▶ 0:04:51test test.
▶ 0:33:14Sir, we're not ready. What's that? We're not ready. Not ready yet. Okay. Still waiting. Quiet everybody down, but we're not. False alarm. False alarm. Yeah. I'm just making sure the gavvel worked. The batteries weren't dead in Dad, I I'd like to g you, man. I don't know if you'll know, but text. It's the only regret I'll have.
▶ 0:41:41So that's how I was working that out. I notice there's a quorum present before recessing the committee had postponed further consideration of the committee print for a we will now continue consideration of those amendments before the committee and I know that uh uh before we uh adjourned uh Congressman David Scott u had an amendment at the desk u number 18 and uh members will suspend while the amendment
▶ 0:42:11is being distributed. Okay. Right back.
▶ 0:42:52I think the clerk went to get the amendments. There they are. Oh, and his distribution crew. They were ready to go.
▶ 0:43:07Just Thank
▶ 0:43:50you. Thank you. All right.
▶ 0:44:20All members having received the amendment in front of them. Uh uh gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott has offered amendment. The clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 18 offered by Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize distinguished gentleman from Georgia. Mr.
▶ 0:44:46Scott, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you very much. Uh, chairman, I um am very troubled in mind. I listened to my Mr. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota He's a fine gentleman.
▶ 0:45:16But this is the message that amendment is going to deal Folks, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people for us to sit here and think that you're going to take $300
▶ 0:45:47billion dollar from this program. and it's not going to hurt the people. And I listened to Mr. Johnson yesterday and he's a decent person, but the American people must up and help us.
▶ 0:46:16This is a bad omen for this nation. to take $300 billion dollars out of the most valuable program to serve the most basic need of the American people.
▶ 0:46:41Ladies and gentlemen, we can do without a lot of things, but the one thing we cannot do without is food.
▶ 0:46:55And you mean to tell me that we're sitting here in Congress and trying to convince ourselves and the American people that you can $300 billion dollar out of our basic food security program and nothing happens. It's proved.
▶ 0:47:26So I want to appeal to the American people. Write us. Call us here Congress. Stand up for America's values. This is totally wrong. We're not stupid. We're not dumb.
▶ 0:47:45You cannot take $300 billion dollar out of a food program serving our veterans, our senior citizens, and millions of children. People are going to die. They're going starve. They're not making it. Think now this isn't the American way. The whole world is watching us.
▶ 0:48:16and we would be a laughingtock. Now, we got to change this. And this is all this amendment does. An amendment simply strikes any reduction in funding to snap from the bill. We should be here asking for additional money, but we're not.
▶ 0:48:44Our population has grown since SNAP, since we put this in. We got more children. We got more veterans. We got more senior citizens. The need is even greater now. But we're willing to just go with what we have. And that's what I'm asking our this committee to do.
▶ 0:49:12It's just leave it alone. And I'm calling on the American people to call us here in Congress. And I I've served on this committee for 22 years and I've come to know many of my Republican friends.
▶ 0:49:35I've worked with them and in my own mind and heart, I know that this is not really what they I don't know where this is coming from, but to sit here and try to convince us that you can take 300 million out has expired and do nothing. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? I do.
▶ 0:50:06Mr. McGovern's recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I strongly support the Scott amendment. I want to thank him for his leadership on this. Let me remind everybody that SNAP provides people with two bucks per meal for food. That's it. And a lot of my colleagues don't even know that. The chairman of the budget committee when he testified before the rules committee on the cuts and SNAP didn't know what the average SNAP benefit was per person per meal. Well, it's two bucks.
▶ 0:50:32The program lifts people out of poverty, improves health, and helps people afford groceries. That's what it does. This bill cuts SNAP benefits by billion. I don't want anyone watching at home to buy the BS that Republicans are trying to sell here. Let's look under the hood at what this bill actually does. It slashes the food budgets of families with kids.
