rising project costs and enabling larger and more capital-intensive biorefinery projects to qualify;
Page H3280
Latta amendment (No. 26 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review and recommend changes to its satellite rules to promote precision agriculture;
Page H3280
Mace amendment (No. 29 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that codifies the newly established Office of Seafood within the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
Pages H3282-83
Mace amendment (No. 30 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that revises definitions and eligibility criteria in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to clarify the eligibility of commercial fishing and fish processing businesses in certain U.S. Department of Agriculture programs;
Pages H3283-84
Mace amendment (No. 31 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that requires federal animal research facilities to establish procedures to facilitate the adoption or non-laboratory placement of animals once they're no longer needed for research and determined to be suitable for release to an animal rescue organization, animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or individual;
Pages H3284-85
Scholten amendment (No. 38 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that removes barriers to emergency watershed protection measures after a disaster;
Pages H3286-87
Moylan amendment (No. 42 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct studies in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam with, respectively, the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources and the Guam Department of Agriculture, on the development of aquaculture;
Page H3288
Scholten amendment (No. 45 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that removes administrative hurdles for small farmers and ranchers to participate in federal nutrition programs which would expand their economic opportunities and improve access to healthy, affordable food for families; and
Pages H3288-89
Schrier amendment (No. 46 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that allows for the continuous enrollment of land under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) Initiative.
Page H3289
Proceedings Postponed
Bentz amendment (No. 2 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to broaden the Renewable Fuel Standard's definition of ``renewable biomass'' to include low-value forest materials and mill residuals, making them eligible for renewable fuel credits, while also permitting biomass sourcing from federal and tribal lands and supporting vegetation removal in wildfire-risk areas;
Pages H3269-70
Crawford amendment (No. 8 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to add hot rotisserie chicken as an eligible item to be purchased by SNAP benefits;
Pages H3272-73
Grothman amendment (No. 20 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to mandate a USDA report to Congress (after the SNAP restrictions pilots are completed) on implementation of the restrictions, outcomes, recommendations to Congress;
Pages H3277-78
Grothman amendment (No. 22 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to repeal and prohibits future implementation of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) rule mandating electronic identification (EID) eartags for bison and cattle moving interstate;
Pages H3279-80
Luna amendment (No. 28 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to strike section 10205 (relating to uniformity of pesticide labeling), strike section 10206 (relating to authority of States), and strike section 10207 (relating to lawful use of authorized pesticides);
Pages H3280-82
Moore (WV) amendment (No. 36 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to preserve greyhound racing operations in West Virginia;
Pages H3285-86
Scholten amendment (No. 39 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to revise the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority program to provide federal support for sustainable agriculture and innovative sustainability solutions through enhancing the role of innovative voluntary resilience solutions and help farms adapt to challenges like extreme weather, drought, and soil water- holding capacity; and
Pages H3287-88
Self amendment (No. 47 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-628) that seeks to add ``soda'' to the definition of ineligible items and defines soda as a carbonated beverage containing more than 1 gram of added sugar, artificial sweetener, or flavoring per serving.
Pages H3289-90
H. Res. 1224, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 141, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 140.
Pages H3146-47
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday, April 30th.
Page H3290
Discharge Petition
Representative Steube presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1055) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7378) to amend the Calder Act to permanently adjust American time (Discharge Petition No. 20). Quorum Calls--Votes: Three yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H3146, H3146-47, H3168, and H3168-69. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 2:26 a.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 129 of 613 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Recognizing Pope Saint John Paul II Preparatory School
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable achievement in Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District. Pope Saint John Paul II Preparatory School--the Knights of Hendersonville--have earned the title of runner-up in the 2026 TSSAA Division II Class AA Boys Basketball State Championship.
These young men from Sumner County stepped onto the biggest stage in Tennessee high school basketball and competed with grit, discipline, and extraordinary skill.
They represented not only their school and coaches but their families and the entire Hendersonville community with tremendous pride and class.
Mr. Speaker, reaching the State championship game requires talent, sacrifice, and relentless determination. These Knights demonstrated all of it. Their achievement inspires every student and athlete in our State to pursue excellence, and we are immensely proud of them.
Mr. Speaker, our government is spying on us. That is right. The Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, called FISA section 702, is a dangerous mass surveillance tool that is already being used by our Federal Government to conduct thousands of warrantless searches on the private communications of U.S. citizens without any due process, probable cause, or review from a judge.
It is a clear and open violation of our Fourth Amendment and Americans' right to privacy. It makes us all less safe.
This unconstitutional tool has been used to spy on Black Lives Matter protesters, Members of Congress, journalists, and more.
No President--not any of them--should have the power to spy on our private communication or information, especially not the current occupant of the White House.
My colleagues want to give the Trump administration the power to keep violating our rights. It is dangerous, and it must stop.
Mr. Speaker, I will always defend our rights from illegal mass surveillance. I will be voting ``no'' on the FISA reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Poynter family from Putnam County for winning the Farm Family of the Year Award for 2025.
The Poynters farm about 5,000 acres of soybeans and corn. The family frequently organizes educational community events, including mental health programming for farmers, and the annual Putnam County Ag Day.
Ray Poynter was the longtime beef superintendent for the Putnam County 4-H program. He has been an impactful leader in youth agriculture development and livestock education.
The Poynters have brought innovation to their farm. Noah and Jonathan Poynter each received their FAA drone licenses, allowing the farm to do its own fungicide applications.
The Poynter family is an outstanding example of Indiana's family farmers, as well as how we can bring agriculture into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Poynter family on this well-deserved award.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 30 years of contributions from the DuPage Railroad Safety Council. Since 1996, they have provided important services and education on rail safety across Illinois.
Forged by tragedy, they established themselves as a proactive organization, translating a crisis into opportunity, awareness, and advocacy.
Their accomplishments speak for themselves: fewer incidents, better partnerships with authorities, and more knowledgeable communities.
They achieved this with engineers, first responders, and public health officials working together because safety is a collective responsibility.
However, their task remains incomplete. With the evolving trends and increasing threats, the mission becomes even more relevant, especially regarding pedestrian safety.
While we celebrate 30 years of accomplishments, we also renew our commitment toward safer rail crossings, better infrastructure, and lives saved.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the DuPage Railroad Safety Council for their leadership, perseverance, and dedication to Illinois rail safety.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Joy Aruguete, whose steadfast leadership has been a cornerstone of the nonprofit affordable housing and community development sectors in Chicago and, frankly, nationally.
Over her 30-year tenure as CEO of Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation, Joy's organizing, coalition-building, and leadership have translated into the construction and management of stable, high-quality housing for countless families in Illinois' Third Congressional District.
Joy Aruguete herself could be described as a fixture or an icon in this work. Whether through her leadership on the Chicago Housing Trust, the Cook County Land Bank Authority, or the Chicago Rehab Network, she has advanced systems, resources, and partnerships necessary to ensure that affordable housing remains a priority in Chicago and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my distinct honor to recognize Joy Aruguete for her lifelong commitment to creating, preserving, and advocating for affordable housing in Chicago to realize housing as a human right. I thank and congratulate Joy Aruguete.
Mr. Speaker, the lives of Brent Wilson of Nash County and many others just like him were forever changed by exposure to toxins at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.
Brent grew up on the base as the son of a career marine. At 39, he was diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer. He fought through surgery, radiation, and cutting-edge treatments that extended his life but left him with permanent brain damage.
Even with programs in place, families like Brent's are still forced to navigate a system that too often works against them.
Under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, many are running out of time, confined to a narrow, 2-year filing window, even as the science makes clear these illnesses can take decades to surface.
As many families have served our great country, Congress must now deliver for them.
Mr. Speaker, last year, 88 of the most profitable companies in America paid zero in Federal income taxes. Citigroup made over $4 billion in its U.S. businesses last year, no Federal taxes paid; Halliburton nearly $1 billion and paid no taxes; Tesla more than $5 billion of profits and paid no taxes.
How is it that in the United States of America the biggest and most powerful corporations pay less in taxes than the teachers, doctors, firefighters, and nurses whom I represent?
How is that?
Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when you have a city in Washington that is for sale. The wealthy and well-connected get tax breaks, and average people get stuck with the bill. This is why we need to get dark money out of elections. This is why we need to end congressional stock trading.
This is why we need real ethics reform in Washington because until we have that, the wealthy and well-connected are going to continue to get tax breaks while working people get screwed.
Mr. Speaker, permit me to recognize the powerful presence of Generations Church located in downtown New Rochelle and in Mount Vernon, as well, which has fostered a dynamic and vibrant Christian community of worship, prayer, faith, and service led by the excellent Bishop Ray Mott, lead pastor. He is ably assisted by his wife, Pastor Sherrie Mott, and many others, including our friend, Elder Mark McLean.
Generations ministries includes networks for men, G-Men program; women, WIN, Women's Integrity Network; NextGen Kids; and NowGen Youth, touching all age groups. Sunday morning worship services, Saturday morning prayer, and GC Youth evening meetups all involve the congregation in an active faith commitment.
From the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we salute Generations Church and their positive impact in our hometown areas.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7567, Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2616, Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act...
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, providing for consideration of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, to be considered under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 57 amendments in order.
The rule provides for consideration of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and provides one motion to commit.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule provides for consideration of S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035 to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 7567, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1346, should it pass the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 7567.
The rule also provides that in the engrossment of S. 1318, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1919, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of the House amendment to S. 1318.
Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules at any time through the legislative day on May 1, 2026.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on five pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
Mr. Speaker, our country's farmers and ranchers are currently experiencing years of high input costs, shrinking margins, and uncertainty heading into the growing season. Misguided policy decisions from the previous administration have led to overregulation and consolidation, leaving the American producer to pay the price.
However, Mr. Speaker, through the body's work on H.R. 1, we achieved the first meaningful investments in the farm safety net since 2002, we brought integrity back to our nutrition programs, and we provided relief to our farming families through tax cuts.
H.R. 7567 builds on the accomplishments of H.R. 1 and completes the long-delayed farm bill process, addressing the remaining farm country needs. H.R. 7567 reinforces the farm safety net, allowing our producers the certainty they need to endure unpredictable markets, volatile weather, and rising input costs.
Strengthening ARC and PLC, expanding disaster assistance tools, and improving support for specialty crops gives producers the stability needed to keep producing the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
The bill reaffirms our Nation's commitment to locally led, science- based conservation practices through improvements to programs like EQIP, CSP, and CRP. Promoting precision agriculture and science-based practices helps protect our natural resources while keeping working lands productive for generations to come.
Additionally, H.R. 7567 modernizes trade and global food assistance, codifying the move of the Food for Peace program to the USDA. Streamlining Food for Peace authorities and reinvesting in proven export promotion programs strengthens U.S. competitiveness abroad, while ensuring American commodities remain central to feeding vulnerable populations worldwide.
H.R. 7567 bolsters the future of American agriculture by improving access to farm credit, especially for those beginning, young, and small farmers. This farm bill ensures they have the capital they need to build and sustain their operations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is centered on affordability and is a win for rural America. Investments in broadband, childcare, healthcare, workforce needs, and critical water and infrastructure projects strengthen our rural communities and give them the support to thrive in the years to come.
The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 delivers for our producers, strengthens our rural communities, and protects the security of America's food supply.
This is thoughtful legislation that has culminated from years of listening to farmers, ranchers, and families across our country in response to current realities with real solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and all the staff for the work that went into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Moving on to S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker, this would authorize section 702 for 3 years. I will be clear: We cannot allow section 702 to expire at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities, accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our intelligence posture.
Allowing this authority to expire would leave the United States blind to threats that move at the speed of the modern conflict. Section 702 allows the United States Government to collect intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas--I repeat, foreign nationals located overseas--who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information.
The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers of oversight.
While section 702 was first authorized in 2008 and has been reauthorized since with bipartisan support, it certainly has not been perfect. To account for needed reforms, Congress passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in 2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades.
This law mandated 56 different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI personnel with access to 702 data.
Additionally, to address concerns about the FBI's compliance on U.S. person queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report detailing any noncompliant queries and what accountability measures were imposed on each FBI person who was determined to have conducted a noncompliant query.
This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S. persons being reviewed by the
A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when comparing 2021 FBI queries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025 queries, which numbered 7,413.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains additional reforms that Congress has worked to include over the last few weeks. Failing to reauthorize this authority, which allows us to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil, would be a massive setback, one that our adversaries would exploit immediately.
The time is now to reauthorize section 702.
Next, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act. This legislation addressed an important issue facing our country today: protecting a parent's right to be informed and involved in conversations regarding their children's education and what is happening inside their classrooms.
The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act does that. It would prohibit any federally funded public elementary or middle school from changing a child's name, pronoun, or access to facilities such as bathrooms or locker rooms without parental consent.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about elementary and middle schools. This legislation emphasizes the fundamental role of parents in making sensitive decisions regarding their children's identity and accommodations in school. This legislation responds to recent developments across the country where parental rights are being trampled on in favor of a progressive agenda that is completely out of touch with the average American family.
This is an urgent moment for Congress to stand up for parents and children and to reinforce the critical need for parental engagement and awareness in their child's education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
This legislation would unlock the budget reconciliation process to fully fund both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection through early 2029, continuing to deliver on the GOP- led Congress' promise to ensure our borders are secure and the brave men and women of ICE and CBP have the necessary resources to do so.
Over the last 18 months, President Trump has delivered on his promise to America to secure the southern border, deport violent illegal aliens, and support the law enforcement officers at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
These officers work tirelessly to secure our borders and ensure Americans remain safe from foreign threats. It is time for Congress to do the same.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025. This legislation allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round. Furthermore, it provides additional reforms to the renewable fuel standard.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of these important points of legislation, and I urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Another week, Mr. Speaker, another chance for this Republican majority to show the American people what they actually care about. Once again, sadly, it is not affordability. It is not lowering prices. It is not the issues that my constituents raise with me at townhalls back home.
For 16 long, long months, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Republicans have been running the show for over a year now, and what have they done?
Have they lowered prices? Not grocery prices; those are up. Not gas prices; those are up, too. Not healthcare costs; those are up, too. Not utilities or childcare; those are more expensive than ever.
That is the problem with winning power, Mr. Speaker. At some point, the problems you complain about become your problems, and if you fail to fix them, then that failure is yours. That is where this Republican majority finds itself.
You guys have failed to deliver big time.
Donald Trump promised he would end the war in Ukraine. Not only did he fail to do that, he started a new one in Iran.
Republicans promised they would lower prices on day one. We are now in year 2, and where are prices? They are not down. They are up, way up. Ground beef, vegetables, fruit, sugar, it is all up, according to Trump's own USDA.
Whose fault is it? Democrats did not start the war with Iran that is driving up food and gas prices. Republicans did that. It wasn't Biden who put in place tariffs that are hurting American farmers and jacking up costs. Republicans did that. The left did not give massive tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from the program working families use to buy groceries. Republicans did that.
This administration and Republicans in Congress spent years claiming Democrats drove up prices and promising they would bring them down on day one. They failed. If you want to know why, look no further than the bills on the floor this week.
It is a greatest hits album of MAGA extremism, corporate giveaways, and political theater: a culture war bill targeting trans kids; a budget resolution that moves Heaven and Earth to give even more money to ICE and CBP while FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard remain shut down because Speaker Johnson refuses to advance a bipartisan Senate agreement that would pass overwhelmingly if brought to the floor; a FISA bill that lets the government spy on Americans without proper warrant safeguards; and a farm bill that locks in long-term cuts to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, after Trump's big, ugly bill stole nearly $200 billion from the program in order to give tax breaks to billionaires.
We are talking about a food benefit that gives barely over $6 a day to some of the poorest people in this country, many working multiple jobs and still unable to make ends meet and many others who are seniors, who are veterans, who are children, and Americans with disabilities.
That is the meager benefit you guys cut to give tax breaks to rich people. Give me a break.
Let's not forget the provision in this farm bill that helps chemical companies dump toxic chemicals into our food system, poisoning farmworkers and polluting our air and water. Who the hell asked for that? Was it drafted in the Monsanto boardroom?
Thankfully, a popular bipartisan amendment was made in order by the Committee on Agriculture to fix the provision. While I am glad that we will be able to take a vote on it and see where Members lie on this issue--my hope is that it passes--it still doesn't fix the rest of this awful, terrible bill.
Costs are up. Corruption is up. Chaos is up, and you guys are screwing over poor people. This is beyond outrageous. It is immoral. It is sick. It is wrong.
After huddling in back rooms and arguing among themselves, Republicans are now sending to the floor a year-round E15 bill--get this, Mr. Speaker--that adds billions of dollars to the deficit. They are doing it in a very clever way. Once the E15 bill passes, it gets combined with the farm bill before it gets sent to the Senate.
Where are my Freedom Caucus friends? Do you even know that this provision is in the bill? Do you even know what is going on here? I mean, billions and billions of dollars are being added to the deficit. I thought you cared about the deficit, but apparently you don't. It is a reason to vote against this rule. If you don't know about it, then the leadership of this House pulled a fast one on you.
Since the day Trump took office last year, the national debt has gone up $2.8 trillion. Full Republican control--full Republican control has added nearly $3 trillion to the debt, and now we are
I mean, during our Agriculture Committee markup, Chairman Thompson said over and over and over again that we had an obligation to remain budget neutral. He said that that is why we couldn't do anything to address the horrible nutrition cuts, why we couldn't do anything to provide any more support for our farmers, and why we couldn't modernize our conservation programs.
We can't do any of those things, but if it is for war or if it is for tax cuts for the rich or for this E15 bill, Republicans are more than happy to add to the debt.
Gut it. Gut it.
Mr. Speaker, people are struggling. They are working hard, and they are falling behind. If Republicans spent half as much time lowering costs as they spend passing nonbinding resolutions congratulating themselves, maybe we could actually get something done around here, but they can't help themselves.
The billionaires say, jump, and the Speaker asks: How high?
Monsanto says: Bail us out. Republicans ask: How much?
Big Tech, Big Ag, and Big Oil, they all run wild. It is pathetic, Mr. Speaker--pathetic.
The American people were promised lower costs. They were promised a Congress that would fight for them. They were lied to. Instead, they got extremism. They got a majority that wakes up every morning and asks how to make life easier for the rich and powerful. They got an administration and a Congress that covers up for Epstein-elite pedophiles instead of fighting for everyday people. Enough already.
This is an awful rule. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments, 8 out of 10 bipartisan amendments, and 9 out of 10 Democratic amendments. No Member of this House has had an amendment debated on the floor in nearly 100 days. Now that we do, here is what we get.
In case it was not clear yet, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman brought up corruption. Certainly, we have seen what is going on in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and many of the other Democratic-run cities and States.
He brought up gas prices, as well. I am thankful that Donald Trump has believed in energy independence, and gas prices are lower than they were under the Biden administration, even when we weren't at war, simply because of the stupid rules and regulations passed by that administration.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my friend and chairwoman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and doing such a great job in handling this rule and being on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank the staff of the Rules Committee for their great work under very difficult circumstances almost every day, but especially this week.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to share with you and with all of our Republican colleagues an observation about the behavior of Democrats in the Rules Committee yesterday evening. Please listen carefully.
Rules Committee Democrats put on a real master class in how to sell fake altruism. Really, it was quite the spectacle, maybe even worthy of an Academy Award. What a performance it was.
Mr. Speaker, our Democratic colleagues offered a handful of amendments authored by Republicans and proclaimed that they were standing up for these Republicans and their ideas. They could have fooled me.
What the Democrats were doing was weaponizing the ideas of our Republican colleagues for their own gain. Their goal the entire time was never altruistic. It was never about supporting Republican amendments or even fighting for them.
Their goal was to waste our time. Democrats treat time like they treat the tax dollars of Americans: with disregard and utter contempt. Their words and actions are always steeped in a vat of hypocrisy. Look at today, and they know it, too.
To those Members of our Conference who the Democrats used so callously last night and who are thinking about opposing the rule on the floor today, I simply say this: You are far better than falling for the fake altruism of those across the aisle who never supported you or the solutions you bring to the table--not once.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and its five underlying measures, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee: We offered amendments because we haven't had a vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days. No Democrat and no Republican has been able to vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days.
Mr. Van Orden, who is sitting there, had two amendments that were blocked. Mr. Neguse offered one of them last night, and every Republican voted against it.
Some of the amendments that we offered, quite frankly, I support. The Biggs amendment on FISA, I support. That was really an interesting display of theater because we had the votes, but one of the Republicans, Mr. Griffith, every time we brought it up, conveniently got up and walked out of the room so he didn't have to cast a vote. We called it up several times, and he kept on walking out of the room. If you want to talk about theater, that really does deserve an Academy Award.
There were a lot of other amendments, quite frankly, that we brought up that I support. By the way, we brought up amendments that I don't support, but just because I don't support them doesn't mean they don't deserve to be debated on the House floor.
That is one of the problems with the Republican leadership right now in Congress. You don't believe that this place is a deliberative body. You believe it is kind of your way or the highway, and it is not just Democrats who are getting locked out.
What is the percentage of Republicans? Republican amendments were blocked 70 percent of the time. Most of them were germane. Some of them weren't even particularly controversial in any way, shape, or form. They were blocked.
Bipartisan amendments were blocked 80 percent of the time. I know you don't care about Democrats, but 90 percent of our amendments were blocked. I mean, 70 percent of your own party were denied amendments in the Rules Committee. Again, it has been nearly 100 days since we have had a debate on any amendment, Republican or Democratic amendment.
Again, if that is how you all want this place to be run, have at it, but I would urge my Republican colleagues to take a stand now. Say ``no'' to this. Say ``no'' to this, and I guarantee you that it will change. Yet, going along to get along has resulted in even Republican Members being denied the right to offer their amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture who has done an incredible job standing up for our farmers and for the most needy in this country.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleague mentioned Minneapolis. Let's talk about Minneapolis since this is a rules debate.
Mr. Speaker, in this rule is additional funding for ICE and CBP. Let's talk about Minneapolis. Let's talk about the fact that two U.S. citizens were murdered on the streets of Minneapolis.
There is no way in hell Democrats are going to give one more penny to ICE and CBP until reforms are in place. So if you want to bring up Minneapolis, we can bring up Minneapolis, but you better bring it up with the full context of what the Trump administration is doing in our country that we will not stand for.
Mr. Speaker, related to the farm bill, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to improve this legislation which falls way short of the 5- year, 12-title farm bill that we should be here discussing today.
We should have addressed the tariffs that are bankrupting America's family farmers. Farm bankruptcies are up 50 percent across this country over the last year in the Trump administration. Farm bankruptcies are up 70 percent in the Midwest.
Trump's trade wars are destroying American farmers. They are sending China to Brazil and Argentina for that business. When we think about what the Trump administration is doing--the Iran war has increased fertilizer costs. It has increased diesel prices. This is not putting America's farmers first. Anytime this President tells you that he loves you, ask him what his actions are doing to help you.
We should have included additional farm aid. The Farm Bureau says farmers have lost $54 billion over the last year--$54 billion over the last year. Believe it or not, this administration said they are giving our family farmers $12 billion. That is how much we are going to give our family farmers.
We should have bolstered SNAP. At the end of the day, it is unconscionable to me that we used reconciliation to plus-up crop insurance programs--Democrats would have supported that in a farm bill--and then cut SNAP by $187 billion. Don't say we didn't cut SNAP. That is absolute nonsense. What you did is you shifted the cost to States in our country, an unfunded mandate that is already increasing taxes in a State like Minnesota. Our counties are having to raise property taxes for constituents to pay for it, and, by the way, a lot of these constituents are Republican constituents.
We should have rallied around a bill that helped family farmers and working families in this country. Instead, this rule opens the door for a bill that rubberstamps tariffs. It does nothing to lower costs on farm inputs.
It opens the door for a bill that does not provide a single penny in additional farm aid. It locks in the $187 billion cut to SNAP that has already deprived 3.4 million Americans of food assistance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Green-lighting this rule and the underlying bill is sending a message to every American that Congress does not have their back. It sends a signal to farm country that they are on their own.
This bill needs a do-over. My hope is the Senate will provide that do-over. It is not worthy of our support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I would just like to remind the American citizens that under the Biden administration, over 82 percent of farm bill spending was going to SNAP, and they virtually eliminated any of the support for the American farm families.
Again, Democrats demanded that over 80 percent of farm bill spending go to SNAP benefits. That is one of the reasons that the American farm family is suffering so hard today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), my friend and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding. I rise in support of House Resolution 1224, the rule to consider S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act. This legislation makes further reforms to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and reauthorizes the authority for 3 years.
FISA section 702 is one of our country's most important foreign intelligence authorities and is limited to collection on foreign nationals based overseas who are likely to provide foreign intelligence value.
These are terrorists, hackers, and spies living abroad. No U.S. citizen anywhere in the world can be a target under section 702.
While no U.S. person can be a target of FISA 702, some U.S. person information may incidentally be collected if a foreign target is talking to or about a U.S. person or entity.
In 2024, in response to significant FBI abuses of both section 702 and traditional FISA, Congress passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, or RISAA, which imposed 56 new requirements and safeguards. Most of the reform measures were directly in response to past abuses by the FBI.
Reauthorizing FISA 702 is essential, but the reality is that despite the successful limits and reforms implemented through RISAA, there is still major distrust of the FBI.
Over the past weeks, alongside Speaker Johnson and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan, we have met with members across the Republican Conference to identify core requirements and go line by line through the legislation to make changes and address concerns with the goal of reauthorizing section 702 and requiring additional layers of accountability.
The reality is that no reauthorization effort will likely address everyone's concerns, but this bill makes measurable reforms to strengthen accountability and safeguards while maintaining the criticality of the foreign intelligence tool.
Specifically, the new legislation adds the following six new provisions: clarifies that no U.S. person can be a target of 702 collection, and any targeting of U.S. person requires a title I or title III warrant; requires an outside review and authentication of FBI U.S. person queries by the Civil Liberty Protection Officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; establishes criminal penalties for intentional abuse of FISA 702 queries and falsification of statements to the FISC; requires DOJ to update procedures to allow Members to attend FISC hearings; requires FBI attorney preapproval of all FBI U.S. person queries; and mandates an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office on 702 targeting procedures.
With these important reforms, the bill includes the reauthorization for FISA 702 authorities for 3 years.
In addition to section 702 reforms, the rule adds H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act to the underlying bill. This bill blocks the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency to individuals, thereby preventing the Fed from collecting personal financial data on Americans.
The Anti-CBDC bill has passed the House two times already this Congress, and I was proud to support it both times. I want to thank Whip Emmer for introducing it and Financial Services Chairman French Hill for moving it through committee and working with us to attach it to the section 702 extension. When this bill is sent to the Senate, I urge them to pass the combined measure, and I urge all Members to support the rule and underlying bills.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have great respect for him, but that is a lot of words basically to say that Democrats and Republicans will be denied the right to be able to debate and vote on a warrant requirement.
Madam Speaker, I have already spoken about how terrible the bills in this rule are, but let me just take a minute to talk about how much of a dumpster fire the last 48 hours have been from a process standpoint.
The way this place is being run by your so-called leadership, Madam Speaker, is beyond incompetent. It is pathetic.
We spent all night waiting around while Republicans fought amongst themselves. We were told nearly at midnight on Monday to go home. We were then told Rules would meet at 8 a.m. on Tuesday. We showed up for that meeting only to be told there would be no meeting because Republicans were still busy fighting with each other.
Madam Speaker, you guys had all weekend. Didn't you think to do a Zoom call or something like that with your members to find out where they were? On FISA, this thing has been going on for weeks. Didn't you have a meeting or a phone call or a text thread or something to try to work that out?
Finally, at long last, we convened and reported out a rule, but based on public reporting, it is not clear whether the rule that we are debating right now can pass.
So what the hell are we doing here? I mean, can somebody please, please call the Republican whip and ask his office if they have the votes? Maybe they can ask them if they know how to count. We keep running around in circles here, Madam Speaker, and I will tell you why.
You guys have a tiny, slim majority. Rather than trying to work things out with Democrats, you cut us out of the process. The result is endless chaos, endless incompetence, and endless delay, and everyday Americans are the ones who pay the price.
Here is just one example. Democrats tried to make in order many Republican amendments in the Rules Committee last night. One of them, authored by Representative Biggs, would require a warrant before the government spies on Americans. Last time the amendment came to the floor, it tied. Clearly, this is an important issue with members of both parties on both sides. It is exactly the kind of debate Congress should be having out in the open.
What did Republicans do? Well, there were two Republicans who voted with us to bring the amendment to the floor--again, an amendment to make sure the government can't spy on Americans without warrants. That was what the amendment was. Then, a third Republican, as I mentioned before, kept getting up and leaving the room every time we called the vote. It was really comical.
That is why we won't be having a floor debate, again, on a Republican amendment. That was a Republican amendment we tried to bring to the floor, and it was blocked by a Republican who literally had to get up and leave the room because if he didn't, it would pass. I just wonder who asked him to leave. What an embarrassment to this institution.
For the record, it isn't just one amendment Republicans have blocked here. It is hundreds. Seven out of 10 Republican amendments are blocked. Eight out of 10 bipartisan amendments are blocked. Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked. Let me repeat that: Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked in this rule.
Over 50 times in the Rules Committee last night, we asked to simply have an up-or-down vote on these important issues on the floor. Over 50 times, we were blocked.
I understand my ideas won't always prevail and win, but to not even be able to get a vote--I mean, what the hell are Republicans afraid of? Isn't it our job to debate and to vote?
This is an interesting statistic. For the record, we had more amendment votes in the Rules Committee last night than we have had on the House floor this entire year. That is not okay. We call ourselves one of the greatest deliberative bodies of the world, and we aren't deliberating on anything, for God's sake.
Republican leaders are blocking nearly every amendment, and that is what this rule does. It blocks idea after idea after idea from being debated and voted on.
We can't debate more aid for farmers. We can't debate more help for hungry families. We have Republican Members who are publicly threatening to take down this rule because their amendments were blocked, too. I disagree strongly with some of their ideas, and I would vote ``no,'' but they deserve a vote, don't they?
These bills are take it or leave it. The leadership dictates every single letter, every comma. This is no way to run this place. It is no way to run a banana stand. It is pathetic. It is a disgrace. The Speaker and the majority ought to be embarrassed by what is going on here. You are screwing over your own Members.
Madam Speaker, you write bad bills, and you block good ideas. You refuse to work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. You bend over backward to appease the people in your Conference who have no interest in governing.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Rules Committee who was there during the entire fiasco in the Rules Committee yesterday, to further expand on what I have been talking about.
Madam Speaker, first, let me say thank you to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee for his principled leadership.
I think it is well understood by most Americans that Congress is broken and that Congress is deeply dysfunctional. For anyone who is looking for another data point, we have one this morning: the Republican Rules Committee chairwoman criticizing and attacking Democratic members of the Rules Committee for trying to get a vote on Republican amendments.
Think about that. The amendments that we offered last night, that I offered last night, were not mine. They were amendments from members of the Republican Conference. For having the audacity to suggest that Republican ideas and Democratic ideas ought to be considered on the floor of the House, in this august Chamber, we have the Republican chairwoman attacking even the concept that a Democratic Member of Congress could dare introduce a Republican amendment.
For Ms. Boebert, for Mr. Van Orden, for Mrs. Miller-Meeks, for Mr. Steube--go down the line--vote after vote after vote, two-thirds of Republican amendments were rejected by the Republican Rules Committee. Why? What are we afraid of?
This ought to be the Chamber where we can have a reasoned, objective debate and let the chips fall where they may.
I think it is deeply offensive to those Republican Members, to the Members in my conference, and, fundamentally, to the American people to suggest to them that we aren't capable of having that debate.
Just to be clear, on the substance, I have heard a lot of bluster today. It is shocking to me to hear my colleagues lecture us about fiscal responsibility as they preside over the highest debt in the history of the Republic, to hear them pontificate about fighting for working families as they enact the largest cut to SNAP, to food assistance for hungry families, in the history of the country.
Madam Speaker, they sermonize about fraud and corruption while the Trump administration engages in wholesale corruption daily, and they do nothing about it.
President Trump, right now, is suing the IRS for a $10 billion shakedown. Think about it. He is suing the Federal Government that he controls for a check for $10 billion that he hopes to secure that will go to Donald Trump, signed by Donald Trump. Who is paying the check? The American taxpayers. If you want to root out corruption, let's start there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Madam Speaker, it is absurd. It is unconscionable. It is outrageous.
I just say to the gentleman from Georgia, whom I respect, I understand his arguments on the merits of some of these bills, but spare us the pious lectures, please, especially about corruption, not while President Trump is suing the Justice Department, suing the IRS, and trying to secure more money from hardworking taxpayers in our country, please.
For my Republican colleagues who are debating whether to vote on this procedural rule, just remember that when you had an important issue that you wanted debated on the House floor, your Conference rejected that debate. If you are interested in pesticide immunity or the regulation of field trip forms for middle schoolers, yes, they have you covered. This rule encompasses all of that. If you have a particular issue that is important to your constituents here, to your district, you are out of luck.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I will take a second to thank my Democratic colleagues for acknowledging my amendments. I will be sending them my entire list of legislative priorities for their cosponsorship.
I stand here today to strongly support the E15 year-round codification. For the past 5 years, the EPA has been using data that is older than some of the Members of this body. For 5 years in a row, the EPA has issued an emergency waiver for the use of E15 year-round because of the data sources that they have been using.
Under the leadership of President Trump and Lee Zeldin, we are now going to use data from this century. It is critically important.
This is what that data has shown. E15 is environmentally sound. It is readily available. It is reliable. Most importantly, it is affordable.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this rule and for the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that he is in the majority party and that 100 percent of his amendments were blocked. I don't know what he did to tick off Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, but he voted against his amendments in the Rules Committee last night.
By the way, I am somebody who believes that we ought to debate amendments, even the ones that I don't always agree with, because I think this is a place where diversity of opinion and ideas ought to be brought to the floor and ought to be debated.
I am sorry the gentleman doesn't share that passion. I will tell you this: If you vote for this rule, as you just said you would, you can look forward to your future amendments being blocked by the majority in your own party, because that is what they have been doing.
We haven't had a debate on a single amendment on this floor in nearly 100 days. I am not okay with that, and I hope my Republican colleagues are not okay with that, either.
They ought to send a message to your leadership that this bs has to stop now. Individual Members have to be respected, and their ideas need to be brought to the floor.
I will say one final thing on the E15 matter. I think it is a legitimate issue. Our problem with it is that we are told that we can't address the issue of hunger and food insecurity because it adds to the deficit and the debt.
The Republican leadership in here knows that the Office of Management and Budget has said that the E15 provision will cost billions--billions with a b. Rather than offset it, they came up with a clever way to vote on it separately and then merge it with the farm bill at the end and send it to the Senate.
Again, none of this is paid for. What happened to fiscal responsibility? I guess when it comes to helping poor people, everybody on that side is: Oh, we can't do it because we have to be fiscally responsible. On other things, the sky is the limit.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding.
Madam Speaker, at a time when too many Americans are struggling to afford groceries, Congress should be working together to help feed working families.
We could be expanding access to food and vegetables, and investing in Food Is Medicine programs that keep people healthy and out of the hospital.
Instead, we are considering a betrayal of a farm bill that cuts food assistance for millions and fails our farmers. Let me be clear: Hunger is a health issue. Hunger is a policy choice.
I spent 20 years caring for the sickest patients in my community, and I know how food insecurity results in illness. I saw patients who delayed care to be able to put food on the table, only to end up in the hospital even sicker. I cared for people who couldn't afford the healthy food to manage their hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease.
This bill makes impossible choices harder. We need a farm bill that helps farmers feed Americans and helps families afford that food. This bill does neither.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and, instead, work to advance solutions that actually help families.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, starving farmers the way Democrats did over the last several years, where they took and put 82 percent of farm bill spending into SNAP benefits, doesn't allow farmers the resources they need to grow the food that hungry people need.
We exempted anyone under 18 from the changes that we made. Anybody over 65 was exempted from the changes that we made. Anybody who is medically or psychologically disabled or unable to work is exempt from the
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my friend who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and E15.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Georgia, for all of his efforts to get this passed.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and urge my colleagues to pass this critical legislation and the rule to bring it to the floor.
The last full farm bill was passed in 2018. Since then, input costs have risen, borrowing has become more expensive, and markets have grown more volatile. Our policies must reflect that reality.
Last year, we took an important step forward by strengthening the farm safety net and delivering meaningful support for producers through the Working Families Tax Cut Act.
This bill now builds on that foundation. It delivers a modern, fiscally responsible, 5-year farm bill that meets the needs of today's producers and prepares American agriculture for the future.
This bill is grounded in fiscal responsibility. It provides certainty without growing government for the sake of growing government. It cuts through unnecessary red tape and focuses on what actually works for producers on the ground.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
I also rise in strong support of year-round E15 and, specifically, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which finally makes it a reality.
In the Big First District of Kansas, agriculture is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. Our farmers work hard every day to produce the feedstocks that power American ethanol. Expanding access to E15 means stronger markets and better prices for consumers and more certainty.
Madam Speaker, this is a win for farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for American energy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1346 and support year-round E15.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague from Georgia does not believe that we can help both farmers and hungry families, but I do. That is what I am fighting for.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and all the things. These bills are problematic and dangerous and will not make gas prices lower or feed families.
The FISA bill will allow the government to oversurveil Americans. The farm bill will keep the cuts to SNAP benefits and food pantries while protecting large corporations that put pesticides in your food.
The budget bill will fund the murderous ICE and Border Patrol to the tune of $140 billion without accountability.
The anti-trans bill will continue to demonize the trans community.
These bills are not just dangerous. They could kill people.
Madam Speaker, to load all of these sinister bills together and try to stuff them down the throats of Americans already choking on the incompetence of the majority is disingenuous and delusional.
No on the rule. No on the floor. Just no. Enough is enough.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
In my district, agriculture isn't just a part of the economy; it is the economy. Our corn and soybean farmers feed our country, fuel our bioeconomy, and supply global markets, all while operating on tight margins and managing significant risks.
This bill provides the certainty they need to plan, invest, and sustain operations that often span generations.
It also strengthens the critical link between research and production. Institutions like Purdue University are driving advances in crop science, soil health, precision agriculture, and supply chain resilience, moving the innovation from the lab to the field and keeping American agriculture globally competitive.
I am especially pleased this legislation includes provisions I have worked on to expand access to the technical expertise for conservation, strengthen local and regional processing capacity, improve coordination between the leading research agencies, and provide clarity for emerging agricultural technologies.
These are the practical steps that help farmers adopt innovation and build more resilient supply chains.
Just as important, this bill reaffirms our strong commitment to science-based standards, particularly at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's rigorous and data-driven review process ensures farmers have access to safe and effective crop protection tools while protecting consumers and the environment. We must maintain that gold standard while also ensuring that reviews are timely and predictable, so American producers remain competitive.
Madam Speaker, this bill strengthens farm programs, invests in conservation, and supports our rural communities. It is about stability, innovation, and national security.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now to fund all the law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security.
Enough is enough. This is the deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security while we discuss changes in ICE and CBP. It is a bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously in the Senate twice.
The situation is so dire now that even the White House has sent a letter urging the House to pass the bill.
I am, once again, giving all Members of this body a chance to do the right thing and to provide a vote on this bipartisan DHS bill. Stop the games. Stop the games.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
I urge all Members to reject this madness and the games my friends are playing on the other side of the aisle and vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can fund, finally, DHS.
Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any recorded vote on the floor of the United States Senate. I am aware of a couple of actions being taken when nobody was on the floor of the United States Senate, but I am not aware of any recorded vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and the E15 issue.
Madam Speaker, I thank Austin Scott for his leadership on this farm bill.
I am from Iowa. We are home to 87,000 proud farmers. We are the home of American Gothic, and we are home to some of the best technology, particularly in ag, this country has ever seen and the world can benefit from. That is why it is so important that we move forward a farm bill this year that helps not just farmers but everyone in this country and leads with energy and biofuels the world over.
I am speaking specifically to year-round nationwide E15. Not only is it 30 cents cheaper at the pump, not only is it 50 percent more fuel efficient and
Here is the reality: For the last 4 years under the Biden administration gas hit its highest price of over $5 a gallon. We have the opportunity to rein it in with this. The reality is we have done more in the last 4 months than the last administration had done in the last 4 years. We have moved forward on summer waivers with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. We have worked for 45Z, and we have helped sustainable aviation fuel.
Iowa's producers should not have to win it back every single year. We should make this permanent, year-round, and nationwide, and help not only farmers grow, but my consumers, like my six kids, have a more affordable cost of living right here in Iowa and right here in America.
The 21 counties across Iowa that I pass through have all asked for certainty. This bill delivers it.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans and Democrats, so that we can have energy independence right here in America with E15 year-round nationwide.
Madam Speaker, I, again, want to give great credit to Mr. Nunn and the Iowa delegation as well as many others for their work on the E15 issue and the farm bill.
Madam Speaker, I am appalled by what is coming before us on the floor today all wrapped up in one big, ugly rule. There are billions for ICE's warrantless searches on Americans and for funds that cut millions of Americans' children's access to food.
While working Americans are struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their head, farmers are wondering how they are going to weather drought, tariffs, and soaring fuel and fertilizer prices, what are Republicans bringing to the floor in this House?
They are handing ICE another blank check. They are forcing a farm bill that fails our farmers and ranchers and gives big corporations handouts, and on top of that, another FISA bill that gives a backdoor to spy on Americans.
This is not governing. It is a dereliction of duty.
Madam Speaker, stop gaslighting the American people. Our farmers need relief, our families need help, and the hardworking people of this country need you to show up for them and to stand up for the American people. We have had enough of this chaos, enough of this cruelty, and enough of this corruption. We must vote ``no''.
Madam Speaker, I will just remind the gentlewoman that New Mexico has experienced a historic financial boom driven by what President Trump has done in unleashing America's domestic energy production. I think it was the Senate later that said they had more money than they could figure out how to spend in New Mexico.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, prices are up, debate in this House is down. We are debating culture war nonsense instead of adhering to an affordability agenda. We are giving more money to ICE and CBP that are lawless and that don't need any more money. We are giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. Farmers are getting screwed over, poor people are getting screwed over, hunger is going up in this country, and enough is enough. Enough is enough.
My friends on the other side do not care.
I will say to my Republican colleagues: If you are tired of getting rolled by your own leadership, then vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time is expired.
Madam Speaker, Customs and Border Protection is an extremely important part of protecting the United States of America. While the Democrats might want to eliminate Customs and Border Protection so that they can make the borders wide open, the American citizens want those borders secure.
This week, the House has the ability to advance five pieces of legislation, including the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, representing years of committee efforts and stakeholder engagement, strengthening rural America, improving conservation tools, and supporting American producers.
The Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act reauthorizes section 702, with reforms, providing the continued ability to collect intelligence on foreign nationals overseas, who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information, in order to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil--again, stopping terrorist attacks on United States soil.
We have no idea who the Democrats let into this country over the last several years.
The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act supports parents, strengthens transparency, and protects our children in educational environments.
The budget resolution is an essential first step toward ending this Democrat-driven shutdown at DHS and strengthening our Nation's national security and keeping our borders secure, which is what Democrats' real opposition is to the Department of Homeland Security.
Finally, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round and provides additional reforms to the Renewable Energy Standard.
Together these measures advance our commitments to American families, American procedures, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Madam Speaker, in order to keep America's border secure, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 210, not voting 5, as follows:
Ms. GARCIA of Texas and Mr. GOTTHEIMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SCHWEIKERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res 33 currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because my Democrat colleagues have shut the United States Government down, the Department of Homeland Security, for now 74 days. They have held the American people hostage and have imperiled the safety of every citizen of this country for their ridiculous and even dangerous demands.
They are not serious. We had a four-corners agreement between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. They reneged. If it weren't for President Trump's intervention, we would have the hardworking public servants at the Department of Homeland Security going 100 days without pay.
Ask me, Mr. Speaker, how many days my Democrat colleagues have gone without pay or how long they would tolerate going without pay.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports. This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis.
This is the moment we take the keys from the kids, we say no more of this nonsense, we open up the people's government, and we restore the safety and the security of the American people.
Now, you will hear my colleagues, no doubt, say: If we could just agree on some commonsense reforms, we would have opened up the Department of Homeland Security. We would have been glad to work with you.
But let's think about these commonsense reforms. To require this administration to get a judicial warrant to expel criminal aliens from our country, there is not a Democrat or Republican former Commander in Chief who would ever find that acceptable.
In fact, these criminal aliens have had their day in immigration court, and they have their orders to be expelled because they are not here with cause. They are here with threat to my family and to my community and to my great State of Texas and to this beloved country of ours. It is unacceptable.
They would effectively stop all deportations. But we had an election after 4 years of lawlessness and chaos at the southern border, crime, criminals, and all kinds of criminal elements and drugs that killed more people than the entire Vietnam war in 1 year.
This President was elected to restore law and order. Rule of law in this great civil society of ours has been an embarrassment for those 4 years. He has done it, and that is what the people sent us here to do. That is the mandate they gave us, along with unified Republican leadership.
There has been one wall of obstruction after another for this President and this administration. That is one example of their ridiculous, absurd, and unserious demands.
The other one is--I heard this at the Rules Committee, and I couldn't believe my ears. They called our law enforcement agents, who risk their lives to keep us safe--their families pray and
When evil is called good, and good is called evil--do you remember that quote? Do you remember that admonition? These are the days.
Mr. Speaker, we have given 16 chances and all opportunities to vote to turn this government of the people back on and support our ICE and CBP agents, to protect our ports by funding our guardsmen, to protect the CISA agents to protect our critical infrastructure while cyberattacks are on the rise, and to resource our FEMA agency to be ready to respond to our citizens in a natural disaster. They said no 16 times. No. Here we are, demasking our agents and calling them masked thugs.
There is an 8,000-percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in death threats to these gentlemen and gentlewomen who wear the badge, who wear the uniform, and who protect the thin blue line, a 1,300-percent increase in assaults, and a 3,200-percent increase in vehicular assaults.
We know who they are. We have made great efforts to identify each agent so they would be held accountable if they did anything illegal or inappropriate.
We have cartel members who have bounties of tens of thousands of dollars on their heads. We have masked, leftist, radical, violent folks who are assaulting them in the streets while they are trying to do their dangerous jobs.
You want to know why we are here, Mr. Speaker? Do you want to know why we are here, American people? That is why we are here. We say enough is enough.
Today, we put forward this budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to fund the people's homeland security, to protect our citizens, and to do right by these hard-working, God-fearing public servants who go to work every day not knowing if they are going to come home.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me set the stage here for what has brought us to this point.
Last year, over the course of the first 6 months of the year, mind you, there was reconciliation 1.0. That was what the other side and the President used to call the big, beautiful bill. Do you remember that?
You don't hear that phrase too much anymore. Do you know why? It is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to pass Congress in modern American history, with a more than 2-to-1 disapproval over approval.
Why is that? Because the American people know what was in the bill. The American people know that it throws more than 15 million Americans off their healthcare--more than 17 million, according to one nonpartisan service. In addition to that, it raises healthcare costs for tens of millions more.
That is not all. It also cuts nutrition assistance, the biggest cuts to the SNAP program in American history--on and on. I could take up the next hour listing the cuts.
Why are those cuts in there? In order to fund the biggest tax breaks for billionaires in American history, but that is not all. It is also the biggest increase to our national debt in American history, and that is not all. It also includes $140 billion--record funding, mind you-- for ICE and CBP.
That is what has set the stage for reconciliation 2.0, the bill that is now in front of us.
This bill is quite different in that it is narrowly pertaining to just two areas: ICE and CBP. That is interesting to me because one thing the vast majority of the American people agree on--whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent--is that costs keep going up. They haven't come down in the last year and a half. They have only gotten worse. They have only gotten higher.