▶ 0:50:57It cruy takes food away from single working parents who cannot find work, who may lack child care or transportation with kids as young as seven years old. Taking food away from a parent hurts the entire household. It means less money for the family to purchase nutritious food. It forces older adults up to age 65, many who have limited educations or dismal job prospects off benefits after 3 months.
▶ 0:51:26It's tough if you're 64 years old and just been laid off to find a job within 90 days. and you all received a letter from AARP uh expressing their concerns about what this bill would do uh with regard to older Americans. This bill prevents future increases to benefit calculations, which will mean that families have less purchasing power to buy nutritious food as food costs increase. The Trump administration keeps on talking about making America healthy again.
▶ 0:51:55Uh and at the same time they want to reduce the food benefit for working families, for families that are struggling. It doesn't make any sense. This bill threatens food benefits for the 16 million children, 8 million seniors, and 4 million people with disabilities by shifting the cost of benefits onto the states whose budgets cannot support the hundreds of millions of dollars that have to put up every year to maintain benefits for these individuals.
▶ 0:52:23Last night, we had the discussion with the chairman of this committee about what happens if a state can't meet its cost share. Well, the answer is they will cut the benefits. Uh that's why we have governors who have written to this committee to say that states will be forced to cut already modest benefits, limit eligibility, or both. Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of hungry people. You are upending a highly successful program that helps people meet their basic needs when times are tough.
▶ 0:52:54Enacting this bill will mean more people go hungry in this country and more people will get sick. All to fund a massive tax breaks for billionaires. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. This is the largest cut to SNAP in the history of the program. And I'm ashamed that this is what we are dealing with in this committee today.
▶ 0:53:14And I'm ashamed that we have a Congress that seems to care more about helping the billionaires who hang out with Elon Musk and Donald Trump at Mara Lago than a single mom trying to put food on the table for her kids. Where are your values? Uh this is a this is a moral question. Uh this is a sick and twisted way to further rig the system against hardworking regular people.
▶ 0:53:38You know, I've been focused on this issue for many years, and what I've concluded is that when all is said and done, hunger is a political condition. We have the ability, we have the funds, we have the technology, we have everything to end hunger in America. What we lack is the political will. And this is a prime example of that. We are not we we we are moving backwards uh if we enact this.
▶ 0:54:03Um, and maybe there's a political calculation that the people who will be adversely affected, well, maybe they don't vote or maybe they don't matter in the political sense that they don't give a lot of money. But I'm going to tell you, we were elected to help people, not hurt people. And what this bill is doing is hurting people. And I strongly support the Scott amendment. And I urge all my colleagues, I urge my Republican colleagues to stand up against this administration and those who want to target a food benefit that helps struggling families.
▶ 0:54:33With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendments? Mr. Well, we go back and forth. Mr. Lalfa, thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just uh found something curious in the summary of this amendment here which says uh the amendment allows USDA nutrition programs to continue operating as intended by Congress.
▶ 0:55:03So as intended that that's an interesting piece there because under the ABOD and again that's the able-bodied without dependence are allowed to be on SNAP for 90 days and then they have to go seek jobs. When I was 34 years old, I was still an A-BOD because my wife had her own job being a school teacher. We didn't have kids yet. So, I could have been an ABOD, right?
▶ 0:55:30Um, so we're seeing as intended by Congress, the original intent was 10% unemployment in a county. So in my own state of California, these two counties would have been the ones that qualified under what was intended by Congress. The secretary was able to move under lack of sufficient jobs, which is a vagory was written in the law that has been vastly exploited.
▶ 0:55:58So California at that point was able to have about half of its counties. As I mentioned, I know this is old news, but we need to hear it again. And then the state itself was able to just completely wave everybody of not having to continue to seek employment if you're an able-bodied without dependent after 90 days into perpetuity. Now, when I was 34 and I could have just sat home, I guess, and not had to go work out on my ranch, grow rice, whatever.
▶ 0:56:26And we hear this as intended by Congress. Why don't we get back to what was intended here for the ABOD program? I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Miss Pengri is recognized for five minutes. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you to my colleague from Georgia for submitting this amendment. I wholeheartedly support it. Um we started to debate this a little bit last night and my colleague from South Dakota who's not in here was talking about how simple this would be for the states.