That is no accident. It is not because of something like a terrorist attack or the business cycle. No. It is directly because of this President's reckless policies: trade policies that have spiked inflation and a war in Iran that has taken the average price for a gallon of gas from under $3 a gallon just 2 months ago to now over $4.20 a gallon and rising.
You don't see anything in this reconciliation 2.0 to address anything that I just discussed, any of the rising costs, any of the rising healthcare costs, any of the rising costs at the supermarket--nothing, nada, zilch, zero.
The only thing that is in this is another $70 billion for ICE and CBP, on top of the record funding that was in the bill last year.
The American people simply want costs to come down, period. Unfortunately, those priorities are not being met by this Republican majority.
Now, I want to be clear: I believe--and sometimes this is inconvenient on both sides of the aisle to say it. I strongly believe in a strong border, period. What I don't believe in is any agency of the government shooting and killing American citizens in the streets of our country. I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets.
We know that there are reforms that need to happen with ICE and CBP in order to rein in the abuses that we have seen. Unfortunately, none of that is in the bill before us. Instead, it is just showering them with additional billions of dollars that they simply don't need.
Mr. Speaker, I really hope we can get back soon to a budget bill that addresses the needs and concerns of the American people. Unfortunately, that is not the one that is presently before us. The American people deserve far better.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and conveniently, some of my Democrat friends have had a bad case of amnesia. I am going to remind the American people that when Joe Biden and the Democrats had control of this town, this Chamber, Congress, and the White House, they took inflation from 1.4 percent all the way past 9 percent.
We had a 22-percent increase cumulative of prices of everyday goods that Americans depend on.
It was Joe Biden and the Democrats who lit the fuse on the inflationary firestorm that the American people, especially working Americans, suffered. The average inflation rate during the Joe Biden- Kamala Harris era was 5 percent.
Inflation is down. The average inflation under this President, President Trump, is 2.7 percent. Wages are up. Business investment is up, growth and GDP are up, and there is money in people's pockets, because had we relied on the Democrats, then we would have seen a $1,700-a-month tax hike on the American people. However, we said no tax on tips, no more tax on working people with respect to overtime or seniors on a fixed income.
I am very proud of what we did as one strategy to provide much-needed relief after the cost-of-living crisis that was caused by the unbridled spending and failed economic policies of my Democratic colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the American people to a great man and patriot. Lloyd Smucker is a dear friend and the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to some of the comments of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who is also from Pennsylvania, just to say that in regards to the tax bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, individuals, families, and wage earners in my district are feeling the impact of that bill when they are filing their taxes.
They like the no tax on tips that so many in my district have taken advantage of and the no tax on overtime that so many have taken advantage of. I have had many seniors come to me and say that they had a lot more in their pockets after they filed their taxes this year.
I will put up our economic record in the last year, the impact on people in
I was happy to hear the ranking member say that he supports a secure border, because, Mr. Speaker, you certainly wouldn't have known that during the past administration when Democrats were in control and we had thousands of people pouring across this border every single day, including individuals who were criminals, who were members of gangs, including drugs flowing across the border, and Democrats did nothing to stop that.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my district, when I talk to people of all political stripes, Democrats and Republicans alike, they support removing people from this country who are criminals and who are here illegally. They support the work of ICE in doing that. Democrats obviously do not. A shutdown should never be used.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, we should never use a government shutdown to achieve any policy benefits. We have seen Democrats do that time and time again. We certainly shouldn't be using it to not fund those who are keeping Americans safe and who are removing criminals from our country.
That is what this bill is about today. We shouldn't be funding this in this way. It should be done through a regular appropriations bill, but we were not able to do that because we did not have Democrat support.
I don't like necessarily the way we are doing this, but there have to be grownups in the room, and those are Republicans right now who are going to ensure that those people who are working hard to keep Americans safe every day are going to be able to count on a paycheck at the end of the week.
This is an important bill. It is very unfortunate that Democrats continue to shut down the government over this issue, but Republicans are going to stand for the safety and security of the American people.
It is the number one thing that every one of us as elected officials should be doing. We should be ensuring that American individuals, American citizens, are safe and secure.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget resolution does nothing to end the shutdown. It does nothing to reform ICE; yet it does everything to give ICE and CBP $70 billion more.
Mr. Speaker, I support a strong and secure border, but the Trump deportation policy goes way beyond going after felons and gang members. The last Republican reconciliation bill injected $190 billion into DHS, leading to thousands of untrained ICE and CBP agents being injected into our communities.
They called themselves law enforcement, but they acted with lawlessness, trolling big box store parking lots, causing chaos in our communities, deaths to American citizens, and they were allowed to act with impunity.
I said: No more funding until they transform, reform, and retrain with commonsensical law enforcement protocols and procedures.
Now, I hate shutdowns, but, Mr. Speaker, if you allow a vote on the bipartisan Senate bill today, we can open and pay the TSA, Coast Guard, Cybersecurity, and FEMA.
However, Mr. Speaker, instead of working us across the aisle, the purely partisan resolution that just funds ICE without any reforms demonstrates, once again, you are going it alone. You are doing nothing to lower costs. You are adding to our debt and deficit. You are giving in to the President, and you are giving up on our constitutional responsibilities.
I am voting ``no'' not just because I am for reforming ICE, but I am standing up to this administration, and I am living up to my oath of office.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have ruled that these criminal aliens are not with cause, for heaven's sakes, in our country, we included body cameras, millions of dollars. The President reviewed protocols included and strengthened training programs.
Here is the root cause of what people saw on their TV sets at night when they saw the mayhem and they saw the chaos: It was lawless sanctuary cities, rogue leaders who incited violence against our law enforcement officers while they were doing a dangerous job to rid our country of criminal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, how in the world do we expect them to do this job when we have State and local leaders who refuse to cooperate, who thumb their noses at the rule of law, and who make things not only more difficult but more dangerous for the men and women in uniform who courageously protect us every day?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Utah (Mr. Moore).
Mr. Speaker, one trick that you see back here in Washington politics is when the opposing side is arguing in defense of the indefensible, they will say: I support border security but . . . there is always a but.
What we have seen for the last 5\1/2\ years since President Biden took over in 2021 to today is very simply laid out in the following three strategies: Leave the border wide open, then create a bunch of sanctuary cities, and then refuse to fund immigration and Border Patrol.
If you look at those three things, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they are doing. Now they are forcing us to go at it alone, when for decades, longer than that, Republicans and Democrats have always been able to come together and support a homeland security bill, but they refuse to support ICE and CBP.
S. Con. Res. 33 is a critical step in delivering on the key policy mandate that voters gave Congress: to secure the southern border and end the national crisis that is mass migration.
I would much rather fund and regulate the Department of Homeland Security and immigration enforcement through regular appropriations. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made that impossible. This is not a serious way to govern. It is irresponsible, and it is dangerous.
Congress should not play with the livelihoods of servicemembers at the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Agency, or the Secret Service to secure a political win. We cannot restrict resources at a time like this, especially amid recent threats to White House officials and national security concerns.
We are now forced to run a narrowly focused partisan reconciliation process to provide necessary funding to ICE and CBP and their operational and support components to last through the Trump administration.
The Trump administration has made great strides in securing the border and removing those who have entered our country illegally, which will alleviate strains on local law enforcement and hospital systems. It will help lower insurance premiums and put downward pressure on housing prices in the long term.
Supporting this resolution will ensure we can build on the success and continue to provide a safe environment for American families to thrive. This also does a very important thing by setting our projected deficit on a path toward 3 percent of GDP.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, ICE has become another three-letter word for
While we have simply asked that ICE meet the standards that we expect of our local law enforcement, this bill is designed to let ICE continue its rampage across America totally unrestrained.
What we should be doing is using the $70 billion that this Republican bill showers on ICE and CBP to instead address the affordability crisis that our American families are facing because of Trump's continued mismanagement, his reckless, endless war in Iran, and his illegal tariffs.
That $70 billion, think of what it could accomplish. With it, we could restore affordable access to a family physician for millions of American families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, we could restore access to a family physician for millions of American families who no longer have it thanks to the Republican action. Or, we could instead choose to provide for our future by ensuring that every single 3- and 4-year-old in America can access pre-K.
But instead of helping working families, Republicans insist that we shower more tax dollars on a rogue agency that already has entirely too much funding to continue its mission of ripping families apart and detaining babies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's play back the tape: 4 years, wide-open border flooding the zone, and by the zone I mean the entire country, crime, criminals, drugs, record number of people on the terrorist watch list, record number of people from countries of interest, record number of illegal immigrants dying in the desert, record number of humans trafficked to this country; record, record, record, open border, disaster.
Now, after this mess, when we have to get the brave men and women to go clean up the streets from the criminals that roam in the great cities of this country and threaten our citizens, they want to call them what I heard in Rules Committee, masked thugs. That is what they are calling our law enforcement officers.
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised because that is the party that wanted to defund the police. That is the party with the battle cry, ``Defund ICE.'' That is the party which, at the top of their ticket in the last Presidential election, had a Presidential nominee who compared ICE to the KKK, and her Vice President compared them to the gestapo.
No, no, sir, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised, not surprised that now that they created this self-inflicted disaster and mess, and our brave ICE officers are trying to clean it up, that they would want to impede them and insult them, but they only insult law-abiding American citizens, I assure you that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell), my dear friend from the Tar Heel State and a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we point out that as our Democratic colleagues across the aisle are pointing a finger at us, there are three fingers pointing back at them.
What we need to look at is exactly what they have done. For the last 4 years of Joe Biden, they let all of these people into our country. We are trying to get rid of them. There was a mandate by the American people for us to do that. That is what we are trying to do.
We are also trying to do one of our very basic functions as Congress, which is to pass appropriations bills. While they want to blame us, I will remind them that each time that has come up, it has passed out of this Chamber with bipartisan support, and then it has gone to the Senate where it has died.
The President, the Senate, our leadership, they have tried to come to an agreement. They will not let us. That is exactly what is happening.
Mr. Speaker, this is day 74, 74 days, that is exactly how long the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down, 74 days, Mr. Speaker.
Let's be clear about one thing: Democrats have forced this shutdown to defund law enforcement and gamble with the safety of our country. They are pushing an agenda that leads to lawlessness in our communities. They are willing to let dangerous, illegal aliens, murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers walk our streets and destroy our communities. They are even willing to force Americans to stand in long TSA lines simply as leverage to force their agenda.
Maybe they were fine with the millions of illegal aliens who were released into our communities under the Biden administration, and maybe they were fine with the massive flow of drugs that poured across our southern border, but my constituents were not, Mr. Speaker. The American people were not. House Republicans will keep the promises that we made. We will do what it takes to keep Americans safe and secure.
Despite the Democratic resistance, we will stand on principles and deliver for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote to get us back on track to fully reopening the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Boy, that sounds like a scary hellscape that the last couple speakers on the other side have described. I am just glad they are not talking about the United States because in the country where I live, actually specifically in my city of Philadelphia, the murder rate is lower today than at any point in the 1960s. There are a lot of American cities right now that have the lowest violent crime rate in my lifetime.
I can understand, though, why they want to talk about anything but costs because right now, according to one opinion poll, the American people are more pessimistic today about their own economic future than they were even in the depths of the Great Recession, and they rate this President the lowest job approval on the economy since George W. Bush in the middle of the Great Recession. You can understand why they want to talk about anything except for costs and the financial livelihoods of most American households.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee and also a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the budget. For years, my Republican colleagues have sanctimoniously spoken about the need to reduce the deficit but continuously vote for spending bills that add trillions of dollars to the Federal deficit.
The CBO estimates that last year's big, ugly bill will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. This bill is not even serious. They didn't even bring it to committee. They just brought it to the floor. It continues the pattern of Presidential administrations, every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit than they inherited. By the way, every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, all without exceptions.
Now they are back here with misguided budget priorities. This does nothing to lower costs and make life better for the American people. It does give $70 billion to ICE after they violated the Constitution, killed Americans, and refused to agree to Democratic demands that they conform to the same standards as other law enforcement officers, like get a warrant before you go into somebody's house, don't use unconstitutional excessive force, don't deport citizens. We should be investing in education, healthcare, childcare, and job creation. This bill doesn't do it, and that is why we ought to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a note on cost: When the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they spent a record $12 trillion. Now, $5 trillion of that is because of the record interest rate hikes that were associated with an almost half-century high inflation. Combined, we are talking about, again, almost $12 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, what did we get for that? What did the American people, the shareholders, get for that? What return did our citizens get for that ``investment''? They got green energy subsidies to corporations, which were a disaster for our energy economy. It made the prices of gas and electricity for our consumers skyrocket.
The American people got tens of thousands of IRS agents. They expanded the IRS by $80 billion because that is what they thought the American people needed after a 22-percent increase in prices. They bailed out student loan programs, schools that wouldn't open, and the union pension fund. It was one bailout after another. It is hard to keep up with it.
If you go back and look at the executive order from President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the time, they actually provided healthcare at the cost of taxpayers to people in this country illegally, and we wonder why we had record numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend from the Buckeye State and the House's chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, why are the Democrats doing it? Why would they shut down the Department of Homeland Security for 74 days? Why would they do that when we have had a third assassination attempt on the President of the United States, while we are in the middle of a military operation in Iran, and when we have had terrorist attacks here on the homeland? Why would they do it?
The simple answer is: They don't want a border. They don't want a border. They have said it, but look at their plan. In 4 years of Joe Biden, they let in 10 million illegal migrants. Then, they create sanctuary jurisdictions all over the country, which makes it difficult to remove illegal migrants who commit another crime. Now, they say, don't pay the guys who do the removing. Let's don't pay ICE. They let in 10 million and create sanctuary jurisdictions.
By the way, 18 cities, 11 States, 3 counties, and the District of Columbia are sanctuary jurisdictions. Because they are big, blue cities in big, blue States, that represents almost a third of the country that lives in a jurisdiction where the politicians tell local law enforcement not to work with Federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing Federal law.
Now, they say don't pay the guys who enforce Federal law. Don't pay ICE.
It is not enough that the leftwing agitators out there have doxed them, tracked them, spit on them, sworn at them, threatened them, and attacked them. That is not enough. Now, we are not going to pay them. We are not going to pay them. That is their plan, and it is all because they don't want a border in our country.
There was an election where the people said we want a border, and that is why this bill and the good work that Chairman Arrington and the Budget Committee have done is so darn important.
We shouldn't have to pass this kind of bill. It should have been done in the appropriation bill, but nope. They are going to shut the government down for 74 days because they don't want a border.
They let in 10 million. They create sanctuary jurisdictions so it is difficult to remove them. Then, they don't want to pay the guys who do the removing.
That is their plan, and the country needs to know that, plain and simple. But here comes the Budget Committee and Republicans to say that we are going to do something to pay the guys. We will have to do it via reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Budget Committee and the chairman for doing the work. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this Republican effort to funnel another $70 billion to ICE and CBP to continue their inhumane, illegal, and reprehensible actions.
This effort is even more incomprehensible considering it comes after Trump and congressional Republicans already created an $85 billion slush fund for ICE during the last budget reconciliation process.
In my district, ICE has used the money to terrorize Minnesotans, particularly our Black and Brown communities, through Operation Metro Surge. We watched in horror as ICE agents murdered our neighbors, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in broad daylight. We witnessed our neighbors being snatched off the street and pulled from their homes and cars without a warrant. We saw dozens of children ripped away from their families, friends, and schools, shipped to detention centers out of State.
Our communities are still recovering from that devastation caused by the Federal occupation and the blatant trampling of the rights we as Americans hold dear. We cannot send this rogue and unaccountable agency another cent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Van Epps).
Mr. VAN EPPS. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats have kept the Department of Homeland Security shut down for more than 70 days. During this time, the critical services that DHS provides to the American people are, at best, disrupted and, at worst, paused entirely.
This comes as we prepare for the busiest travel season ever, celebrating our founding and welcoming visitors from around the world. It also comes during a threat environment unlike any other.
The previous administration welcomed unvetted migrants across our border for 4 years. There have been three assassination attempts against this sitting President, and cyber threats targeting our critical infrastructure are accelerating.
The threats are persistent, and they are here within our borders.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time we empower these agencies to accomplish their crucial mission, and I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution is a total insult to the American people. Instead of addressing the rising prices of gas, groceries, housing, childcare, the things that actually allow people to survive in an economy that Republicans have rigged for the billionaires, this resolution puts another $70 billion into ICE and CBP. That is on top of the $170 billion slush fund that was given to these agencies in the Republican's big, bad betrayal bill last year that allowed ICE and CBP to carry out a violent, cruel, unconstitutional campaign of terror in communities across this country, killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota; conducting a campaign of mass detentions, detaining an unprecedented number of people, which has resulted in a record 47 deaths; locking up children and using them as bait for their parents; and terrorizing schools, churches, and hospitals with their activity.
Meanwhile, Republicans refuse to address the rising costs that Americans are dealing with because this administration refuses to put the people first.
Americans of every political stripe do not want more money to go to ICE's slush fund. What they want is real reforms to ICE and CBP to rein in the lawlessness. What they want is for the administration to get serious about cutting their costs instead of catering to Trump's cronies. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, for yet another week, Republicans have brought us legislation that does absolutely nothing to lower the cost of groceries, housing, or healthcare. Instead, they want another $140 billion to expand their lawless deportation machine. Not one penny will make life more affordable for people. In fact, this bill fails to implement the most basic commonsense reforms to ICE and CBP.
Trump's immigration agents have ripped hundreds of thousands of people from their families, jobs, and communities. Nearly 60,000 people are trapped in ICE detention, almost half with no criminal record, and 48 people have died in ICE custody.
Their anti-immigrant agenda is killing people--people like my constituent, Carlos Montoya, a 52-year-old father and grandfather. When ICE agents raided a Home Depot just minutes from my district, Carlos was so frightened that he fled and was tragically struck and killed by a car on the freeway. This administration is instilling so much terror that people are willing to risk their lives to escape.
Republicans' big, ugly bill already handed ICE $170 billion, and now they want another $140 billion to keep kidnapping children, tackling grandmothers to the ground, raiding car washes, and shooting innocent people. Yet, somehow they keep insisting that there is no money for healthcare, food assistance, or housing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just, again, setting the record straight for the American people, the only moneys we are spending are moneys that the Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with us to spend to operate the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP. Then, they reneged on it. They went back on their word, and they shut the Department of Homeland Security down for over 70 days.
All we are doing is using reconciliation, a budgetary tool, to fund ICE and CBP because they want to defund ICE and CBP.
I mean, you hear it in their rhetoric. I mentioned the masked thugs and the comparison to the KKK. They are talking about protecting the illegal immigrant, but you haven't heard a word about Laken Riley and her family. You haven't heard anything about Jocelyn Nungaray and her family or the thousands upon thousands of American citizens whose lives are forever changed because of the harm that was perpetrated upon them from an illegal, criminal alien who was allowed into this country with impunity because our President at the time was derelict in his duty to uphold the laws of the land because he refused to provide for the common defense. When Texas and other States tried to protect their citizens, they were harassed and obstructed at every turn.
What choice do we have: go back to the open border and a sanctuary Nation for criminal aliens? That is not acceptable to Republicans, and that is not acceptable to the people in the popular vote, in the electoral vote, or in every swing State. They sent us here to put America first and the American people first and to restore law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, listen for the dog that didn't bark. Do you notice what the other side hasn't mentioned once during this debate--a debate, mind you, on a reconciliation budget bill--nothing about cost; nothing about their plan to bring down the cost of gas, which had the biggest monthly increase in my lifetime thanks to this administration's policies; nothing to make healthcare more affordable; nothing about childcare to make that more affordable; nothing to make housing more affordable; nothing at all about that.
They have nothing to say because they have no plan, and they don't have one dime for any of that in their bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican budget.
Last year, my Republican colleagues forced through a budget that gave ICE over $80 billion.
Let's put that in perspective: Last year, ICE got more than double the amount that they got during the entirety of Trump's first Presidency, but somehow that is not enough.
Now, they are trying to push through another $70 billion with no reforms, no accountability, no strings attached, nothing. That is $70 billion in taxpayer dollars for an agency responsible for kidnapping people off the street, murdering U.S. citizens, separating families, detaining children, and breaking down doors without warrants.
That is $70 billion in taxpayer dollars for masked, armed, and untrained agents who don't answer to anyone; $70 billion in taxpayer dollars for a campaign of terror directed at our own neighbors, while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families, pay rent, go to the doctor, and keep the lights on.
I am so tired of hearing that we don't have enough money for our schools and hospitals, no money to make sure that our veterans are taken care of, no money to make sure that everyone has a roof over their head, and no money for healthcare. I mean, just a couple of weeks ago, we were told that we don't even have the money to make sure that pregnant women can have fruits and vegetables.
Yet, the second that Trump needs more money to bankroll his own personal police force, Republicans in Congress can move mountains. For ICE, we have $70 billion. For everyone else, nothing.
This is intentional. It is a choice, and it is the wrong one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I remind my colleagues and friend that the average gas price under Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership was over $5 per gallon. Under President Trump, it is just a little over $3 per gallon.
He talks about cost, but if you look at the CBO, which is a nonpartisan scorekeeper, they would tell you that in the first 6 months of this fiscal year, compared to the last 6 months of the last fiscal year, the deficit has actually gone down for the first time in almost a decade by $138 billion.
That is not me telling you that. That is not conjecture on the part of either party. It is the watchdog, scorekeeper, nonpartisan, telling you that when we held the line to control spending on the discretionary side for the last 4 years, we have saved almost $500 billion. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is big and beautiful because we protected tax dollars, and we preserved the safety nets for American citizens who need them and depend on them.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the CBO about the Medicaid coverage impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the letter says? Let me summarize. The millions of people who are no longer on Medicaid or SNAP are people who don't qualify to be on there. They are people who are in this country illegally, and they were people who refused to work even though they are able to work. Hardworking taxpayers are willing to support their fellow Americans, but it is a social compact, and there is a responsibility. That is what we did as Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people sent us here to do.
We can talk about the cost. Deficits are coming down. There is more money in people's pockets. Safety nets are being restored, protected, and preserved for the American citizens who depend on them. We are protecting tax dollars, and we are looking out for our kids and future vulnerable Americans who need these programs that are unsustainable because my Democratic colleagues haven't lifted a finger to help us root out waste and fraud.
Mr. Speaker, just to fact check here what we heard, the previous speaker said that the national average for a gallon of gas is $3 a gallon. No, that is what it was 2 months ago. Today, as of literally just a few moments ago when I checked, the national average is $4.22 a gallon. Again, last month was the largest monthly increase in the price of gas since 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo), a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Rhode Islanders have had enough of Trump's reign of terror. Across my State, they know when so-called enforcement becomes intimidation, when profiling and abuse are rampant, and when accountability is absent.
Now, instead of restoring trust or lowering costs, Republicans are doing it again. Their first big, ugly bill ripped billions out of our healthcare system that will make millions sicker and poorer, all to spend $170 billion on ICE and CBP's rogue tactics.
Now this budget doubles down on that spending spree, dumping another $70 billion of taxpayer funding into the same cruel system without any reforms.
So here it is. They are using your money not to lower costs for gas, groceries, rent, or healthcare, not to help people, but to fund raids, roundups, and fear in American communities.
I will not stand by while costs rise, rights are trampled, and working families are left behind. So we have a
I choose families. I urge a ``no'' vote on this latest Republican budget betrayal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the always eager gentleman and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, last year, devil-may-care, footloose, free- spending, Trump-enabling MAGA Republicans cut ICE and CBP a check from the American people for $170 billion with no oversight, no accountability, and no programmatic details.
And in the months since they passed their staggeringly irresponsible budget-busting, debt-enlarging big, beautiful bill, the American people have seen the consequences of handing billions of dollars to a rogue agency headed up by terrible leaders like Kristi Noem.
ICE now routinely tramples the constitutional rights of the people. It thumbs its nose at Federal court orders, and it brings fear and terror to communities across the country.