▶ 0:56:55You just go back to your state, you say, "Hey, just reach into that deep surplus that you've got, take a couple million dollars out, patch it all up, and you're good to go." Well, good on South Dakota. Lucky you, you're not a border state to Canada. You're not suffering from tariffs, lack of tourists, and people who don't want to visit your state anymore. Or you're not suffering from a budget dur downturn. Because I can tell you in my state, there isn't a big surplus.
▶ 0:57:22The legislature is battling over a variety of items right now and they're not going to be in a good position if we have to make this deep cut. Let's just face what we're doing here today. We are looking at a bunch of gimmicks to pretend we're not cutting food to hungry people because nobody wants to go back to their district and say, "I cut food for children and seniors and the grandparents in my district." Oh, no, no. I just made a few changes.
▶ 0:57:49is we put some people back to work who were getting ready to go out there and go to work anyway. We made a few moms change the age of dependence from 18 down to seven so they could rush back to the workplace. But most importantly, we said to our states, "Hey, guess what? You guys got to pay the bill." Now, we're looking at in this bill asking some states to pay up to 25%.
▶ 0:58:14So, I'm just trying to guess in my state if our error rate happens to slip up over 10% then we got to pay I think 25% of the bill. So, in my state that's not a small 2 million of our $400 million uh SNAP benefit program. That would be $100 million. So, our legislature has got to find a hundred million.
▶ 0:58:36Now, I just want to mention to you at the same time there's a committee hearing going on in ENC and they are looking to take millions of dollars out of your Medicaid program. So, your state is going to have to find out how to make up the Medicaid money and the SNAP money at the same time. And then, if you haven't heard, we've been uh belleaguered for the last three months under the Doge and it's already been in your state making massive cuts. Perhaps you haven't heard, they've cut across the board throughout your state.
▶ 0:59:04Your state is already scrambling to figure out how to make up workers in all ranges. Everything from the Forest Service to health care to everything else. And then another little news bulletin. I'm lucky enough to serve on the appropriations committee while being on this committee. And we're already looking at the 2026 budget. Tomorrow we'll hear from the EPA administrator and he's going to talk to me about the 50% cuts they're making to the EPA. And guess where they want to go? state categorical grants.
▶ 0:59:34So, your state, if it wants to have clean air, clean water, or deal with the polluters in your state, is going to have to pay for that. And that's nothing compared to what you're gonna have to do at HUD where they're making 50% cuts. And let me guess, you have a housing crisis in your state, just like I do in mine. So, how do you think that your state is going to make up all of this money? So, let's face it, what are we doing here throughout the Congress? We are making a massive shift.
▶ 1:00:02Not only are we taking back revenue from the wealthiest people in this country and big corporations, so we're going to reduce our revenue stream and we're going to ask the states to pay for more. Nobody's going to notice. Don't worry. It'll just happen in the dark of the night. People won't even know that we did it and your state will just cover it. Couple million here, a couple million there. Good luck with that. That is not what's going to happen. And we are doing a massive under overhaul of how we fund things.
▶ 1:00:30And I don't know about you, but I represent 125 small towns. And the one thing people hate the most is their property tax. And they're going to be very concerned when they find out that not only did the federal government cut the budget, but then the state government cut the budget. And so then a lot of those services that we expected to get from the state or the federal government in our small towns, whether it's aid to education, aid for our roads, a whole variety of things, that money won't be there either.
▶ 1:00:57And now we're going to have to tell people that good luck hanging on to your house because your property taxes are going up and there's not going to be a lot of relief for you. So we are not just taking away food from hungry people in this uh crazy reconciliation thing that we're doing in the dark of the night and all through the day. We are actually undermining the entire tax structure and funding in our country.