Look at what Federal courts have said about ICE, which didn't just lie about the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. In dozens of cases, Federal judges have found that ICE officials are lying in court. A Reagan-appointed judge rejected the testimony of the acting ICE director as ``disingenuous, squalid, and dishonorable.'' Another judge called the affidavit of a top ICE official: The sorriest statement I have ever seen in court and said that if you were asking to get a warrant issued on this I would throw you out of my chambers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, now our colleagues, rather than deal with the reality of what they have created, a monster year with American citizens being shot down in cold blood at point blank range, in Minneapolis Alex Pretti and Renee Good--rather than deal with that reality, they just want to double down on their world historical error by giving up another $140 billion with basically no strings attached to the people at ICE that have unleashed this chaos against us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unleash chaos. Think about that. Ask the American people what they believe about unleashed chaos, millions upon millions of people flooding our country. The Biden administration released 5-plus million people into our streets and into our neighborhoods, record number of criminals, record number of terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I think the chaos that was unleashed was from the Biden administration and the Democrats opening up our border and throwing complete caution, rule of law, and the security of the American people to the wind, and we have suffered greatly as a country.
We are trying to fix it. We are trying to be the adults. We are trying to fund the government. We are trying to support our ICE agents and all those at the Department of Homeland Security that are protecting our ports and our critical infrastructure. They are doing their job for the country they love, and we are preventing them from getting a paycheck.
And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, in defense of the American people who are suffering as a result of more than a trillion dollars in healthcare cuts.
I rise to defend them because my colleagues across the aisle would reduce them to freeloaders, would reduce them to persons who don't deserve to be in the country and receive medical care.
I rise to call to your attention Mr. Bonner, an American citizen who worked for NASA. Mr. Bonner was in line for a double lung transplant. His premiums went up to the point that he could not afford the premium that would allow him to get the double lung transplant. We had to go out on the internet to secure funds for an American citizen who was in line for a double lung transplant who couldn't get it because of the premiums that went up in January.
You would reduce these persons, the Bonners of the world, to freeloaders. They are not freeloaders. These are American citizens who are suffering because of the way you are treating healthcare.
I rise in support of the American citizens who don't have money in the stock market and who are not playing the stock market. They have the supermarket as their means of determining how successful they are. When they go there, they cannot afford the necessities of life. They are having to choose gas over food.
I rise in defense of the American people that you reduce to freeloaders and persons who don't care enough about this country to want to support it and make sure that all persons have access to healthcare. I rise to defend the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I heard from my Democratic friend about rising to support the vulnerable in this country who need healthcare. Well, let's just face the harsh facts. I know it is difficult for my Democratic colleagues because they created this monster, but ObamaCare since its inception has doubled premiums, doubled deductibles. It has made healthcare anything but affordable.
And then Joe Biden writes an executive order to allow illegal immigrants to avail themselves of social services, namely, healthcare, when American people are standing and waiting in line getting sicker at hospitals and other healthcare providers.
I think it is unacceptable.
This is the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigrants, Mr. Speaker. We are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We are going to protect the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me first state for the record that it is always a pleasure debating with Chairman Arrington. We have vigorous debates in the Budget Committee as well as here on the House floor, and it is always a pleasure to do so. I thank he and his staff who are always professional and courteous to us.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot over the course of this debate. I would like to take a step back and put things in perspective. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: Things are too expensive right now, and they are making it worse. Their policies are making it worse, which is remarkable because 2 years ago, being a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I saw more TV ads--I should say was subjected to seeing more TV ads, especially during the sports games I watch--than any other State in the country.
As different as the two Presidential nominees may have been from one another, one thing they actually agreed on is that the overwhelming majority of the ads from the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming majority of the ads from the Republican Presidential nominee were about the same thing: They were about costs. Everyone agreed that costs were too high, and they needed to come down.
This President ran around my State saying: ``I will lower costs on day one.'' Remember when he said that?
Here we are not on day one, not on day two, but on day 400, 500, whatever it is, of this Presidency, and costs aren't any lower today than 2024. In fact, they are higher. It is more for healthcare, more at the supermarkets, and more at the gas pumps.
Unlike previous downturns in our economy, it is not because of an act of terrorism like 9/11, and it is not because of a downturn in the business cycle. No, it is specifically because of the reckless policies of this administration and those who have supported those policies here in Congress.
His reckless trade war has only increased costs. He has doubled down on that policy by now launching a war in Iran that, in just 2 months, has brought gas prices from under $3 a gallon to now $4.22 just today and rising, perhaps approaching $5 a gallon this summer.
What has he done on taxes and healthcare and spending? Their first reconciliation bill last year showered tax breaks by the trillions to mostly the wealthy, and it paid for it on the backs of the healthcare of the American people.
Here we are now in reconciliation 2.0, and what do we find? There is nothing in here about the price of groceries, nothing to lower the price of gas, and nothing on housing, on childcare, or on healthcare. No, we have $70 billion more for ICE and CBP.
We can do far better. The American people deserve better. Say no to their reckless policies. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize how we got here: Department of Homeland Security immigration agents killed two American citizens in Minneapolis. and Democrats demanded accountability from the Trump administration.
Instead of working with Democrats to enact meaningful reforms--to rein in the agencies that killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti-- congressional Republicans shut down the department. Now, Republicans are proposing to end their disastrous DHS shutdown by creating a multi- billion-dollar slush fund without any oversight at all.
We have seen this story before. Last year, when congressional Republicans gave more than $160 billion to Trump's DHS in the Big, Ugly Bill, then-Secretary Kristi Noem decided she wanted luxury private jets. This time. S. Con. Res. 33 directs the House Homeland Security Committee to spend up to $70 billion on U.S. Border Patrol, which Republicans say is only supposed to last for the rest of the Trump administration. That would mean for the next three years, Border Patrol's budget would triple. That's in addition to the billions of dollars they receive last summer.
And it gets worse: This budget resolution also directs the Judiciary Committee to spend an additional $70 billion for ICE. That is double ICE's annual budget per year--on top on the $75 billion gifted to them by Republicans in the Big, Ugly Bill.
Mr. Speaker, we need to oppose this reckless spending and fight for justice for Renee Good and Alex Pretti and all the folks who have been terrorized by the Trump administration. Vote ``no'' on S. Con. Res. 333.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (S. 1318) to direct the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a program to identify American-Jewish servicemembers buried in United States military cemeteries overseas under markers that incorrectly represent their religion and heritage, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of text of Rules Committee Print 119-27, modified by the amendment printed in Part C of House Report 119-628, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective designees, and the chair and the ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) each will control 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 1318.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it ain't the same FISA. When we were in this Chamber 2 years ago debating a reauthorization of FISA 702, the program was significantly different than it is today.
In 2021, the FBI reported conducting nearly 3 million U.S. person queries. An audit of those queries found that 278,000 times, they did not comply with the rules, didn't follow the rules. FBI agents ran queries on protesters, donors to congressional campaigns, public officials, journalists, colleagues, and even ex-girlfriends.
In response to those abuses, Congress enacted the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. The House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, all of Congress, put together that law that contained 56 different reforms, things like new training and approval requirements before a U.S. person query could even take place, audit requirements, accountability measures for those who misused the program, and enhanced reporting and transparency requirements such as allowing certain Members of Congress and staff to attend FISA court proceedings.
We are beginning to see the effect of those reforms. In the year after RISAA was passed, the FBI reported conducting 9,089 U.S. person queries. Of those roughly 9,000 queries, just 127 did not comply with the rules.
Think about it: from 278,000 to 127. That is real improvement. That is a different program. Most of those 127 were due to errors like typos, clerical errors.
Due to the improved reporting and transparency required by RISAA, Congress has more insight than ever into the program's operation.
Today, every single U.S. person query conducted by the FBI is audited to ensure compliance with applicable requirements and legal standards. The results of those audits and other information are provided to Congress on an annual, semiannual, and quarterly basis.
The Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act would add to those reforms. The legislation in front of us, for example, adds the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who will conduct a monthly review of FBI U.S. person queries.
I think this is the best thing we put in the reauthorization bill, this 30-day look back on how the queries are going, are they following the rules, and what took place in those actual searches.
Queries that violate the rules would be referred to the inspector general of the intelligence community for further investigation. That is, again, a couple more layers of accountability.
This bill would also impose criminal penalties for those who knowingly conduct improper queries and those who lie about conducting improper queries.
Finally, the bill would require that an FBI attorney, rather than just some other agent or supervisor, approve any U.S. person search before they are conducted.
The 702 program is incredibly important for protecting our national security and advancing our interests abroad.
In light of the progress that has been made and the threats that we face, we think the bill before us today makes sense right now.
That does not mean our job is over. The Judiciary Committee will continue to conduct aggressive oversight of FISA, and we will continue to work on some things that we think can be helpful in the future.
Again, today is not 2024. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues, with constitutional patriotism still beating in their hearts after this tortured and demeaning and visibly transactional process we have seen today, to oppose the legislation.
This bill is a 3-year permission slip and blessing for the Trump administration and the next administration to keep abusing the sweeping FISA section 702 surveillance authority to spy on American citizens' private communications and to violate the privacy rights of the people.
I want every Member of this body to be clear on exactly what is in this bill. It has no warrant requirement for queries of U.S. citizens. It has no probable cause requirement. It provides for no judicial oversight of these government queries.
It subjects U.S. citizens to completely subconstitutional standards, avoiding the Fourth Amendment entirely. It is in a parallel universe from the Constitution--or perhaps I should say a perpendicular universe to the Constitution.
The Constitution interposes a judge--a neutral, independent magistrate--between the government and a search of persons and their things. This 3-year blank check to Trump, Patel, and company leaves the executive branch free to conduct these searches with self-reporting and self-policing as the sole protection against their abuse of the section 702 program.
Without any meaningful guardrails, this U.S. person information collected under foreign intelligence standards that have nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment is ripe for abuse. It has been systematically abused to spy on American citizens in the past, and it will be used in exactly the same way by Kash Patel and Todd Blanche in the future if we pass this bill.
Last week, it came to light that FBI Director Kash Patel was unhappy about a New York Times article, which focused on the fact that he had used FBI SWAT teams and jets to chauffeur his girlfriend around the country at taxpayer expense.
What did he do? He didn't decide to change his policy on how he uses the people's resources. Instead, he had his agents query FBI databases for dirt on the reporter.
Was the FISA section 702 program one of the databases he searched? The FBI says no. He just searched every other database at the FBI. We have no idea because they don't have to go to a judge before searching an American citizen's information.
We depend now, in this system, on Kash Patel to be the check and balance against Kash Patel. We only know about the fact that it even happened because a reporter got the information. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have known anything about it.
Let it be a warning to people vigilant about our civil rights and privacy, about what actually goes on.
Even Republicans on the Rules Committee last night were registering their displeasure with these reports.
Look, the FISA section 702 program has been misused and abused under every section. Section 702 authorizes the government to collect information from electronic communication companies in the U.S. about non-U.S. persons who are physically outside the U.S. When the government gets communications to and from these foreign targets, it also incidentally collects large amounts of information about American citizens.
In 2022, the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, detailed a historical pattern of noncompliant queries at the FBI. Improper searches swept in elected officials, political campaign donors, Black Lives Matter protesters, and many others.
At other agencies, analysts used section 702 to query their own names, the names of their relatives, and even the names of former romantic partners.
Just last month, Federal judges on the FISC issued an opinion to sound the alarm about how the FBI is currently abusing FISA, violating the law and flouting the safeguards Congress imposed 2 years ago to snoop on Americans' private communications. The administration is deliberately keeping this opinion totally classified in a basement SCIF here at the House.
Reforms that we made during the last FISA section 702 reauthorization, which I strongly supported and voted for--unlike my friend Chairman Jordan--those reforms relied on internal watchdogs and required agencies to track and report the use of section 702 data to spy on Americans.
I strongly supported that reform, but, 1 year and change into the Trump administration, the watchdogs are all but gone. After returning to the White House, President Trump quickly removed the internal watchdogs charged with verifying FBI's representations that the reforms are working; he illegally fired a majority of the members of the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and his Department of Justice reassigned other key compliance personnel. The watchdogs have been removed from the scene of the crimes.
The administration repeatedly claims that FBI compliance exceeded 99 percent in 2024 and 2025. Even if those claims are true--and I seriously doubt it--that is an admission that the FBI has illegally accessed the data of thousands of American citizens.
More importantly, these numbers are based on the violations and abuses that Kash Patel and Todd Blanche are willing to identify themselves and self-report. How can we believe these numbers when the administration has returned all the watchdogs to the pound? They are no longer there.
The FISC judges warned us just last month that the FBI is abusing its authorities to spy on Americans, so what makes us think that a 3-year blank check renewal will lead to self-correction?
Proponents of the bill claim that it protects privacy, but asking Kash Patel's FBI to self-report abuses of our civil liberties to Tulsi Gabbard's DNI is like asking Donald Trump to self-report his collection of millions of dollars from foreign governments directly to the U.S. Congress. That is actually the law under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Yet, he has never once come to ask for our permission for him to keep a foreign government emolument, whether pocketed through the Trump Hotels, the Trump golf courses, or the other Trump enterprises in crypto coins and scams, and so on.
If you think self-reporting is working well under the foreign government Emoluments Clause, go ahead and vote for self-reporting under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For me, I am sticking with the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it is judges, not FBI agents or government lawyers, who must protect our privacy and our civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to reauthorizing FISA section 702 without meaningful reform.
At a time when the Trump administration is building a sweeping surveillance apparatus, trampling civil rights, and disregarding the rule of law, Congress should be strengthening oversight, not rubberstamping warrantless surveillance.
If the government wants to search an American's private communications, it must get a warrant. That is what the Constitution requires, and it is what the American people demand.
Once again, our Speaker is trying to block debate and deny a vote on a warrant requirement. Instead, we are trying to jam through another extension of warrantless surveillance without meaningful reforms.
I have opposed this abuse under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I oppose it today.
Congress should reject this bill and take up meaningful reform, including my bipartisan Government Surveillance Reform Act, introduced with Representative Davidson, along with Senator Wyden and Senator Lee in the other body.
We do not have to choose between national security and constitutional rights. That is a false choice. We can protect the country and protect Americans' constitutional right to privacy. Congress should do both.
Mr. Speaker, oppose this bill so we can get meaningful reform.
Mr. Speaker, FISA section 702 can be a powerful tool against foreign threats, but without significant guardrails against abuse, it is also a massive threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. That is why I must oppose this legislation.
I have worked for many years, in a bipartisan fashion, to include major reforms to section 702, and I was looking forward to working with my colleagues again to strengthen these protections during this reauthorization.
However, the new provisions in this bill are simply a fig leaf and do not represent real reform. In particular, the supposed new warrant requirement is nothing more than a restatement of current law and completely misses the point of reform.
It is already unlawful to target the communications of Americans under section 702. That is not the problem. The problem is what to do with the massive amounts of U.S. person information that is swept up along with foreign communications.
The intelligence community is not supposed to search this data except under strict protocols. Yet we know that these protocols are violated all the time.
The only solution is to require a probable cause warrant if the government wants to search the 702 database for U.S. person information. That is what this debate is about, and that is the bare minimum demanded by the Fourth Amendment.
The Trump administration's argument appears to be: Trust us. However, that is not good enough for any administration, and especially not for this administration, which has already shown a shocking disregard for Americans' civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, we should get this right. We should work together, as we have in the past, to strike the right balance between security and liberty. We should put in a probable cause warrant requirement. Until then, vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill to reauthorize FISA with no reforms. I have long worked on bipartisan reforms that protect the privacy of Americans, and, frankly, I am sad that some of my colleagues across the aisle who were part of that struggle have caved to Donald Trump.
However, the reality is that Americans across the political spectrum out there, outside of Congress, want us to reform FISA so that the government does not spy on them. That has never been more necessary than right now as Donald Trump and Stephen Miller openly use domestic surveillance to suppress our rights.
Trump blacklisted Anthropic for refusing to drop its condition that their AI technology never be used to facilitate domestic mass surveillance targeting Americans. Law enforcement has used Americans' sensitive data to punish women seeking reproductive care, and ICE has deliberately used data to suppress First Amendment activity.
Why is it so hard for the majority to just assure Americans that the FBI will get a damn warrant to access their sensitive data?
Americans don't want to be spied on, and I have been consistent on this, pushing Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents.
Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to allow the FBI to spy on you and offers zero reforms. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the key point is this: Under this bill, FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans' communications without any review from a judge. It is the heart of the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Speaker, that search warrants have to be based upon probable cause, and you have to go to a judge to get a search warrant before you can invade the private expectations of the people in their places and in their things.
This bill leaves intelligence agencies in charge of policing their own compliance with the law. Asking Kash Patel to self-report his abuses to Tulsi Gabbard does nothing to protect the civil liberties of Americans.
That is not how our Constitution was designed. The whole reason we have the courts involved is to make sure that the executive branch doesn't get to be its own check and balance against itself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I think one of the reasons they attack Mr. Patel so darned much is because crime is down in the country. He is actually doing his job.
I think another reason they like to attack the Director of the FBI is because he is the guy who uncovered what they were doing 10 years ago when he was a staffer here on the House Intelligence Committee. It was Kash Patel who told us that the dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, was a bunch of garbage. Yet that is exactly what Mr. Comey used for the other part of FISA, title 1, to go get a warrant to spy on the other party's campaign.
Maybe that is why they like to attack Director Patel so much. But I think he is bringing down crime in our country, and I applaud him for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Kash Patel has been using government resources to chauffeur his girlfriend all over the country. Then when it was learned by the press that he was doing that, there was an article about it.
When he got mad about it, rather than say: Well, yeah, maybe there is a problem using an FBI SWAT team to shepherd my girlfriend around the country. Instead of changing the policy, he decided to go after the reporter and search the databases on the FBI.
This is while we are debating FISA.
If you need any more vivid demonstration, Mr. Speaker, of the danger of allowing law enforcement officials to govern themselves and to regulate whether or not they are violating the Constitution, check that out. We may disagree a lot about this FBI director's record. That is not directly relevant to this point.
Say you trust him, we don't, but we know you haven't trusted other people in the office before, Mr. Speaker. Let's legislate in a way that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the reason why we have to hold fast to the Constitution is precisely because we are all imperfect beings. I stood strongly for FISA 702 last time without the necessity of a search warrant because of all the reforms that I believed that the Biden administration would engage in, and they basically engaged in them.
Now the Trump administration is in, and President Trump came in and dismantled all of the safeguards we put in and just chased the watchdogs out of the FBI. That is why we must stick very closely to the Constitution, as my good friend, the chairman of the committee, argued the last time we debated this. He has convinced a lot of people that we need to stick to the Constitution. I am sorry we are not on the same side today.
The key point is that we do not trust government officials to regulate themselves. That is why law enforcement officers across the country, FBI, have to go to a judge to get a Fourth Amendment search warrant before they invade somebody's privacy unless there is exigency, unless there is an emergency, and we have accounted for that. We can deal with that problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, FISA, as we all know, is a critical program. It is important for our government to understand what bad guys are planning to do to our citizens and to our Nation and to have this program in place. That is why it is critical we reauthorize it.
We have made major changes over the last several years, not just 2 years ago, but over the last several years. The Judiciary Committee has been involved in the oversight in making sure this program is done the way it should be done and protecting Americans' liberties. There are 56 different reforms
Today's program is different. It is different. We should reauthorize it because FISA is critical. Today, there is training and checks on the front end before a search can be done of a U.S. person. There is transparency for the whole process in how it all works. There is accountability on the back end if you don't do it right. Mr. Speaker, this bill now says that accountability includes criminal penalties if you don't do it right.
So this is the kind of legislation we need to pass, and we need to pass it soon because they have been shutting down the government, the Department of Homeland Security, for what, 74 days now?
By the way, we do also happen to be in the middle of a military operation in Iran.
Let's get this done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) each will control 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act. This legislation makes further reforms to section 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and reauthorizes the authority for 3 years.
Originally authorized in 2008, section 702 allows the intelligence community to gather foreign intelligence on foreign targets based overseas. Targets of 702 are terrorists, hackers, and spies living abroad. No U.S. citizen anywhere in the world can be targeted under section 702.
I want to be very clear on this point. Section 702 is not a backdoor surveillance tool that allows the government to collect and review an American's emails or other electronic communications. The only U.S. person data collected is if the terrorist, spy, or hacker targeted under 702 is talking to an American or about an American. In that case, only the communications held in the foreign target's accounts are collected.
For the government to collect that American's communications, current law already requires the government to get a warrant under different FISA authorities.
Section 702 is one of our country's most important foreign intelligence authorities.
In 2025, 100 percent of the President's intelligence priorities reported on by the NSA were supported by section 702, and more than one-quarter of all NSA reporting contains 702 information; 90 percent of synthetic drug disruptions enabled by the CIA were supported by section 702; and 63 percent of the intelligence products in the President's daily brief contained section 702 information.
Reauthorizing FISA 702 is essential. In 2024, Congress reauthorized section 702 through legislation known as RISAA. This legislation included 56 reform measures that restricted FBI U.S. person queries, implemented greater FBI accountability for any noncompliance, mandated greater transparency across the IC and FISC, and included key reforms to address abuses related to traditional FISA like we all witnessed in the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
The RISAA reforms resulted in a 94 percent drop in the number of FBI U.S. person queries from 2022 to 2025, 119,300 down to 7,400. At the same time, the FBI's compliance rate increased to 99 percent, equivalent to other IC agencies.
Despite the efforts of FBI Director Patel to implement the reforms and accountability, rebuilding trust will not happen quickly. For that reason, working with Chairman Jordan and House leadership, I have met with all unique groups across the Republican Conference over the past several months to identify additional key reforms and to develop a consensus product.
The reality is that no reauthorization effort would be likely to be perfect in everyone's eyes, but this bill makes measurable reforms to strengthen accountability and safeguards while maintaining the criticality of the foreign intelligence tool.
Specifically, the bill before us: clarifies that no U.S. person can be a target of 702 collection, and any targeting of a U.S. person requires a warrant; establishes criminal penalties for intentional abuse of FISA 702 queries and any false statements to the FISC; mandates new procedures to allow Members to observe FISC hearings; requires an FBI attorney review all FBI U.S. person queries; orders an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office on 702 targeting procedures; and establishes an outside review and authentication process of all FBI U.S. person queries by mandating the ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer review FBI query justifications.
With these important reforms, the bill includes a 3-year reauthorization for FISA 702. The bottom line is that the importance of this tool to U.S. national security cannot be overstated, and for that reason, it is essential for Congress to reauthorize this authority.
On a 24/7 basis, we face the threat of cyberattacks from our adversaries. We have U.S. military personnel and citizens being targeted overseas. We have foreign terrorist organizations recruiting Americans and plotting attacks on the homeland.
FISA 702 is a vital national security authority that enables the intelligence community and military to mitigate and defeat these threats. In fact, if the 702 tool had existed prior to 2001, we may have been able to prevent September 11 from happening.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 1318. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act.
I do so with some reluctance because the process that brought us here has been indefensible. Two weeks ago, when we walked off the floor after legislation to reauthorize 702 failed, Democrats made clear there was an open door to negotiate a bipartisan package of real reforms, perhaps one that would even pass on suspension in this Chamber. I have been discussing this issue for months now with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, and it is clear to me that there is a path to a bill that could do more than squeak through and only by attaching unrelated legislation that may not pass the Senate.
However, we are where we are, and I am going to support this legislation because in my decade on the House Intelligence Committee, I have seen countless, countless instances where the intelligence obtained through section 702 quite literally saved lives. Section 702 is the single most important foreign intelligence collection authority we have, and every day it is used by apolitical professionals throughout the IC and apolitical professionals at the FBI to keep Americans safe here and abroad. There is no way to replace the value that section 702 provides, and the loss of this authority would be devastating.
Given the binary choice between reauthorization and expiration, the responsible choice is reauthorization. As President Biden's Intelligence Advisory Board put it: ``If Congress fails to reauthorize section 702, history may judge the lapse of section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time.''
As I said at the outset, we should be considering a much broader array of reforms than those in this package. For example, 2 weeks ago, I proposed an amendment to the base bill in the Rules Committee that would have created a judicial process for U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI in the 702 database. I want to be clear that we have seen no evidence--let me say that again, we have seen no evidence that this administration is misusing section 702, but nonetheless, we must remain hypervigilant, given the other abuses that we have seen from this administration.
My amendment to Rules would have required a Federal court approval before the FBI could access the results of a query it conducted involving a U.S. person. I regret that my amendment as well as a range of other ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle were not considered as part of this process.
However, as I said, we now have a binary choice, and the reality is that 2
It is easy to dismiss those numbers, given the political leadership of the FBI and the DOJ. I don't trust Director Patel any more than my Democratic colleagues do.
On January 6, 5 years ago, I was in this Chamber when it was attacked by the shock troops sent here to stop the peaceful transfer of power. I sat there for half an hour as police officers with guns drawn tried to defend our democracy, so I take a back seat to no one in my concern about the abuses of this administration.
However, the data we have on FISA is based on oversight of the professional and apolitical staff, not Kash Patel, the professional and apolitical staff, who are there at the Department of Justice Office of Intelligence, largely the same group of public servants who performed this work under President Biden, and their findings are validated not just by the Attorney General or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel, but by independent oversight, the DOJ's inspector general, the staff of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on an annual basis, and the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both Chambers.
We are not trusting this administration. We are verifying in all three branches of government. If we saw the slightest hint that these authorities were being abused, I wouldn't be standing here today to support this bill.
The legislation now before the House contains several reform proposals. These proposals are modest and well short of what I would like, but they are meaningful. Most importantly, the legislation requires that all U.S. person queries of the 702 database by FBI be reviewed by ODNI's Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer, and that any improper queries be referred from there to the IG of the intelligence community. This adds yet another layer of oversight of FBI on top of internal oversight, DOJ oversight, which I may not trust, court oversight, which I do trust, and congressional oversight which, yes, I do trust, since I am involved in that. The legislation also adds new criminal penalties for FBI employees who intentionally improperly use section 702.
Finally, the legislation requires that only an FBI attorney can approve a U.S. person query, building on a reform we made in 2024, which required preapproval from either an FBI lawyer or an FBI supervisor. Now, a lawyer is likely to be compliance focused rather than operations focused the way a supervisor would be, and will be especially careful and cautious before approving a proposed U.S. person query.
These are modest reforms, but they are not nothing. When viewed in combination with the 50-plus reforms of 2024, Congress will have built a substantial oversight structure around 702 to prevent abuse.
Section 702 is not a dragnet. It is not an authority that can be used to surveil Americans. It does not contain any commercially acquired information. It does not use artificial intelligence to analyze collected data. Despite the fact that we have heard this word a lot today, it is not unconstitutional. A Federal court certifies this program every single year.
If this were deemed by the judiciary, the branch of government which determines constitutionality, to be unconstitutional, we might have heard that from the courts at some point in the last 18 years in which they have been certifying this authority.
What it does have is an extremely robust set of oversight guardrails in all three branches of government, and this bill makes those guardrails marginally and modestly stronger. It is without question the most important foreign intelligence tool we have.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, despite my frustration with the process that has led us here, I will vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, and I thank Chairman Crawford for his leadership and steadfast support for reauthorization of FISA 702.
During the last reauthorization in 2024, I and many other Members led the committee's task force on FISA reforms, and I think it is important to clarify what FISA 702 is and what it isn't.
FISA 702 cannot be used to target U.S. persons, period. Under current Federal law, it is illegal to target U.S. persons under this authority. Section 702 only allows for the collection on foreigners located overseas and who are reasonably believed to possess certain types of foreign intelligence information.
Throughout our reform process in 2024, we worked with our Judiciary Committee colleagues and spent over a year working to address unacceptable section 702 abuses by the FBI with the goal of preserving constitutional liberties afforded to all U.S. persons, ensuring events like Crossfire Hurricane never happen again, and holding the FBI accountable.
The last reauthorization, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, RISAA, targeted 56 reforms and meaningful changes to the FBI. It is the largest reform to the FBI in a generation. The Department of Justice Inspector General's Office has confirmed today that the FBI has implemented all 56 of these requirements.
These requirements over the last 2 years have worked, by everybody's account, holding the FBI accountable; increasing criminal penalties on agents and analysts, making the FBI more compliant with what they have to do; reforming the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and a number of other reforms that are working.
I strongly believe the unintended consequences of letting FISA 702 expire would result in risking national security and making the United States less safe for American families.
If we just look over the last year here, the strategic strike in Venezuela, the Israeli hostages who were recovered from the tunnels in Hamas, taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities and the success we have had there, the taking out of drug cartel bosses in Mexico, going back to the first administration and what happened with Soleimani and al- Baghdadi, and many other instances that we can't talk about here, all of it derived from FISA 702.
Prior to coming to Congress, I spent time as a Federal prosecutor and the chief terrorism prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. I know firsthand how FISA can be used for the proper prosecution of terrorists and non-U.S. citizens who want to harm America. Putting people in jail who want to hurt America would not happen but for FISA and section 702.
Today, FISA 702 delivers unique foreign intelligence that allows the U.S. Government to better protect U.S. military forces abroad, disrupt malicious hackers targeting U.S. infrastructure like emergency medical services and transportation services, and thwart potential efforts by terrorist groups that may be plotting attacks on our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that FISA is an indispensable national security tool. We ought to support this bill to protect America and our citizens, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, when I was majority leader in 2008, Mr. Blunt, who was then in the leadership of the Republican Party, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, who co-chaired the Intel Committee in the United States Senate, and I worked together in a very difficult context.
That context was that the Bush administration had asked for information
The four of us worked with the Intelligence Committee of the House to come up with legislation which would solve the problem of making sure that we were secure as a country and that the privacy of our citizens was secure. We think we accomplished that objective.
In fact, the leadership in the Senate voted for it. President Obama, then a Member of the Senate, voted for it. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Clyburn, and I voted for it, along with others. The Republicans were overwhelmingly for it.
In September 2012, we did it again. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn voted for it. We did it again in January 2018, and Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Ryan, McCarthy, and Scalise all voted for it.
The point I will make is, this has been a bipartisan process with bipartisan Presidential buy-in to the necessity to have this legislation adopted to keep Americans safe while also adopting significant reforms in 2008 and some reforms thereafter to provide for the privacy protections to the American people.
It is a balance, but it is a balance that I think we have achieved. I think we ought to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do so.
Our FISA reauthorization bills are how Congress ensures that our Nation is protected in the first instance against threats from terrorist groups and foreign adversaries. Our intelligence services have the difficult task of catching threats before they materialize and are providing critical information to national security leaders.
As many here will remember, the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred after our national security agencies failed to identify, track, and coordinate known threats. Twenty-five years later, we have learned these lessons, and we continue to grapple with essential questions about how to balance the needs of our national security with protecting Americans' liberties.
That is an ongoing process, of course, and I know Democrats on the committee, led by Ranking Member Himes, were diligent in pushing for reforms to section 702 that would make those protections stronger for Americans while still delivering the tools needed. This bill does not include all the reforms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
None of the bills that we consider have all the things we would like to have in them, but in testimony from Avril Haines, who headed up the DNI under the Biden administration, she believes this is absolutely essential. Other members of the Obama administration and the Biden administration believe this legislation is essential.
I believe this legislation is essential, and I urge my colleagues, having worked on this since 2008, to adopt this legislation and make America as safe as we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee and member of HPSCI.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Mr. Himes, too, for their joint leadership on this important task that we have before us today.
Mr. Speaker, here on the eve of 25 years since September 11, we come to this House floor to, once again, ensure that we have the tools in place to protect the homeland from foreign attacks.
Section 702 sets out these very specific boundaries and process where the United States Government collects the electronic communications from foreign nationals outside the U.S. It allows the U.S. to collect that intelligence on bad actors to prevent the reoccurrence of 9/11, but there is a lot of misinformation about section 702, Mr. Speaker.
First, it is used to surveil foreign nationals abroad. It is not targeted at Americans.
Secondly, it is not warrantless surveillance. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of this program.
Warrant requirements are created under the Fourth Amendment. They apply inside the United States. This is not a program that operates within the boundaries of the United States. It targets foreign nationals outside of the United States.
This is so important, as demonstrated by Mr. Hoyer, that we have clear, active protections on how this program is used to target foreign nationals with those protections to protect Americans' privacy under the Fourth Amendment. This bill is that balance, as described by the gentleman from Connecticut and my colleague from Arkansas.
Mr. Speaker, let's put America's safety first. Let's keep the homeland security paramount. It is critical. Let's support and pass S. 1318. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is foreign intelligence, which is why when it comes to U.S. persons--U.S. citizens--the Fourth Amendment has to apply. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my distinguished colleague, said that the legislation is bipartisan.
I tell you what else was bipartisan--in fact, unanimous: the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Everybody got behind that. We are assured that there is reporting, but it is self-reporting. The distinguished ranking member says that it is by nonpolitical staff.
Yes, the nonpolitical staff left over after Kash Patel fired everybody at the FBI who they considered insufficiently loyal to MAGA and to Donald Trump and for those who worked on the January 6 case.
Then, we are told that the courts still can get involved at some point. Well, the courts are telling us right now that the FBI has been secretly breaking the law. Last month, the FISC court found that many of the government's 702 searches violated Federal law. We should be paying close attention to that as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the distinguished chair of the CIA Subcommittee on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, of all of the debates that we have had on this House floor, I have yet to be so perplexed as I am with this one. There is so much conflation going on between title I, traditional FISA, and title VII, section 702. There is so much conflation over the collection of evidence versus the querying of already lawfully collected data. Everybody in this Chamber has been talking past each other for years on this issue.
The Fourth Amendment applies to the collection of evidence. That has been the case from the very founding of our country. This so-called warrant requirement, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking for is a double warrant requirement. A warrant requirement is on the collection of evidence.
They are seeking to attach a warrant requirement to the querying of already lawfully collected data. That is a secondary warrant requirement, the first time in American history that we would ever be doing such a thing. That would shut down the law enforcement system. You would have to expand the Federal judiciary by a factor of 100 to keep up with that work, and it would put us on pre-9/11 footing. We cannot do that.
By the way, after we passed RISAA--56 reforms, by the way--the 2-year report card is in. There are zero abuses. Even though that is the case, we still went further in this bill before the House today and reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment protections will always apply to 702 queries, in addition to all of the other reforms.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand what is left to object to on this tool because I can promise you that if we were having this debate a week after 9/11, there wouldn't be a single soul on this floor voting against this bill.
Let us not drop our guard just because we are several decades past 9/ 11 because we never ever want to see that happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute here to address the question of the Fourth Amendment. Every Member in this Chamber swears an oath to support the Constitution, and it is important in this debate to remember that all of us care profoundly about the Fourth Amendment. I think it is wrong to suggest that the opposite is the case.
I want to draw an analogy for people who may be watching. In the law enforcement context, which is more familiar to most Americans than 702 is, a probable cause Fourth Amendment warrant is required. You have to get from the judge a Fourth Amendment warrant to take, for example, a wiretap on somebody that you suspect of selling fentanyl.
Let's just imagine under my example that Bill Smith is suspected of selling fentanyl, and law enforcement goes in front of a judge and gets a warrant to wiretap Bill Smith.
Now, Bill Smith, as the police listen, is talking to his brother, Joe Smith, and Joe Smith says, I will help you sell that fentanyl.
The police don't need another warrant on Joe Smith. That has been incidentally collected, and no court has ever held that Joe Smith's admission and incidental collection requires the Fourth Amendment for that to be used as evidence in court, which is the argument that the opponents of U.S. person queries are making.
I am not here to say that this is uncontroversial. We have to be obsessed with the protection of Americans' data, but let's not suggest that this is unconstitutional because it has had annual reviews by a Federal court. You might have thought that in 18 years, if a Federal court had thought that this was unconstitutional, they might not have certified. Let us not say that this authority should be subject to a radically different standard than a typical law enforcement warrant would be.
Lastly, I want to make this point. One of the reasons that we are hesitant to rush into a warrant is because many U.S. person queries are not done because we believe that an individual is complicit in a crime. If we hear ISIS talking about Jim Himes, it is unlikely that I am complicit in terrorism. It is quite likely that I may be a victim, and the FBI and Jim Himes would like to know that if that is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a unique and critical tool that enables our intelligence community to gather vital intelligence, protect our national security, and safeguard Americans from terrorist attacks. No other foreign intelligence authority or any other means of collection can replace the speed and agility of section 702.
If this authority expires, we will substantially degrade U.S. national security and our intelligence officers' ability to identify foreign threats in real time.
Last Congress, House Republicans delivered critical reforms, as we referred to, in section 702--56, in fact--and this bill builds on that progress by strengthening privacy protections for Americans, while ensuring the tool precisely targets foreign persons and only foreign persons who pose a threat to the United States.
As President Trump, Chairman Dan Caine, Director Ratcliffe, and many other national security leaders, including Ranking Member Himes, have stated, this 3-year extension is essential to protect our homeland, our warfighters, and U.S. personnel stationed abroad, especially in today's volatile global threat environment.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill. If we do not, we will get something from our colleagues in the Senate that will be far, far inferior, and those who truly care about national security in this body on both sides of the aisle who may be contemplating a ``no'' vote will regret such a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act. This legislation will extend FISA section 702 for another 3 years.
This law is an essential national security tool. You don't need any more evidence. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, both of us who hail from New York, understand that FISA section 702 is a vital tool that allows the U.S. to gather intelligence on dangerous foreign adversaries.
After speaking with our military leaders, President Trump recently commented: Not one said, even tacitly, that they can do without FISA section 702.
President Trump also said that FISA section 702 is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous success on the battlefield as we pursue this war in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our military, protect our national security, and vote ``yes'' on this critically important section.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his friendship and partnership, which I value.
This program is controversial for all the right reasons, and what we are doing here is what we have been doing for almost 20 years, which is finding the balance between an authority that keeps not just us but the world safe and protecting the civil liberties of Americans whose information is incidentally collected just as it is collected when there is a traditional police wiretap.
I wish we had had a more fulsome process. I wish I had been able to work with Ranking Member Raskin to have a more robust package of safeguards, particularly in the context of an administration that has demonstrated day in and day out their lawlessness, but we are where we are, and it is a binary choice. Allowing this authority to expire, which I think we are close to, is not an option.
Let's acknowledge to each other that this is not an unconstitutional authority but that we have work to do to continue to protect the civil liberties of Americans and move forward passing this bill with an eye toward what we can do in the coming years to make sure this is a better balanced authority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the ranking member, my friend from Connecticut, for his comments.
FISA 702 is a critical foreign intelligence tool. There is no other authority that can replicate the value, speed, and agility of this authority.
Two years ago, Congress enacted 56 reform measures focused on section 702, U.S. person queries and other FISA transparency and accountability measures. These measures have forced meaningful change at the FBI. The bill before us continues the 2024 reforms and includes additional privacy and civil liberty protections and transparency measures.
Before closing, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Jordan for
I also thank the fantastic staff in the Office of House Legislative Counsel, especially Philip Bayer, Toby Dorsey, and Tony Sciascia.
I thank the HPSCI majority staff, including Griffin Decker, Ryan Breitenbach, Jonah Shumate, Laura Casulli, and Mandy Bowers.
I thank the Members who dedicated countless hours to the process of hammering this out who attended the meetings, whose input we heard and whose input we value. I thank them, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on S. 1318.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on passage of S. 1318 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adoption of S. Con. Res. 33.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, nays 191, not voting 4, as follows:
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia and Mr. DOWNING changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SOTO and VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida, and Mr. WHITESIDES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 211, ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:
Messrs. MILLER of Ohio, HARRIS of Maryland, and Mrs. SPARTZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7567.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 7567 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7567.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7567) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and the gentlewoman from Minneapolis (Ms. Craig) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress.
Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension, and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026. It is time to get this critical legislation done. I have said it before and I will say it again, because it is important: This bill was not written in Congress. It was written out in the fields and pastures of our great Nation while the Agriculture Committee held over 150 listening sessions. We went to farmers and ranchers in rural communities, and we asked them what they needed from Congress. Every provision in this bill is directly informed by what we learned in these listening sessions.
Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill, and even more, on what is not in the bill.
I would like to remind everyone of the facts. This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan. Upon introduction, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act included or drew upon 150 bipartisan marker bills.
During the committee's 22-hour markup, over 100 amendments were offered and debated with 46 adopted, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It passed the committee with strong bipartisan support. It also enjoys the endorsement of over 500 agriculture stakeholder groups.
I am asking Congress to join the hardworking men and women who feed, fuel, and clothe our country in supporting this farm bill. Now is not the time to turn our backs on rural America.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, at kitchen tables across this country, millions of Americans--seniors, working parents, and farmers--are wondering how they are going to pay the bills or not lose money this planting season.
From tariffs that have cost our farmers' markets to a war that has increased the cost of fertilizer and diesel,
This so-called skinny farm bill in front of us today does nothing to stop these losses or to help offset the $54 billion in losses farmers have had to absorb. Worse yet, it doesn't fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place.
It turns a blind eye to the farmers calling for emergency economic assistance so they can afford to keep planting. It locks in the $187 billion cut to food assistance that Republicans made in the big, ugly bill--putting more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.
That is what the farm bill doesn't do. It doesn't lower costs. It doesn't help save one family farm from bankruptcy, which is up nearly 50 percent since this administration took office.
So what does this so-called bill attempt to do? It protects the world's largest pesticide companies from lawsuits, cuts farm conservation programs by $1 billion, and overturns the will of voters in States nationwide that set specific animal welfare and food standards for themselves.
Putting the harmful policies aside, the political calculus on this should be easy.
Do we want to lower costs for farmers and working people, or do we want to protect pesticide companies and lock in cuts to food assistance at a time when grocery prices are spiking?
Do we want to pass a farm bill that delivers for farmers on the verge of bankruptcy and families going hungry, or do we want to sit on our hands and make excuses?
I urge my colleagues to reject this version of the farm bill and force Republicans back to the table to negotiate a true bipartisan bill that prioritizes the cost of living crisis in this country.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that most of what the gentlewoman, a good friend of mine, says is not in this bill is not in our jurisdiction. It is not a part of the farm bill because it doesn't fit.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee and chair emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to stand here today to offer my enthusiastic support for the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
As the former chairman of this committee, I have been down this road before, and while passing a comprehensive farm bill is never easy, the rewards can be seen in tangible ways in every facet of our communities.
They can be seen not just on the farms but in the grocery stores, the universities, the fire stations, the community facilities, and rural hospitals across this great Nation.
To my colleagues who will cast their vote tomorrow, whether you represent a top agricultural district, small town, or a booming metropolis, the policies in this bill will affect you.
This bill will ensure that American farmers can continue to raise the food and fiber that ultimately finds its way into your home, and it will ensure that the next generation can continue that legacy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' with me on final passage, and I thank Chairman Thompson for bringing forth this bill today.
Mr. Chair, today we are considering a farm bill that fails to meet the needs of families and farmers across the country.
We heard several times in the opening reference that this farm bill meets the needs of rural America, but a farm bill should meet the needs of all Americans. I only wish that we were debating this at an hour where the American public could pay attention and listen.
Last year, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by $187 billion to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans in our country.
Republicans have gutted the most effective anti-hunger program in the United States, which will have unforeseen consequences for generations. We are already seeing the impact.
Since H.R. 1 was enacted, more than 3 million Americans have been kicked off SNAP, with losses reported in every single State. In Connecticut, over 33,000 people have already lost their benefits, and we expect that number to rise.
Families are having to choose between keeping a roof over their heads and paying for healthcare as food becomes yet another impossible trade- off. It is not because their needs have changed, but because this Congress has changed the rules.
This farm bill is unacceptable in its current form and does not meet the moment. It does not repair the damage. It does not restore the benefits, and it does not respond to the warnings from States and counties that the Federal Government is shifting massive administrative costs onto, forcing local governments to consider raising taxes, tightening eligibility, or scaling back services just to keep these programs afloat.
This farm bill includes a blanket liability shield for large pesticide corporations. It rolls back critical environmental conservation programs. It offers no plans to address the tariffs and trade instability that are already squeezing producers around the country.
Once again, this farm bill does nothing to address the $187 billion in SNAP cuts already enacted. In fact, it cements those cuts. At a time when grocery prices are rising and tariffs are increasing costs for families and farmers, we should be restoring SNAP and expanding access; not cutting it.
This is not a farm bill that strengthens rural America and feeds the millions of food-insecure Americans already at risk. We need a farm bill that supports farmers and families, rural and urban communities.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this version of the bill so that we can get back to the negotiating table and produce something that is beneficial for our entire country.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad), chairman of the Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Thompson for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
As a fourth-generation farmer raising that fifth generation, I know firsthand that farm country has faced compounding challenges over the past several years.
I am committed to addressing these issues by passing a strong, bipartisan farm bill that is written by farmers and for farmers, by rural communities and for rural communities.
The ag title of working families tax cuts made the most significant investment in farm safety net spending since the 2002 farm bill. The 2026 farm bill builds upon those successes, and it reflects the bipartisan priorities of farmers in southern Minnesota and all across this country, delivering the strong farm policy that farmers, producers, and rural communities need and deserve.
Every American is affected by this farm bill, and this legislation responsibly addresses their needs across all 12 titles.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chair, it is now nearly 11 o'clock at night. This is nuts. What the hell is wrong with you people? You guys are bringing this farm bill to the floor 3 years late in the middle of the night. It is prime time in Guam, for God's sake.
Republicans spent the whole day fighting with each other. You know what most Americans spent doing today? Working, going to school, taking care of their kids, living their lives, wondering, praying, if this institution might give a damn about their hopes and dreams, their concerns and fears.
What Republicans have shown time and time again is that they don't care. If they did, they would not be bringing this farm bill to the floor, because this bill makes hunger worse. It means more kids go to bed without food, more seniors end up in the ER after taking pills on an empty stomach, and more parents put groceries back on the shelf.
Hunger is a political condition. It is the result of decisions made in this Chamber. Republicans decided in their big, ugly bill to make hunger worse. With this farm bill, they are deciding to keep it worse by locking in massive cuts to food assistance.
Forty-eight million people in this country cannot afford food. As a Congressman and as an American, I am ashamed of that. I am ashamed that in a nation as rich and powerful as ours, the people in charge of this town don't seem to give a damn.
SNAP is food for seniors. It is food for families, food for veterans, and Americans with disabilities. That is the majority of who is on SNAP.
When it comes to the rest, most have a job. They work 40, 50, 60 hours a week, and they still can't keep food in the fridge.
People don't want to be on SNAP. We are talking about 6 bucks a day, for God's sake, and they need help because we have a broken economic system. They need help because the average price of a pound of ground beef is now higher than the hourly Federal minimum wage. They need help because our tax system rewards wealth instead of workers. They need help because grocery prices are too damn high, and Trump's war and his tariffs are making them worse.
Instead of helping everyday people, Republicans take away their food and use it to give billionaires another tax break. It is outrageous. It is immoral, and it is wrong.
This farm bill should address hunger. It does not. It should strengthen our food system from the farm field to the kitchen table. It fails that test miserably.
By the way, Republicans are running this place in a way that is an embarrassment, a disgrace to the institution and the people we represent.
It is hard to keep track of all of the shady side deals this Speaker is making and breaking on the floor today. Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust this Republican leadership to tell me the correct time. But based on what I have heard, we will be coming back to Rules Committee on this bill after the district work period.
I want to put you all on notice: I intend to offer, among other amendments, Representative Luna's proposal to protect proposition 12, which was, unfortunately, left out of the rule that we are debating today.
The American people are watching. They are sick and tired of what this Republican majority is doing. How dare you bring a bill to the floor that makes hunger worse in this country. How dare you bring a bill to the floor that doesn't help regular farmers. How dare you bring a bill to the floor that is filled with all these giveaways to special interests. Vote ``no.''
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, facts matter. There was no reduction in the amount of the monetary value of SNAP benefits. In fact, there is some really good enhancements to the SNAP program within this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), the vice chair of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee,
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Chair, I remind my Democrat colleagues that I was raised in abject, rural poverty by a single mother on food stamps when you had a stamp that you stuck on a card. I had subsidized government lunches and government cheese.
We do have to know that there is a tremendous amount of fraud that takes place in SNAP, and we want to make sure that every single dollar that is allocated to go to a hungry child or a veteran or one of our senior citizens goes to them.
I would like to say this to my colleagues. It is a quote. ``It will not be doubted that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion as nations advance in population and other circumstances of maturity this truth becomes more apparent, and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public patronage.''
That was the original MAG President--make America great--because that was George Washington, and that quote comes from 1796. So when my colleagues say that we don't have enough money to spend to feed our people and grow our lands, they are simply wrong.
This is a very, very good bill, and there are things for every single American in the one industry that should touch every American at least two times a day.
I strongly support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chair, I am sorry to say that this is a terrible farm bill. As a result of this bill, more people will go hungry, more farmers will lose assistance to the conservation programs that are already oversubscribed, and more farmers who are struggling to make ends meet will find it more and more difficult to hang on to their farms.
I have a lot of concerns about this bill, but I would like to use the limited time I have to show some strong support of Representative Luna's pesticide amendment. I am proud to say that her amendment, which was made in order, mirrors the language of the bipartisan amendment I sponsored with Representative Massie. I thank Representative Luna for also working on this important issue.
Our amendment to strike the pesticide liability shield sections from the farm bill has drawn broad bipartisan support, both within this Chamber and across America.
The harmful language that the Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee included in the farm bill is a handout to Big Agriculture and Big Chemical. It preempts States' rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling. It provides a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers. Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans.
More than 200,000 Roundup-related healthcare claims have been made against Bayer. Behind the numbers are real people--husbands, wives, farmers, even pets--with heartbreaking stories. People suffering from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other devastating cancers are racking up outrageous medical bills.
What is worse, chemical manufacturers spend time and money developing additional uses for these same chemicals, beyond killing weeds. We see glyphosate now used to kill weeds to dry crops before harvest, and it means it makes its way into more and more of our food system. That means the bread, the hummus, and the pasta we are eating are more likely to contain this toxic and dangerous chemical. More and more people are ingesting it without even realizing it.
If this language is not removed, we will have handed companies like Bayer exactly what they have spent millions of dollars and lobbying power on: legal immunity.
Earlier this year, I successfully sought to strip this similar language from the FY 2026 Appropriations Interior funding bill. Unfortunately, the work we did in that committee did not deter Bayer, which, armed with 53 lobbyists and millions of dollars, immediately got to work to get their get-out-of-jail-free card elsewhere: on this farm bill and at the Supreme Court.
Mr. Chair, Democrats and Republicans and citizens across this country agree: Keep this language out of the farm bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am so proud of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. It actually doesn't cut conservation. We add 24 percent to the baseline, a significant amount of money for conservation, more than we have ever had.
Quite frankly, this bill protects health, food affordability, and our Nation's sovereignty. Unfortunately, Ms. Luna's amendment that was made reference to will do harm to all three of those.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), the vice chair of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, as an eighth-generation Tennessee farmer, I rise in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
With input costs at record highs and commodity prices at painful lows, Congress must provide the legislative certainty of a long-overdue farm bill.
This bill keeps America fed, secure, and strong by standing with the men and women who feed and fuel this country. With support from over 500 stakeholder organizations, this bill builds upon the major victories secured in H.R. 1 by strengthening the farm safety net, conservation programs, and regulatory certainty; enhancing rural hospitals, businesses, water, and broadband; and improving agricultural research, trade programs, and access to capital. Additionally, it combats fraud, safeguards SNAP integrity, and remains budget-neutral, all while lowering costs for families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with America's farmers and rural communities and vote ``yes'' on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
Mr. Chair, earlier today, we sat in the Armed Services Committee and heard a $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That is not including the $1 billion a day going to the Iran war. Just imagine what even a fraction of that could do if we invested it in our farmers and in feeding American families.
Right now, every part of American agriculture is under strain, and too many families are going hungry.
This is not a moment for a skinny farm bill. It is a moment for a serious, bipartisan one. Yet, once again, specialty crop farm producers, the backbone of agriculture in States like Hawaii, are being shortchanged. They got 7 percent of the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance funding, even though we have specialty crop growers in every single State, every territory, and 95 percent of all counties with farms.
Democrats fought to fix that. We pushed for an additional $10 billion in support so these farmers could survive and compete. We were blocked.
At the same time, this administration ripped away $660 million that helped get fresh, local food into our schools--literally, taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids and income out of the hands of farmers who grew it. We fought to cancel those cuts, but we were blocked.
Let's be clear about the broader context. Tariffs, taxes on our own farmers, have cost them billions and made food more expensive for everyone. That is not support. That is harm.
Yes, this bill does harm for what it does and what it does not do.
It opens the door to privatizing SNAP administration, making it harder for families to access basic nutrition.
Conservation programs are lifelines when farmers are facing more severe natural disasters. This bill strips over a billion dollars from conservation programs and guts in-kind assistance for RCPP partnerships, the very projects that help farmers invest in their land and build long-term resilience.
It shields the most powerful corporations while leaving everyday Americans with fewer protections. It is an outright poison pill that denies Americans their day in court.
That is not a compromise. That is a step backward. A farm bill that ignores these realities doesn't just fall short. It deepens the crisis. It tells farmers we are not listening. It tells families they are on their own. We can and must do better.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Come back to the table. Come back at a decent hour, not in the dark of night where we are trying to push through this bill and this amendment. Do the hard, bipartisan work to deliver a farm bill that actually meets this moment. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, just a reminder, farm bill 1.0, which was signed into law last July, is the single largest investment in our farm families in a generation.
There were $66 billion in benefits in so many ways, and quite frankly, specialty crop growers love this farm bill we are working on right now. This farm bill does restore the farm-to-school and farm-to- food bank provisions.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, I stand today in strong support of the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act.
This bill expands access to nearly 2,000 new demand streams for corn, soy, and farm waste through the BioPreferred Program.
The 2026 farm bill also marks an end to consumer transparency issues and preserves value-added labeling for bioproducts that use American- grown farm products. In other words, this program serves as a demand driver for farmers in Indiana and across the country.
Nationally, the bio-based products industry contributes $489 billion to the U.S. economy and drives nearly 40 percent of the demand for U.S.-grown ag products.
The 2026 farm bill reaches farmers in a moment of great need and addresses concerns surrounding market access, input costs, farm succession, and economic viability in rural America.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting American farmers by voting in favor of this American farm bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I remind my Republican colleagues that we didn't do a farm bill 1.0. What we did was a very partisan budget reconciliation process. Farm bills are intended to be 12-title, 5-year bills. Reconciliation does not qualify as that.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).
Mr. Chair, the farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress works on. It touches every corner of this country every day.
Let me be direct about what this bill does and does not do. It does not address the crisis actually happening in farm country right now.
Farm bankruptcies are up 50 percent nationally and nearly 75 percent in the Midwest. Input costs keep rising, driven by reckless tariffs and the reckless war in Iran.
Farmers are being squeezed from every direction, and this bill offers them next to nothing: no farm aid; no solution to rein in fertilizer or diesel prices; no protections against USDA reorganizations or funding freezes; no attempt to end the tariffs destroying export markets or restore the trade relationships farmers depend on; and false promises again and again on year-round E15.
Where is the relief?
Where is the urgency?
There is a five-alarm fire in farm country, and Republicans are pulling out a garden hose.
Working families aren't doing any better. Gas, goods, and grocery costs are rising, and this bill does nothing to bring them down. Instead, this farm bill ratifies the largest cuts to food assistance in American history.
Republicans used the big, ugly law to slash $187 billion from SNAP and handed that money straight to the wealthiest Americans. In doing so, they torched the bipartisan coalition that has kept the farm bill together for generations, and now they want Democrats to come in and lock in those very same cuts with a bipartisan farm bill, while they continue to threaten the SNAP program with more partisan cuts. Give me a break.
Mr. Chair, let me tell you what those SNAP cuts look like on the ground. In my district, 11,000 people have lost food assistance, and that is before the next round of cuts kick in. Nationally, 4 million Americans have already been kicked off SNAP entirely, 4 million people gone, and this farm bill will cement those cuts and that cruelty into law.
Republican and Democratic Governors alike are warning they cannot pick up the new cost share coming down the pike. That means more cuts, more hunger, and more harm.
We need a real farm bill, one negotiated in good faith, one that can actually pass the Senate, and one that confronts the real factors driving the crisis in farm country and the affordability crisis at the kitchen table.
Mr. Chair, this partisan bill is not it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, and I urge my colleagues to pass this critical legislation when it comes to the floor.
The last full farm bill was passed in 2018. Since then, input costs have risen, borrowing has become more expensive, and markets have grown more volatile. Our policies must reflect that reality.
Last year, we took an important step forward by strengthening the farm safety net and delivering meaningful support for producers through the working families tax cuts. However, that was never the finish line. That was the foundation.
This bill builds on that foundation. It delivers a modern, fiscally responsible, 5-year farm bill that meets the needs of today's producers and prepares American agriculture for the future.
This bill is grounded in fiscal responsibility. It provides certainty without growing government for the sake of growing government. It cuts through unnecessary red tape and focuses on what actually works for producers on the ground.
Mr. Chair, farmers and ranchers do not operate on Washington timelines. They plan in seasons and generations.
We have an opportunity to do our job and deliver the certainty American producers have been asking us for for years. This is about more than policy. It is about supporting the people who keep this country running, strengthening rural America, and ensuring that the United States remains the global leader in agriculture.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026.
Mr. Chair, I rise today not merely to speak about a piece of legislation, but to speak about a moral covenant, one that binds this Nation to those who till its soil; who rise before dawn and labor until dusk; and who ask not for charity but for fairness; not for sympathy, but for justice.
The farm bill in its truest sense is not simply about crops and commodities. It is about the people. It is about the dignity of work, and it is about whether America will honor the hands that feed her.
I come today to lift my voice in support of my amendments number 98 and 206, but also to lift a greater truth: that public policy, if it is to be righteous, must be rooted in both economic wisdom and moral clarity.
My first amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report to the Congress on the increased costs that American farmers are facing due to rising costs of diesel and fertilizer prices. These costs are a direct result of President Trump's unilateral action to embroil the United States in a protracted war with Iran.
We cannot, Mr. Chair, turn a blind eye to the burdens facing our farmers. When diesel prices rise, it is not an abstraction. If there is a tractor that sits still when fertilizer costs soar, it is not theory. It is a field left barren.
When global conflict disrupts the fragile balance between the supply and demand between our trade and our partners, it is not distance. It is deeply personal to the farmer whose livelihood hangs in the balance.
A nation that depends upon its farmers must not ignore its cries. We must not pass legislation in the darkness of night when the lights are turned off and when we can use the truth of the light to let the American people see what is being proposed. To demand a full accounting of these rising costs is not a partisan act. It is an act of responsibility. We must hear the cries of the farmers for their food, for their fuel, and for their fertilizer. It is the least that we can do for those who give us our daily bread.
There is a deeper issue before us. It is one that touches the very soul of this legislation. My second amendment increases civil rights accountability for employees and officials of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Before I proceed, I must pause and pay tribute to a man of great conscience and steadfast courage, my friend and our friend and colleague, Chairman David Scott. Congressman Scott stood as a bridge between policy and principle. He understood that agriculture is not merely an economic enterprise, but that it is a human enterprise. He worked tirelessly in these Halls to ensure that the laws governing our land will reflect the highest ideals of justice and equality.
Today, we labor to strengthen civil rights protections within this farm bill because we know that the history of the United States Department of Agriculture has not always been a story of fairness.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Craig for the additional time.
For too long, there were farmers--Black farmers, Brown farmers, and women farmers--who knocked on the doors of opportunity and were turned away not because of the content of their character but because of the color of their skin.
We say today with clarity and conviction: No more. No more shall discrimination hide behind bureaucracy. No more shall injustice wear the mask of procedure. No more shall farmers be made to feel like a stranger on their own land.
Accountability is not about punishment. It is progress. It is the foundation upon which trust is built. If this government is to ask its citizens to believe it, then it must prove itself worthy of that belief.
My amendment is not radical. It is a righteous piece of legislation. It affirms that those entrusted with public service must also be held to public standards, Mr. Chair, and that justice delayed shall not become justice denied.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. Chair, the farm bill is not just a legislative document. It is a moral document. It speaks to who we are as a nation. It declares what we value, and it reveals whether we are willing to match our words with our deeds.
We will stand with the farmers struggling under rising costs. We will stand with the farmers seeking justice at the hands of this government.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for gracing me with more time.
We will stand for fairness, for accountability, and for the dignity of work. We will not remain silent in the face of inequity and inequality.
I submit to you today, Mr. Chair, that the time for silence has passed. Let us build a farm bill that feeds not only the body, but feeds the soul of America.
Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Illinois for mentioning our former colleague whom we all miss dearly, David Scott. I am proud this bill actually memorializes him by naming the 1890 program permanently in his honor. I am sure glad that we did that in the bill markup in committee when he was there versus waiting to do it here on the House floor.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, this has truly not only been a bipartisan effort, but this is an effort that leads for America. Mr. Chair, I would like to speak today on behalf of Iowa's farmers and the millions of Americans who depend on a strong farm economy.
Known for both food security--something Iowa does very well--as well as national security, something we have all participated in here, the hardworking men and women who drive Iowa forward, who feed and fuel our country and the world are the driving force behind this year's farm bill, a bill which I believe Congress has worked hard to deliver for them. Whether it be corn or soybeans, pork or cattle, poultry, as a sixth-generation sheep farm kid, all of our livestock, we are making a positive impact here.
During my time, I have spent a lot in the Third District of Iowa talking to all 21 counties, and I am proud to say in this farm bill with our leadership team, we have been able to pass 21 of my provisions. That includes everything from helping a beginning farmer, improving water quality, investing in rural broadband, and cracking down on illegal puppy mills.
Challengingly, at the start of today, we were set to start debate on passing this bill, but D.C. sometimes does what D.C. does, and Washington deals threatened to undo the hard work we have done across the aisle to deliver for our farmers. However, Mr. Chair, we stood up, and I apologize to our Speaker because I shout out on the floor that this farm bill has to move forward. After working through this, a long night indeed, we were able to move forward.
I thank both Speaker Johnson, the majority leader, and the whip for staying in the room and committing to both sides to have a vote on the farm bill and making sure also that we move forward on nationwide, year-round E15 when we come back from recess.
This is a bipartisan win for farmers. It is a win for rural Iowa. Most importantly, Mr. Chair, it is a win for all of America. I am proud to be part of this farm bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. McClain Delaney).
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding. As the only Marylander on the House Ag Committee, I rise to speak about what is at stake in this farm bill for our farmers and also for rural America.
The ag sector is personal to me, as I grew up in a farming family in Idaho, a potato farmer's daughter, and right now farms are being squeezed in every direction: higher costs due to tariffs, immigration- related labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions. There is a 46 percent increase in farm bankruptcies this year over last. It is a crisis.
USDA is also moving forward with a major reorganization without clear congressional approval. I strongly believe this reorganization will cost more in the long run than it saves and will undercut vital services farmers need. A real concern is the loss of decades of institutional knowledge and agency expertise, as USDA civil servants are not uprooting their lives to relocate across the country, which then translates into less technical assistance and ongoing support for our farmers.
Equally important, and the reason why I have waited for 6 hours to speak, is pivotal national research is being undermined. Maryland is home to Beltsville's Agricultural Research Center, BARC. BARC is one of the crown jewels of American ag science, and for nearly a century--yes, for nearly 100 years--it has helped farmers fight pests and disease, improve nutrition, housed our Nation's bee lab, and protected natural resources. Our Maryland dairy farmers applaud BARC for its work on the screw worm, a horrible parasite devouring livestock across our country.
If the administration decommissions places like BARC, we lose decades of expertise that simply cannot be quickly replaced and transferred. It is a travesty.
At this moment, our farmers need more certainty, more science, and more support. We must meet the moment. Sadly, for me, this farm bill does not. It does cut USDA services. It cuts real funding by 20 percent compared to 2018, and it does rescind over $1 billion from conservation programs, which provide less support for soil health and water quality.
Perhaps most heart-wrenching of all these points is this bill fails to restore SNAP, the bipartisan cornerstone of many years of farm bills. USDA revealed that 3 million Americans have already lost benefits since the passage of H.R. 1.
In my district, one in nine families rely on SNAP, half of them children. Many of these recipients do work. They just can't make ends meet on their current take-home wages. To me, this is a moral failure that none of us wants, and these cost allocations for the great State of Maryland are truly unsustainable.
While many of us wanted nothing more than to work toward a bipartisan farm bill, given the above reasons, I urge a ``no'' on this legislation. It is my deep hope that there will be future bipartisan work on increasing food assistance for those who need it, for helping USDA, and ensuring vital ag research, particularly that BARC is preserved.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland. In the first part of her presentation, she clearly made the case of why we need the Farm, Food, and National Security Act when she very accurately talked about all the challenges and difficulties our farm families are facing. Just a reminder, SNAP benefits have not been cut.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chair, I rise today after years of fighting for this to say, yes, we are finally getting the farm bill done.
The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 is not just a farm bill. It is a lifeline. For the farmers and ranchers in Florida, the men and women who wake up before the Sun, who work through the hurricanes, the freezes, and the disease outbreaks, who have been delivering for this country while Washington didn't deliver for them, this moment is long overdue.
Now, let me be direct about something. Our farmers did not create the chaos of rising input costs. They did not ask for the hurricanes that wiped out their groves and flooded their fields. They did not cause the freezes that killed their crops or the citrus greening that has devastated an entire industry. They absorbed it all, quietly and stubbornly, because that is what our producers do. For too long, Washington's response has been paperwork delays and disaster programs that did not meet the moment, did not reflect reality.
Mr. Chair, we all know that food security is national security. Every acre that is abandoned, every grove that is not replanted, every farmer who walks away, that is a strategic loss. Our adversaries understand this, even when people in this very Chamber choose to forget it. A nation that cannot feed itself is a nation that is not secure and a nation that can be controlled from abroad. Americans should never have to rely on foreign food.
Let us not forget that the first line of defense in American health is not a hospital, but a farm. You cannot feed a healthy Nation on substances manufactured in a lab. You need farmers. You need growers. You need ranchers. You need the men and women of this country who are producing real food for real families. That is MAHA. That is MAHA. You cannot fix the health of this Nation if you don't pass the farm bill.
On behalf of the 44,000 family farms that call Florida home and the nearly 2 million family farms across this country, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this farm bill. They are all counting on you.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz), vice chair of the Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee.
Ms. De La Cruz. Mr. Chair, I thank our chairman. When I say thank you, I mean thank you, thank you, thank you.
It has been 3 long years that we have not been able to pass the most bipartisan farm bill that this Chamber has seen, and what the other side of the aisle is saying is completely nonsense.
Our chairman has gone from east to west, from north to south, from Democratic to Republican counties and States to see what our farmers truly need. Guess what? This farm bill shows it.
The American people who are watching this right now at close to midnight is saying to themselves: What is the holdup? It has been 3 years.
This is a bipartisan farm bill. This is a farm bill that meets the needs of the farmers. And guess what. It meets the needs of our American people.
It will ultimately lead to lower prices for not only our farmers but for the everyday American who is buying groceries at the grocery store.
This nonsense needs to stop. This bipartisan showcase that is happening tonight must stop. It is time to pass the farm bill and not wait a moment longer.
Every trade association and every farm association are saying to pass the farm bill--not the activists, but the actual people who believe that farmers and American national security and farm security come first.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I don't really know what I just listened to. There are 700 organizations that are opposing this farm bill. Maybe Texas, maybe lots of States around this country, have a lot of money just to spend. My Republican colleagues talk about unfunded mandates all the time. Shifting costs to the States for SNAP was an unfunded mandate.
Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues here tonight want you to think that this is a farm bill, but it is a collection of Republican excuses.
In reconciliation, they cut $187 billion from title IV of the farm bill. That isn't a bipartisan process.
President Trump said he would lower costs on day one. Republicans would have us believe that their top priority here tonight is supporting family farmers.
What about the tariffs? What about China taking all of its business to Brazil and Argentina? Where are my colleagues in actually standing up for family farmers?
My challenge to my Republican colleagues is to prove it because this farm bill does nothing to lower fertilizer costs or diesel costs for farmers or restore food assistance for millions of Americans, children or seniors.
Mr. Chair, I have created a vision of Lucy with the football so many times on this topic of E15 that I don't even know how to describe it anymore. The fact that, tonight, my friends on the other side of the aisle somehow negotiated to have E15 taken off the table to me is just unbelievable.
You destroy all the export markets in our country, and now you refuse to move forward in pushing for those new domestic markets. I know there is probably some deal cut on the side or a gentleman's agreement or whatever, but we are going to be back here in 2 weeks. There is going to be a lot of procedural movement on this thing, and I am telling you, tonight, I do not believe that we will see a vote on E15 come to this House floor, that standing down on E15 was walking away from our family farmers.
We will never stand down from looking for these export markets across the world or expanding domestic markets in our country.
We offered an amendment that would add another $17 billion in assistance to family farmers, as well as make sure that working families across our country are taken care of by delaying this unfunded mandate to the States.
For the life of me, to come here tonight, whatever time it is--if it is still today; maybe it is tomorrow--and declare that this is a bipartisan product, our colleagues took about 10 percent of what we offered. Then, they came back and tried to pick off one of us at a time with some little sweetener.
Republicans can't even figure it out among themselves on the other side of the aisle. Democrats stand ready to support a truly bipartisan farm bill. My hope is that throughout this process, just like in 2014 and just like in 2018, we can come to a bipartisan farm bill, ensuring that the Senate is part of this process.
Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. I would have offered the motion with an amendment to the bill.
Mr. Chair, what can I say? I am not sure my good friend, the ranking member, would recognize a bipartisan bill because this one truly is. This was not written in Washington. This was written while traveling the country, Republicans and Democrats, 43 different States, 1 territory, over close to 160 different listening sessions. We did it in a tripartisan way, Republicans and Democrats. We invited Republicans and Democrats in those given States we were visiting who were not on the committee. Certainly, the tripartisanship was the farmers, the ranchers, the folks in rural America, the people from nutrition organizations, and the people involved in conservation and wildlife who all came out to help write this bill.
The base bill, when it was in committee, had 40 provisions in there that were led by Democrats. I didn't put them in there to gain votes, obviously. They were there because they were good provisions. It contributed to a great product--140 provisions that were completely bipartisan, at least one Republican and one Democrat, probably more of both on those provisions.
As you heard in the amendment process in committee, we had 100 amendments that were debated. Quite frankly, what was accepted was really 50/50. It was equal. There must be a definition of bipartisanship I am just not aware of.
Mr. Chair, I hear a lot of discussions here about things that are not in the bill, but they are not in our jurisdiction, things like financial assistance. I helped lead the first financial assistance over a year ago for our farmers, and we need more, but it is not within the scope of the farm bill.
I hear about E15. I don't think that is such a bad idea, year-round E15, but that is the Energy and Commerce committee. That is not the Agriculture Committee.
I hear about trade. Trade is the Ways and Means Committee. I will say we did double foreign market development and market access program, which are tools to help our farmers get access to trade, but we don't have trade itself in our jurisdiction.
There are no SNAP cuts. The amount of money that families get is the same as what they got under the Biden administration. Now, we increased accountability. If you are here illegally, you are not eligible because this is something that is really meant for citizens.
We have done enhancements to the SNAP program. We are going after criminals within this farm bill, looking to increase the technology with the EBT cards to prevent misuse of it, enhancements, dairy incentives, adding protein incentives with SNAP.
This is a great bill. This is a bill for today. This is a bill also for tomorrow, and I am proud of the bipartisan work that went into it.
I am a little disgusted, actually, by the politics that have come into this by folks who are running for higher office or are looking to November. I don't look to November. I look every day to how we can help our farm families, ranch families, forestry families, and everyday Americans who pick up the tools of agriculture, be it a knife, fork, or spoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to bring this bill forward and encourage, in the end, a positive vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-22, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 119-628, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
Subtitle B--Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
Subtitle B--Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 119-628 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 1224.
Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 119-628 may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of House Report 119-628 not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43, 44, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57, printed in part B of House Report 119-628, offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Thompson for yielding and for his excellent work on this farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that is included in the amendments en bloc and also in support of the underlying bill text. My amendment would add biostimulants to the farm bill's demonstration project.
Biostimulants are substances or microorganisms that stimulate natural plant processes to enhance nutrient uptake and efficiency for crops.
Trees are amazing organisms. They are made up of over 1,000 natural chemical compounds that include biostimulants. Like biochar, biostimulants have been used by farmers for decades but offer potentially new and exciting applications. Further research into these two areas can create a win-win for our fire-prone, overgrown national forests and for farmers across the country.
Managing our forests is going to require new markets, and biostimulants offer the promise of a market-based solution that would make removal of low-value materials from our national forests more economical, while making our farmland more productive.
In fact, during President Trump's first term, USDA estimated that biostimulants could become a $5 billion global market. By adding biostimulants to the biochar demonstration project, my amendment will provide more science and understanding that can support farmers, create jobs, and reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfire.
This amendment does this by allowing biostimulants to be tested in demonstration projects across the country and by incentivizing new research into biostimulants.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that we were able to work on a bipartisan basis here tonight on these amendments en bloc. It keeps us from having to be here even further into the night. I wish that this process overall was as collaborative on the underlying bill.
For example, we supported the addition of the Fedorchak amendment No. 12. However, this amendment does nothing to address the very real problems that family farmers are facing.
Unfortunately, it is the Trump administration's actions which make this study even necessary and timely. Due to the President's trade war against the world and his actual war against Iran, farmers have experienced skyrocketing fertilizer prices in addition to other input costs.
Had farmers received any warning of these actions, they could have better prepared themselves for the price shocks that they are now feeling. They could have invested in fertilizer storage facilities on their farms so that they would have had someplace to store their prepurchased fertilizer needs ahead of these price spikes.
When the war with Iran started, the Secretary said that 80 percent of farmers had already locked in their fertilizer needs, but we know now that that was radically incorrect. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, only 67 percent of farmers in the Midwest knew that their fertilizer needs had already been covered, and this was the high watermark for the country. In the South, less than 20 percent have their needs already covered.
This study is not going to solve the problems that farmers are facing now with these costs, but it could lay the groundwork to help farmers prepare for the next thing that perhaps this administration does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with these amendments en bloc. What I have a problem with is all of the amendments that were blocked by this Republican majority.
Mr. Chairman, 362 amendments were offered to this farm bill by Republicans and Democrats, and 305 of those amendments were blocked. They were
My Republican friends, I guess, are okay with having the majority leadership block their own amendments. I mean, it is ridiculous. This is an important bill. It is midnight, and we are on the floor debating the farm bill, a 5-year authorization. This is shameful.
To block hundreds of good, legitimate amendments by Democrats and Republicans because, what, you don't want to deal with them, you don't want to debate them, or it is inconvenient to debate more amendments at midnight? That is ridiculous.
The chairman of the committee may be proud of this bill. That is what he says. I am ashamed that we are bringing a bill like this to the floor--a bill of this significance and a bill that, quite frankly, is going to have an adverse impact on my constituents.
Please don't sugarcoat the SNAP cuts. Millions of people have already lost their SNAP benefits, and the worst hasn't even happened yet. We are going to increase hunger in America. That is not going to make America healthy again by making America hungry again.
We can do a hell of a lot better, but blocking hundreds of amendments--Democratic amendments, bipartisan amendments, and Republican amendments--this process stinks.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed farm bill. Let's start all over again. Let's do this the right way. Let's debate it in the light of day so the American people know what the hell we are doing here.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 strengthens SNAP by cracking down on criminals who swipe benefits from EBT cards; increasing access to SNAP nutrition center programs, specifically adding protein to those opportunities; and making SNAP online purchasing a permanent option nationwide, which is a tremendous service for perhaps older adults and people living with disabilities who are not able to get to the grocery store. Many of these vendors are not charging for the shipping. That is something they will do for free.
So yes, I am rather proud of this. Would I sooner be doing this bill? I think my good friends on the Agriculture Committee have heard my golden rule. I would sooner not do anything after 11 o'clock or midnight, but that is the hand we were dealt here. Quite frankly, our farmers need it, and they need it now. This was the hand we were dealt for time, so this is when we are getting it done.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say a few words, and then I will yield back for the gentlewoman to do the same.
It is kind of interesting. I am hearing good things about bipartisanship in this en bloc. This en bloc is about half of the amendments that we have on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. Just a few minutes ago, I heard there was completely no bipartisanship, and now I am hearing good things about bipartisanship.
Again, there must be a different definition for ``bipartisanship'' than the one that I normally follow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, better late than never bipartisanship. We are happy to agree to these amendments en bloc, and I would be proud to support it.
I just want to say that some of the rhetoric though coming out and the lack of fact-based--it is not that Republicans cut the dollar amount of SNAP per day for eligible individuals, they have just cut people from the program entirely. Republicans have shoved costs on to several States across this country that are just not going to be able to absorb those costs, and we know and CBO expects, that those States are going to have to kick people off the program.
We worked together to make this a little more efficient. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, my amendment would include the Columbia Basin project in the Western Waters Regional Conservation Area.
This area here would be included in this larger green area.
Let's start with the facts. The Columbia Basin Project spans nearly 1.1 million acres in central Washington, one of the most productive agriculture regions in the United States.
But here is the gap: Nearly 400,000 acres of land is in a conservation crisis. Farmers are basically out of water now. They are pumping from dry wells. Inclusion of this area as a critical conservation area will make this area eligible for Federal conservation efforts to make sure it is properly irrigated, and before our local family farms run out of time and water.
This is a crisis--unrealized production, unrealized efficiency, and unrealized water management in the West.
Of course, this underlying bill I hope is a bipartisan effort. I think it is. The original effort of the Columbia Basin Project was certainly a bipartisan effort, and it is good to give praise where praise is due. One of America's greatest Presidents, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, actually initiated the Columbia Basin Project, and it was wonderful at a time when America could get big things done to help make the desert bloom, and we need to do that again.
This amendment helps in part do that.
Under current law, the Food Security Act of 1985 gives the USDA discretion to prioritize conservation investments. This amendment simply ensures the Columbia Basin is given due consideration for programs like the Regional Conservation Partnership Program.
It is not a mandate. It is not a change in water rights. It is not a new bureaucracy.
If included in the Western Waters Critical Conservation Area, the Columbia Basin Project land-area will provide fertile ground to build irrigation and water conservation projects.
This will provide targeted access to Federal tools and support structures to help farmers to use it more efficiently, improve soil health, and bring more of this land into productive, stable use.
If we are serious about conservation in the West, which we certainly should be, and it is something Republicans and Democrats I think share together, we need to work with the lands and work on projects like this.
This is a practical amendment. It is a profarmer amendment, and it is a smart use of water policy for the future.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the Columbia Basin Project is a federally authorized project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior.
At its heart, is the Grand Coulee Dam, which has the primary purpose of
The Western Waters Regional Conservation Area, by contrast, is designated by the Department of Agriculture as a critical conservation area whose primary purpose is to address insufficient water and habitat.
I am concerned, therefore, that this amendment may divert funds meant for drought relief toward areas that have a dam supplying them water.
If the gentleman sincerely believes that there are farmers in need of USDA assistance, then I would be happy to work with him when NRCS completes its review of CCAs every 5 years.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
I have had the opportunity to travel to his area and to just see how critical this amendment is. Water is life giving. Water is about being able to, obviously, provide for food.
This amendment will ensure that areas of the Columbia Basin Project will be included in the Western Waters Regional Conservation Area. Including this area within that designation would allow for more opportunities for conservation activities in this region.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I think the 119th Congress has done a lot of great work, and I think this underlying farm bill is certainly going to be a highlight of that great work.
I have enjoyed my first term in Congress immensely, and I enjoy being in this august Chamber with so many talented Republicans and Democratic colleagues.
There are two written things in this Chamber. One is the statement ``In God We Trust.'' The other is the quote by the good Representative from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, which is above your head.
Mr. Chair, I will just close by reading a portion of that statement. I think about that frequently when we vote here. I don't think, frankly, all the time that everything we vote on rises to fulfill this statement that is listed in this Chamber but as the great Daniel Webster said: Let us develop the resources of our land and call upon their powers so that we in our time may do something that will be remembered.
I think when Franklin Delano Roosevelt worked with Republicans and Democrats to develop the Columbia Basin Project, they did something that called forth the powers of the land, something that was remembered and benefited many future generations.
I think with the adoption of this amendment to include this portion in our water conservation efforts we are doing something that will benefit future generations.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment designated Bentz No. 2 which modestly expands the definition of ``renewable biomass'' under the Renewable Fuel Standard so that it includes materials generated in the manufacture of forest products, such as mill residuals, wood chips, bark sawdust, and shavings.
The amendment would also amend the current statutory other framework to include as renewal biomass, trees, shrubs, and slash from our Federal forests, Tribal forests, non-Federal land, and public lands, rather than being limited to a small part of these lands. This amendment would allow materials from these sources to be economically used for domestic biofuel production.
I thank Chairman Westerman, Congressman Fulcher, and Congressman Stauber 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 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 sawtimber 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 into traditional lumber markets but still carry real economic value. 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.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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 food 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.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my friend from Oregon, Mr. Bentz', 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. Chair, 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.
Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Bentz and 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. The forestry industry is not healthy right now. It doesn't matter if its 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 from what otherwise would be waste.
It is a good amendment. It is a simple amendment. I encourage the adoption of it.
Again, I thank Mr. Bentz and Mr. Westerman for their work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The NRCS currently includes composting facilities 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 composts from organic waste.
The amendment also requires review of a current composting facility practice standard and has provisions to address greenhouse gas emissions.
This proposal would allow farms that use composts 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.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from California, who offered this amendment.
Improving conservation practice standards and further incorporating science, technology, and innovation throughout the programs has been a priority for me as this bill has been developed.
This farm bill contains language requiring USDA to more frequently update the practice standards on a recurring basis, along with a robust public process to gather input requests and suggestions.
While NRCS already does have an existing practice standard to cover the construction of a structure to facilitate the composting process, this amendment goes beyond that to create a new standard for the production and/or use of composts.
While I don't view these particular activities to be specified in the programs or in need of a separate standard, I am going to support this amendment today.
Mr. Chair, once again, I encourage the adoption of this amendment into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. 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; the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets; and the University of Wisconsin.
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 have consistently directed the majority of funds to be equally distributed between the three original initiatives outside of the Pacific Coast Coalition's region.
That is 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 exports, 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 is accounted for when funding is administered--just achieving parity.
This could also allow for a more equitable distribution of funding between the four initiatives, which has historically not been the case since the inception of the Pacific Coast Coalition.
Mr. Chair, I ask this body to join me in passing my amendment to ensure more equitable distribution between the four dairy business innovation initiatives, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend from California, Salud Carbajal, for bringing this amendment forward that aligns the underlying statute with current practice at the USDA. This is another great bipartisan improvement to this farm bill.
The Dairy Business Innovation Initiative supports dairy businesses and development, production, marketing, and distribution of the products.
The technical assistance and sub-awards provided under this program play an important role in supporting the profitability of our Nation's dairy producers.
USDA currently supports four centers, as we have heard, located in California, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. This amendment allows the statute of DBII to bring certainty to all four centers.
I am in support of this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, 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 costs of homes by 8 to 12 percent.
That is why Democrats provided $1.5 billion for the Urban and Community Forestry 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 H.R. 1, along with the $187 billion in SNAP funding.
The existing Urban and Community Forestry Program requires a 50- percent cost share, however, while the program established by Representative Cleaver's amendment would provide up to 90 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for representing the gentleman from Missouri on his amendment that he has offered.
This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a tree-planting grant program that results in a reduction of residential energy consumption. It is simple: More trees make for more livable and enjoyable communities.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlewoman from Connecticut serving as his proxy for bringing this amendment this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chairman, 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 excepted 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 clean water regulations.
Circuit riders, as these experts are referred to, are in the field every day, helping communities with water system compliance, operations, 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 is 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.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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 commonsense 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.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to introduce my bipartisan hot rotisserie chicken amendment No. 8 to H.R. 7567, the 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 are providing families with a high quality, nutrient-dense protein source.
This directly aligns with the new dietary guidelines for Americans established by the U.S. 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 is a great bargain, Mr. Chair, considering the multiple meals you can get from one chicken. Plus, there is 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, and casseroles, and the list goes 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 USDA 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 the American family with this sensible, targeted addition.
Mr. Chair, while I agree with the premise of this amendment, I am 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 precooked rotisserie chicken, but hot sandwiches, soups, and much more.
This amendment lacks the proper guardrails to avoid unintentionally opening up 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.
Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Arkansas for raising this issue.
We can all agree that rotisserie chicken is a healthy and convenient option for families. SNAP was designed by Congress to purchase food at eligible retailers to be cooked and prepared at home, meaning hot prepared foods are not eligible for purchase at this point. I have concerns about the unintended consequences that may arise should Congress begin to chip away piecemeal like that the ban on hot food in SNAP without considering the broader ramifications, particularly for program integrity.
A change of this kind, especially one that singles out a specific food item, presents a slippery slope and deserves careful consideration and debate about the purchase of SNAP.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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 fruits that are typically consumed raw.
I would like to tell the body a little bit about how this came to be. I have a 4-year-old. I was touring a daycare, like many in our State, and a daycare worker came up to me. She asked me: Hey, Congress lady, why can I legally open a bag of chips for the toddlers, but I can't peel a banana?
This was perplexing and annoying to me. I dug into this, and I kept asking questions. What I heard from regulators and licensers over and over and over was that this woman was stupid, that her boss had lied to her, and that she just didn't understand the rules.
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 is the number of sinks they would need per exterior linear wall foot. I am not kidding.
This daycare would have needed six more sinks before they could legally peel a banana, because peeling a banana apparently is considered food
I doubt anyone on God's green Earth would have chosen to advantage Cheetos over a banana. That is what has happened through a lack of respect and regard for people who actually work in childcare, through, candidly, an establishment that is so old that they don't have kids in daycare or so rich that they had nannies instead of ordinary daycare.
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 daycare centers again. What this does is it directs the Secretary of Ag to develop a list of food.
It says that 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 childcare will not negatively impact the licenses of daycare centers based on their provision of these foods to children given a handwashing sink is available.
It is a very simple, commonsense rightsizing 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 genuflection to people actually doing the work of taking care of children who have mistaken following a checklist with care for children.
Those are not the same things. We need to empower the people who are actually doing the work. We need to bring down the cost of childcare, and that is what this legislation does.
I am so grateful to the body for working with me to find a way to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleague's interest in ensuring children in childcare have access to healthy and fresh foods whenever possible, this amendment, unfortunately, as written, could wind up doing more harm than good.
Childcare has been underfunded for decades, leading to an inadequate supply of programs, high costs to families, and low wages for providers.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, only 15 percent of federally eligible children currently receive subsidies under the childcare and development fund, and many more don't even qualify for the fund who actually need the assistance.
That is why I introduced, with the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) the Childcare for Working Families Act which would make historic investments in childcare to raise the pay and improve access to families.
This amendment submitted by the gentlewoman from Washington requires the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Agriculture to ``update relevant nutrition and food safety and preparation regulations and guidelines'' that are related to nutrition and food safety preparation in childcare facilities.
This amendment provides broad discretion for the Secretaries to usurp State and local food safety guidelines. If States don't conform their childcare regulations to whatever the Secretaries deem appropriate, they could lose funding which, as I indicated, is already inadequate.
There are no real guardrails to the scope of the changes that the Secretaries could propose under the amendment. 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. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree that childcare 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 is going to make daycare stretch further and provide daycare to more families?
No, these rules were not written--they were not perfect. We should not treat legislation as if it is manifest from God in a perfect form on our notebooks.
The reality is that legislation is more similar to doing the dishes where you do the dishes to do the dishes, to do the dishes. It is never done, and you have to keep going back to the people who are actually doing the implementation of it to understand if it is being implemented and if it is the point of the legislation.
Nobody wanted us to spend these limited dollars installing a myriad of sinks. Maybe the plumbing industry did, but I doubt that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Other than to say that that assumes that the Federal regulations that they come up with will be better than what they have 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. I think that would be a step backward, so I would hope we would oppose the amendment as it is written.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing forward this commonsense amendment. We are talking about archaic regulations. We are not talking about payments or anything like that. We are talking about peeling a banana, preparing an apple slice, or preparing a carrot. We want kids to eat healthy versus prepackaged, processed foods.
This amendment would ensure that USDA, the food safety experts, and HHS, the childcare regulators, work together to ensure that childcare regulations governing the preparation and handling of low-risk fruits and vegetables do not present unnecessary red tape for providers.
I appreciate the gentlewoman and encourage a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, 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 is the best place for us to be spending our limited Federal resources. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the assumption is that regulations that these Secretaries will get together and provide will be better than what is already there. We don't know what they are 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 are going to lose funding. There is broad discretion on the Secretaries, and as I have said, these Secretaries have been known to cancel programs in Democratic States. I don't think that broad discretion is appropriate. I would hope we would defeat the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7567 the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and in particular, my amendment No. 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 are going to address the consequences of treating noncompliance, we must do it comprehensively and fairly. This is about accountability. It is about preparedness. It is 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 No. 15 and pass the farm bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to produce a report on ways to help Arizona, one of seven States in the Colorado River basin, due to a lack of water.
This amendment also seems to imply that because Texas did not receive its water allotment through the 1944 Water Treaty, it is Arizona producers who should receive extra financial assistance.
I have supported many amendments from my Texas colleagues, who have rightly complained that Mexico has not met its obligations under that treaty, but it is Texas producers who suffered as a result. If the gentleman believes that the Colorado River Basin States also experienced some loss, why restrict his amendment only to Arizona?
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, a good friend, Congressman Gosar, for offering this amendment, and President Trump for a successful negotiation with Mexico regarding their water treaty obligations.
It is important that producers are as well informed as possible of the many programs out there to help the losses due to a lack of water, and this amendment is a great way to do so. I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would have known, Arizona is the terminal ending out of Mexico of getting--they have to take the cuts. We have taken several cuts, and there are plenty members from the other basin States, but they can actually look at those as well.
This is about the State of Arizona taking terminal ending of that Colorado River, taking cuts. I would ask everybody to vote for my amendment and to vote for the farm bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chair, 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 No. 16 to restore fairness for ranchers in Arizona and across the Southwest.
For years, ranchers have lived with the realities of predation from the Mexican wolf. They have 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. In the harsh desert climate, where heat and scavengers can quickly degrade a carcass, that standard is often unrealistic and unworkable.
Before 2023, Federal policy allowed multiple forms of evidence to confirm depredation. My amendment simply restores that commonsense approach. It ensures that ranchers are not denied reimbursement because of overly narrow and impractical rules.
This is about fairness. It is about recognizing real-world conditions on the ground. It is about standing with men and women who feed this country.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, No. 16, and pass the farm bill.
Mr. Chair, this amendment forces USDA to revise the existing APHIS Evidence Standards for livestock depredations by Mexican wolves.
It unwisely directs APHIS to update its standards to ignore traumatic bruising, which is, of course, clear physical evidence that the animal was attacked while alive rather than simply picked at by scavengers after it died for unrelated reasons.
The current standards already have provisions in place for making determinations in instances where there
USDA reimburses producers for 100 percent of the value of animals killed by Mexican gray wolves, but there are just a handful of those wolves left who still call the United States home.
This proposal would open the door for USDA to cover the cost of many more livestock per year than those few wolves could possibly kill.
Virtually any livestock death could be attributed to Mexican wolves because you wouldn't need to observe the primary indicator of a live attack.
I support the assistance we provide to producers who experience losses to wolves, but unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment.
Obviously, the previous standards were used from 2004 to 2022 by George W. Bush and Obama and at the beginning of Biden's term. If the Democrats disagreed, did they disagree with Obama's agricultural policy, as well?
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the full committee chairman.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for offering this amendment.
This is an issue I heard about years ago when we started this process of preparing for this farm bill. Actually, it was the president of the Arizona Farm Bureau who brought it to my attention.
These are Mexican wolves that are coming across the border and doing tremendous damage. Ensuring that our livestock producers are able to more accurately receive an indemnification of livestock depredations by Mexican wolves is yet another step to continue to provide producers with the most adequate coverage possible.
Providing new evidence standards within the Livestock Indemnity Program will no doubt help more accurately determine depredations for unfortunate losses.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, once again, I am only asking for fairness because what we see on the ground is that there were other ways of looking at this. They are not asking for handouts. They are just wanting to be treated fairly.
Mr. Chair, I ask for my amendment to be adopted as well as the farm bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and in support of my amendment No. 18.
This bipartisan, commonsense amendment puts guardrails on taxpayer dollars by restricting 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. Despite these lessons, Federal dollars are continuing to flow to foreign labs, including collaborations tied to entities associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
My amendment ensures that does not happen without serious consequences or justification. It prohibits 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 is about safeguarding taxpayer dollars. It is about ensuring American resources are not used in frivolous ways that could undermine our own safety.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment No. 18 and pass the farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, 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 depend 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 that 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 threaten the United States and understand the devastating risks if we are isolated and alone against these threats.
Mr. Chairman, I humbly oppose this amendment and strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, obviously the gentlewoman is not understanding the amendment.
My amendment ensures that it does not happen without serious justification. Yes, you can share information, but you also have to have the parameters. I am 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.
Mr. Chair, with that, you need the proper protocols and the proper aspects. It still allows for the public financing of doing that, but it has to be justified.
That is what we want: accountability and transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the full committee.
Preventing USDA from entering into unnecessary research relationships with adversarial nations, such as China and Russia, really is a critical step in ensuring the security of our U.S. research infrastructure. It is even more important when doing so prevents unnecessary research on vertebrate species.
This amendment affirms actions that have already been taken by the administration to prevent this type of work, while still allowing for narrow waiver authority in the case of unavoidable research in the name of national security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to urge all Members to oppose this amendment. Again, while I understand the perspectives and the points of view 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.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, 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, to the patients, to the public, and to the citizens of this country.
This is about fairness, and it is also about transparency and accountability. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help to 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 is intended to help low-income Americans put food on the table, and it plays an essential role in supporting families in need. At the same time, it is funded by taxpayers, and we have a responsibility to ensure that 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 that we evaluate the results of SNAP pilot programs and make informed, data-driven decisions about the program's future.
We know there is a growing concern about how taxpayer dollars are being used within SNAP, particularly regarding which types of foods are eligible for purchase. It is 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 pilot programs, 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 families, providing better nutrition, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to it leading to a thinner, healthier America. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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. For many, like my constituents, who 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.
It is not that SNAP recipients buy different foods than other Americans. USDA research has shown that SNAP participants purchase foods at rates similar to nonparticipants. 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. Another one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mints, fruit leathers, sweetened baking chocolate, fruit 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.
That is just way too confusing for too many people. Better ways to address diet-related chronic disease include investing in fruit and vegetable incentives like GusNIP and nutrition education programs.
Unfortunately, as we know, funding for SNAP-Ed, which benefited many States, including mine, provides grants to State 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- nonexistent 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. I cannot emphasize enough that we must seek to restore the funding to this essential program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask unanimous consent to reclaim his time?
Mr. Chairman, 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 are thinner. As a result, the overall effect of this amendment will make life easier for people. You have to remember that a lot of this food that is bought on food stamps is going to wind up on the table of young
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
I thank the gentleman for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is important for Congress to get more information from USDA and States on the pilot projects that restrict SNAP purchases, as it is this body who ultimately decides what changes, if any, are made permanently at the Federal level.
I have looked warily at USDA offering all of these waivers. Today, 22 States have been approved by USDA to test the ban. I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii really laying out just the confusion and chaos.
I guess we will look at it as the laboratories of innovation to test the ban on the purchase of certain food and beverages with SNAP benefits. I think they missed the mark because the average SNAP beneficiary uses at least three forms of payment and plenty of their own cash or a check or a debit card to satisfy that sweet tooth that I find most families have. That is sad.
So I support the gentleman's amendment because I think we need to have feedback. However, only 10 of those waivers are in effect, with the remainder to be in later this year in 2027, early 2028.
This amendment ensures that, upon completion of the waivers, Congress receives a robust evaluation of the pilots, along with recommendations from the USDA regarding changes to the Federal definition of ``eligible foods'' because, frankly, that is our job under Article I to determine that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 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 forests 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 Checketts, the president of the National Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that 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 the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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. Sixty-two percent 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 percent of its staff due to forced retirements and DOGE-ing, this is the wrong approach.
Though I support responsible grazing of our public lands, this amendment would incentivize the Trump administration to keep cutting staff and degrade these landscapes, which are our national heritage. I must oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for offering this amendment.
Access to Federal lands for grazing is extremely important for supporting producers, particularly in the West. While the framework for grazing permits on Federal lands is provided through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the law references lands within national forests, rather than the broader National Forest System.
This amendment is intended to ensure permit renewals for grazing on grasslands is similar to and more consistent with such renewals on other forest land. It is an efficiency measure, as well. I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support amendment No. 21 to support grazers on our national grasslands. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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. 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. Since 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 chain.
This government mandate also raises privacy concerns for ranchers and their herds based on information collected through the EID system, concerns which APHIS never adequately addressed in the rule.
The rule's application to bison also disadvantages Tribal bison ranchers who manage bison as wildlife, not as livestock.
Because of all of these issues, it is nearly 2 years later and ranchers are still facing EID tag shortages. The cost of EID tags on the private market increased because of its fallout--all this harm for a regulation that is not needed as the U.S. already had a well- functioning animal disease traceability system. 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.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, animal disease traceability is an extremely important aspect of protecting our domestic livestock herds and our foreign trade markets.
We have already seen the importance of animal disease traceability and EID tags with dairy cattle due to the ongoing outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza.
USDA helps producers comply with this rule by providing the tags at no cost to producers, and the rule this amendment seeks to repeal has been in effect for more than 18 months already with no negative consequences.
Producers recognize that animal disease traceability is an essential component of protecting livestock during an animal disease outbreak.
We cannot allow ourselves to be in a position where efforts to improve animal disease traceability are hampered. For this reason I must respectfully oppose the gentlewoman from Wyoming's amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I 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 traffic potential outbreaks.
The American Veterinary Medical 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 is why the electronic ear tag proposal was supported by the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Veterinary 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 and the New World screwworm 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. Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with the gentlewoman more. We have seen significant examples of how important these EID tags have been in tracking the highly pathogenic avian influenza as it has gotten into our dairy cows in different parts of the country.
She referenced the New World screwworm. That is a huge threat to the United States. Thankfully, so far we have successfully avoided that with the building of the different production facilities for sterile flies, which is really the proven solution or remedy to that.
Being able to track the cattle--once again, we cannot hamper our ability to improve animal disease traceability.
With the greatest respect to the gentlewoman who was the author of this amendment, I encourage all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, rise in support of this amendment. The Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Assistance Program is a popular and successful program at USDA to support new and emerging technologies for biobased products. This means innovation here at home, and it means opening up new markets to our farmers.
I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward to provide higher loan guarantees for this program to support a wider variety of projects.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for her amendment and for the ranking member representing her this evening.
This amendment would increase the loan guarantee cap for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to $400 million. This mandatory funded program, last funded in 2020, has a large unobligated balance, and raising the loan caps will ensure needed projects get funded.
Bipartisan amendments like these continue to improve the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which I am pleased to lead with the gentlewoman from Illinois' Second Congressional District.
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 is the crucial link that connects us all.
Our people, Nation, and economy run on reliable internet connections. Agriculture 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, produce higher yields, and minimize operating costs.
Today's smart agriculture technology, from autonomous tractors to 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. When terrestrial or cellular networks are not available, satellite broadband steps in to make these technologies work.
However, it is not just advanced satellite broadband capabilities that improve precision agriculture. Earth-imaging satellites also provide important information that helps 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 rural changes can be made to promote precision agriculture.
I am 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. Chair, I thank my colleague for bringing up this amendment. The bill this amendment is based on has already passed the House by voice vote and now sits idly in the Senate.
I am glad my colleagues are paying attention to this issue and are supportive of promoting precision agriculture for our farmers.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise to support this amendment. As you know, I never thought I would have to be debating liability protections for pesticide companies, yet here I am today.
I would like to share some statistics with you. A major study found that pesticide mixtures increased 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 this is something that we should all get behind. 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 and work are 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 constant and consistent links between pesticide exposures and leukemia, brain cancers, and rare childhood cancers.
Off the record, I had a conversation in the Cloakroom with a young Member of Congress who was just elected in Georgia who said he suffered from thyroid cancer, and he thought it was due to an environmental factor.
The point is that this should not be partisan. It is 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 am not getting paid special interest money. I am trying to fight for my district and, I think, for the well-being of a majority of Americans. The fact is that there is far too much special interest money going into policies like these. While people claim that they are not in opposition, if you pull FEC reporting, of which we have screenshots of all of that, it says quite otherwise.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for both supporting 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. President Trump has invoked national security powers to mandate the production 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 Clean Air 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 stormwater runoff because Congress knew that some amount of 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 is astonishing to me that my Republican colleagues wrote this bill to abolish that protection for rural communities' 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.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Luna for her tireless efforts on this front, and I hope my colleagues will heed her example and vote for this amendment. I urge all Members to support this.
Mr. Chair, 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 MAHA movement 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.
There are people out there who want to raise the costs on farmers by requiring that Florida would have one set of labels and Georgia would have another. We are simply saying that when the EPA says this is the appropriate label and the proper label to put the warnings on the chemical, 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. This is 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.
Again, Mr. Chair, I just want the people to know--especially the MAHA people who 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.
I represent Georgia. We are close to the Florida line. If the EPA says the label is good, I don't see why every State and municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer. Again, we are not talking about the pesticide in the jug, as has been misrepresented to American citizens and especially to the MAHA movement. We are talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that section 10205 blocks States and local governments from requiring any warnings beyond what the EPA provides. As far as I am concerned, if someone is trying to give something to my kid that causes cancer, I would hope to heck that Congress would block that.
Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that I take zero money from pesticide liability and manufacturers, and my colleague takes $124,000 from them. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I find it sad that we enter into cheap shots regarding organizations that, when they see something that you are working hard on behalf of the American farmer, and they want to make a legal, ethical donation, they can do that. That tells me that
The sections that this amendment seeks to strike deliver commonsense regulatory reforms that are critical for securing access to well- regulated pesticide tools for a variety of crop production and public health needs.
The language also reflects thoughtful changes to address stakeholder concerns, such as making sure it is crystal clear that the EPA can still respond quickly to new scientific findings and that existing State authorities are maintained.
The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statutes that the EPA is the authoritative voice for making safety findings related to pesticides communicated through legal, binding labels while retaining States' authority for the sale, use, and distribution of crop protections.
I don't know if Maine and Florida have toxicologists on staff. I would tell you that I am absolutely confident that less than half of the States have the qualified individuals in order to put forward labeling.
The gentleman from Georgia is right. This is about a labeling bill and making sure that we are--and, by the way, the States can weigh in with the EPA. They just have to go through the EPA if they have special circumstances for labeling.
The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statute that the EPA--this includes States' ability to not register a product at all within the jurisdiction. Regulatory certainty in making sure that there is a clear science-based regulatory system that is rooted in scientific review from the EPA, not courtroom science that overrides Federal findings, is what producers need.
Frankly, it is disappointing that this body has to revisit and clarify existing statutes to reaffirm the State labeling laws, such as California Proposition 65, which has already been found to be in violation of the Constitution when applied to products containing glyphosate, which are not allowed under the existing law because trial lawyers have scrambled to find every possible loophole in Federal law.
Additionally, this package also provides States who have a formal relationship with the EPA as co-regulators on pesticide products with clarity that they are able to submit.
Mr. Chair, I encourage the defeat of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for managing it.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, if you visit South Carolina's Lowcountry, you will 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 will find shrimp festivals, oyster roasts, and Lowcountry boils nearly every weekend during the season.
In communities across South Carolina's First Congressional District from McClellanville to Mount Pleasant to Beaufort to Bluffton to Hilton Head and Hilton Head Island, Mr. Chair, you will see thousands show up to bless the fleet of shrimp boats when they head out to begin their season.
Across the State of South Carolina, Mr. Chair, you will see communities, neighbors, and families come together around locally caught seafood and see people come from thousands of miles away just to taste it.
However, Mr. Chair, talk to any shrimper or fisherman in this country, and you will know that 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 is national security, and he has recognized the importance of revitalizing our domestic seafood industry. Last April he issued an executive order titled 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 processors, are integrated into USDA programs.
The Office of Seafood would also be responsible for working alongside the Department of Commerce, the 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 Carolina's shrimpers and fishermen, and I urge all Members to support our domestic seafood industry by voting in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I 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 am lucky enough to live in the heart of lobster harvesting territory, so I know firsthand how important the fisheries are to our State and to everybody who hopefully will come to visit our State and enjoy our delicious seafood.
I have been listening to Representative Thompson throughout the night talk about how he did a lot of listening tours and traveled around the country, and I was very privileged to have him come and visit in the State of Maine. While he was there we made sure, even though it was an agriculture listening tour--because the office of aquaculture
I have always been surprised, as a member of the Agriculture Committee and getting to know the USDA, knowing that aquaculture resides there, there are fishery 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.
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 have 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 is permanent and our fishermen continue to have this access.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment to create this additional office, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. I thank my good friend from Maine who has the best tasting kelp I have ever had. It was delicious along with everything else.
I was happy to see USDA established a new Office of Seafood this month to better support and serve our seafood industry, helping to enable the administration's America first seafood strategy.
American seafood is a vital part of the U.S. food supply. I think it is a vital part of American agriculture. Codifying this office will ensure that this support continues for years to come by providing dedicated resources, time, and coordination for the industry.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, an onslaught of substandard foreign seafood,
For example, after hearing testimony of some of my constituents, the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam were illegally subsidizing and dumping shrimp, imposing antidumping and countervailing duties.
This foreign seafood is often caught through illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and employs 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. Mr. Chair, 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 anticompetitive foreign practices, falling 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. Landings by weight have fallen to their lowest levels 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 am offering this amendment today. Our shrimpers and fishermen put food on the table, they are the farmers of sea, and it is past time we started treating them like it.
The USDA has a variety of programs to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers, and it is 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 shrimpers and fishermen.
This amendment would also ensure commercial fishermen and fish processors have access to USDA Farm Ownership Loans and Farm Operating Loans.
Best of all, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget neutral.
This is a commonsense 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 coasts, very special.
I thank Representative Carbajal for partnering with me on this amendment. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, USDA loan programs have helped thousands of farmers and ranchers access the capital they need to feed people throughout the Nation and beyond.
Opening up these critical loan programs to the vague and broadly defined ``fish processing businesses'' in this amendment could lead to unintended consequences.
By their definition, a food manufacturer that processes fish, fish sticks, and 100 other nonseafood products would qualify for a USDA direct Farm Operating Loan, even if they are thousands of miles from the nearest seafood source.
I encourage the sponsors of this amendment to seek technical assistance to close these giant loopholes, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, for many of our Nation's coastal areas, fishermen represent not just a way to make a living, but they are the embodiment of the community's culture.
Although commercial fishermen catch 8.4 billion pounds of seafood each year, they do not qualify for the same access to credit as many of our Nation's other food producers due to their unique business structure.
Adopting this amendment is one of the many actions that we can take to expand access to credit for these vital businesses that serve as a lifeblood of their coastal communities, and our ag lenders are already uniquely suited to provide this capital.
That being said, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, since I came to Congress, I have been fighting to put an end to taxpayer-funded animal cruelty.
We have seen great successes, including successfully 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 noninvasive and nonterminal 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 nonlaboratory placement of dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea 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 commonsense idea which is already working. We have 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 thank Representative Titus for partnering with me on this amendment, and I urge all Members to support this amendment. Together, we can save the lives of countless innocent dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add Violet's Law to the farm bill.
The amendment would allow for the adoption or placement in another home for animals once they are no longer needed for research in Federal labs.
Several other Federal Government departments, including NIH, DOD, and the FDA, allow for the retirement of lab animals, but the USDA has been slow to follow.
This amendment would make sure that these animals who have contributed so much of their lives to advancing the cause of science would be able to live out the rest of their lives in a loving home or sanctuary.
I thank Ms. Mace for her amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that in my view would correct what had taken place in the Agriculture Committee.
There was an amendment to eliminate dog racing, greyhound racing specifically, in the United States. The only problem with that, there is 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. Forty percent of the revenue-sharing from the track supports the pension funds of police and firefighters, and we have 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 whom are disabled. 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 and 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.
Lastly, this really is a question of States' rights where we have voted on this in the State of West Virginia. They have affirmatively voted on it. This question will come up again before the State legislature. Perhaps they will vote at some point not to, but we are really worried about not only those pensions but the almost 2,000 employees who are also involved in this industry. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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 exists in only one, West Virginia.
Despite existing only in West Virginia, Federal legislation to end greyhound racing is necessary because greyhound races are still transmitted to bettors across the United States. 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 Cardenas and now-United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz.
I have been the lead sponsor of this bipartisan legislation for the past 4 years, alongside my colleagues Randy Fine, Zach Nunn, and Don Davis.
During these 6 years, the Greyhound Protection Act has earned dozens of Democratic and Republican cosponsors. 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 bill's committee markup.
Since that time, the 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 Agriculture 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 the 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 opened 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 phasing out activities deemed inconsistent with public values or policy priorities. West Virginia already has an alternative gaming revenue, 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, as well as the work done by myself, my colleagues, and committee staff over the last number of years. I ask my colleagues to please oppose this amendment and end the cycle of government-mandated cruelty.
Mr. Chair, it is really a sick obsession of this town to want to control and destroy jobs in one of the poorest States in America. It really is. I will just note that this is destroying guys who have union pensions. It is against the unions to vote against this amendment. You are hurting their membership.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for introducing this amendment.
I did not support the amendment that passed out of committee by voice vote banning greyhound racing nationwide. I think a ban is heavyhanded. It sets a dangerous precedent, and it doesn't take into consideration the tracks that are currently in operation, which are basically just two in West Virginia.
There are only two greyhound racetracks left in the country, both of which are located in West Virginia, one of the tracks being located in Mr. Moore's district.
Mr. Moore's amendment strikes a fair compromise by maintaining the ban on any future operations outside of West Virginia while preserving the tracks and associated jobs that already exist.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I support unions, but this is about cruelty to animals, and we are trying to justify one good over a lot of evil. It is important that we not use this issue and call it just jobs for a very small amount of individuals, in one State in our Nation, when it comes to really protecting humane approaches to how we deal with greyhounds and animals.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is in support of the unions, those union members. If you vote against this, you are against the unions. That is a fact. You are trying to take their pensions away from them. That is what you are 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 is going on here. I am standing up for those members, standing up for the individuals who are supported by this track. Maybe someday the State of West Virginia will vote to get rid of it, but that is up to the State of West Virginia.
As we have 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, with less than 2 million people, and what we are doing inside of our borders, I don't really get.
Just to be clear, this amendment is in support of the police. It is in support of the firefighters. You are taking away their pensions if you don't support the amendment. I think it is a pretty fair compromise, as the chairman said.
Mr. Chair, in this country, we have done a lot of inhumane things, whether it is to animals or people. We oftentimes try to justify it in one way or another, but it is hard to justify jobs over being humane. It is a matter of values, and that is really what it is about.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 printed in part B of House Report 119-628.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all for being here burning the midnight oil with us.
Mr. Chairman, 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. Neguse's 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 is important that we equip our communities with all the tools they need to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and join me in taking action to protect our communities after a disaster.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Colorado.
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program offers financial and technical assistance to eligible participants for watershed impairments after flooding, fires, or other natural disasters.
This program is important for addressing such urgent threats, including the removal of debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges protecting stream banks, establishing vegetative cover on eroding lands, and repairing some conservation practices.
This amendment would help encourage quicker response by ensuring that partner costs can be considered as part of the match if incurred prior to entering into an agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, 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 it will help farms adapt to challenges, like extreme weather event and drought.
This effort is bipartisan, done in partnership with Representative Flood, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their interest in a program with tremendous potential to deliver solutions for our Nation's producers, the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority Program, also known as AGARDA.
Modeled off of similar programs in the defense and energy sectors, AGARDA is focused on filling high-risk areas where there is high payoff potential, but the private sector is unlikely to undertake research alone.
While I appreciate the interest in strengthening this program, promoting climate solutions does not fit into the underlying mission of AGARDA and takes away from its mission.
We see substantial investment from the private sector and miscellaneous
For this reason, I will not be supporting this amendment's inclusion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, aquaculture has the potential to transform island economics and nutrition. By encouraging small-scale and commercial aquaculture, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands could lower the cost of fresh, nutritious 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 territorial aquaculture and vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chair, 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, and these 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 is a food supply issue, but it is 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.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing forward this amendment. This is a win-win for agriculture and for our neighbors in need.
By streamlining applications for nutrition programs redeemed at farmers' markets and stands, this amendment will remove bureaucratic red tape and expand markets for our farmers and ranchers while increasing access to fresh, locally grown food for lower-income families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise 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 a 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 1,000 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 have 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 commonsense solution that gives farmers an opportunity to diversify their income while ensuring their land can be used by future generations. It is great for the environment. It is phenomenal for our Nation's farmers, and it creates lasting State partnerships with producers.
It is past time 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.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. Our system of voluntary, incentive-based, and locally led conservation is a proven model providing benefits to both producer and the environment.
Conservation programs also provide important benefits for wildlife habitat as we see in the case of the SAFE Initiative and other programs like the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program.
Since acres are typically enrolled in SAFE through the continuous enrollment option, this amendment would simply codify that. As such, I support the amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today 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 1 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 healthcare costs that follow, we should at least stop financing the problem on the front end.
This is a narrow, commonsense reform that restores integrity to SNAP and aligns it with its core mission. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment, and of course, all of us here support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles for all Americans, but I have serious concerns with any policy that would make life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Across the country right now, chaotic waivers restricting different kinds of foods and drinks from being purchased with SNAP are already creating massive confusion for participants and for retailers.
We don't know the result of the effectiveness of these waivers at this point, although things aren't looking good. We certainly shouldn't be codifying any type of restrictions and picking winners and losers among foods without getting those results first.
If the intention is to address diet-related chronic disease, we would be better off investing in fruit and vegetable incentives, like GusNIP, and revive SNAP-Ed, a nutrition education program that was eliminated in H.R. 1.
Mr. Chair, 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 are appropriately frugal, do not use. The easiest one that we should put an end to is this idea of unhealthy, sugary drinks.
The gentlewoman 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 is not a good thing.
That is particularly not a good thing when you consider some of the money you are getting on your food stamps goes to your kids. I mean, I feel horrible if I am in a grocery store and I see somebody use food stamps for these soft drinks, and they have got little kids with them. We should just not do that.
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.
Mr. Chair, I would 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 administrable. Retail systems already distinguish between eligible and noneligible goods. This is not something the store has to do.
Implementation is a logistics issue, not a policy issue.
Mr. Chair, I will just end with this. I want you to imagine a single mom who is on the SNAP program--remember, this is $6.20 a day--who wants to put a four-pack--remember, no one can afford six-packs anymore because everything is too expensive--wants to purchase a four-pack of soda as a treat once a week for her children. The idea that we are going to force that family, that single mom, to say, no, I can't choose to do that--we are going to take that choice away from them.
Mr. Chair, there are lots of people who live in families that need just a little bit of help right now, and it is getting worse under this administration. You cannot deny it. At the end of the day, this is one more way that we are attacking poor people in our country.
Mr. Chair, we are all for healthy, but let's not be mean at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I 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.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Grothman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schmidt, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7567) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Mr. Speaker, as we begin the 94th Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Southeastern Regional Conference in Birmingham, Alabama, I rise to honor the extraordinary leadership of Dr. Tracey Morant Adams, the 27th southeastern regional director.
From her initiation into the campus of University of Montevallo to her tenure as the 27th southeastern regional director, Tracey has embodied the values of sisterhood, scholarship, and service to all mankind.
During her 4-year tenure, she has led the work of over 13,000 members across Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.
She has launched signature initiatives that have strengthened chapters, expanded voter engagement, and advanced economic empowerment.
Tracey's leadership is matched by her extraordinary professional achievements as well.
On a personal note, Tracey and I share more than just titles and service. We have a 30-year friendship and sisterhood.
As I reflect on Tracey's service, I cannot help but think of my mother, Nancy Gardner Sewell, the 18th southeastern regional director. Mom would be so proud to see how Tracey has followed in her footsteps, protecting the legacy of our beloved sorority while boldly imagining our future. I can almost hear my mother saying: Well-done, my daughter. Well-done.
On behalf of the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Tracey Morant Adams, the 27th southeastern regional director on occasion of the 94th southeastern regional conference in Birmingham, Alabama.
We are so proud of Tracey.
Well-done. Well-done. Well-done.
Mr. Speaker, ahead of the 94th Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority South Eastern Regional Conference in Birmingham, I rise today to honor the extraordinary leadership of Dr. Tracey Morant Adams who currently serves as the 27th South Eastern Regional Director of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated.
From her initiation into the Mu Mu Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority in 1985 on the campus of the University of Montevalllo, Tracey has embodied the values that Alpha Kappa Sorority, Incorporated has carried for more than a century: sisterhood, scholarship, and service to all humankind.
Tracey has carried those values with grace throughout her tenure as the 27th South Eastern Regional Director. In this role, she guides nearly 13,000 members and more than 114 graduate and undergraduate chapters in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.
During her 2022 to 2026 administration, Tracey launched signature initiatives that strengthened chapters, expanded voter engagement, advanced economic empowerment, and deepened our commitment to health, equity, and educational excellence. Under her leadership, the Southern Region has not only grown in numbers but in impact--touching campuses, churches, rural communities, and city neighborhoods across our beloved South.
Tracey has led with grace, vision, and an unwavering commitment to service. Her leadership reflects the very best of the beloved Alpha Kappa Alpha sisterhood--uplifting communities, empowering women, and advancing a legacy grounded in sisterhood and service.
Her leadership within Alpha Kappa Alpha is matched by her extraordinary professional accomplishments, As Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Community Development and Corporate Social Responsibility Officer at Renasant Bank, Tracey has opened doors of opportunity for small business, invested in affordable housing, and ensured that corporate success is measured by how many lives are lifted. She proves every day that excellence in the boardroom can walk hand in hand with compassion in the community.
On a personal note, Tracey and I share more than titles and public service--we share more than thirty years of friendship and sisterhood. We have prayed together, worked together, and dreamed together about what our sorority and our communities could become. I have watched her lead with humility, listen with intention and act with courage. She is the kind sister who shows up before she is asked and stays long after the work is done.
As I reflect on Tracey's service, I cannot help but think of my mother, Nancy Gardner Sewell, the 18th Southeastern Regional Director. Mom believed that leadership in Alpha Kappa Alpha was sacred trust. She would be so proud to see how Tracey has followed in her footsteps-- protecting our legacy while boldly imagining our future. I can almost hear Mama saying, ``Well done, my daughter--well done.''
Tracey stands in a long line of visionary women, yet she has carved a path uniquely her own. She has reminded us that pink and green are not just colors; they are a call to action. Because of her, more girls see themselves as scholars, more families have access to resources, and more communities know that Alpha Kappa Alpha walks beside them.
On behalf of the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Tracey Morant Adams, the 27th South Eastern Regional Director.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 26 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 9 a.m.