▶ 1:01:20and we're pretending nobody's going to notice or that it's somehow going to be easy and that every state is running a surplus and that every state has plenty of money uh to cover it. So, I have a lot of concerns about what we're doing today and why we're changing the age of what a child is and everything else, but I think we have to keep in mind how we're doing it and where the money is coming from. And I with the yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gentle lady yields back. I believe Mr. Vinman from Virginia was seeking recognition to speak. It's recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:01:49To put it simply, it's cruel and inhumane to cut benefits that feed kids as young as 8 years old. When I listen to families and farmers, they know that costs are up and won't be coming down anytime soon, especially with the president's tariffs. The fact that House Republicans want to gut programs like SNAP while families face skyhigh prices is uncomfortable. $6 $6 is the benefit that families get, individual gets per day. That's about $180 per month.
▶ 1:02:20No recipient is getting rich off SNAP benefits. If there are criminals that are using a criminal enterprise to profit off this, this bill does nothing address enforcement. In that regard, where we see fraud actually is from the White House.
▶ 1:02:41President Trump and House Republicans should be focused on lowering costs, not figuring out how to accept $400 million luxury jet from governments. There have been articles in recent days from the New York Times that describe this plan to pick up or to get a a a jet from the government of Qatar. And we all know that you don't get anything for free in this world and certainly not a $400 million jet from Qatar.
▶ 1:03:10The headline is Trump's plan to take jets from Qatar heightens corruption concerns. During President Trump's first term, this is a quote. The idea that special interests and governments are are buying meals or booking rooms at hotels set off legal and ethical alarms about potential for corruption. Mr. Trump's second term is making those concerns look trivial.
▶ 1:03:33As a former White House ethics lawyer, the senior ethics lawyer on the National Security Council, I enforced ethics rules on White House officials. And I can tell you I took that job very seriously. And what is happening now is making the ethics rules for the US government a laughingstock. Let me read you an excerpt from a second article. Tiny company, this is just yesterday I believe.
▶ 1:04:02Tiny company with chi with China ties. China ties announces big purchase of Trump cryptocurrency. A struggling technology company that has ties to China and relies on Tik Tok made an unusual announcement this week. It had secured funding to buy as much as $300 million of Trumpcoin, the so-called meme coin marketed by President Trump.
▶ 1:04:30GD Culture Group, a publicly traded firm with a Chinese sub subsidiary, has only employees, its public findings show, and recorded zero revenue last year from e-commerce business that operates on Tik Tok, the Chinese-owned video sharing company. We talk frequently about our concerns about China and um this is outright purchasing influence with the president. It's outrageous.
▶ 1:05:00And as a former government ethics attorney and as a prosecutor who prosecuted fraud cases, it's it's absolutely unconscionable. This is corruption, plain and simple. Everybody on this committee should be outraged. And if we're if we care about fraud and waste, let's not focus on the $6 benefit that a recipient gets. Let's focus on the actual corruption that's in your face.
▶ 1:05:27And I will just say this, when you lose Laura Lumer and Ben Shapiro, you've done something wrong. The American people recognize what they're seeing. And I think if we just for a moment put the interests of the American people ahead of our own political interests and partisanship, the answer will be quite clear what we should be doing.
▶ 1:05:53I urge my colleagues to focus on the American people, support this amendment, and hold the president accountable. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. members are uh reminded they're expected to refrain from engaging in personalities towards other members or or imputing the motives of a colleague. Also, a clear violation of the House rules to make personally offensive statements directed at the president or the vice president of the United States.
▶ 1:06:22Remarks of that type are out of order and not in keeping with long-standing decorum of our committee. Um the u any other members recognition to speak on the Mr. Chair, I have a question. Um, does that I read an excerpt from an article. So, these are not my words. These are from I just want to make sure that that's clear. This is a quote. It's um just a reminder. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:06:50I don't normally haven't heard that much in committee, but it does pertain to committee. I I hear it frequently on the floor. So, uh members being reminded just a reminder. Any other members seeking recognition to speak on the amendment? I just have a question. Does the Does the gentle lady seek uh a point of order recognition to speak on the amendment? A point of order inquiry. Um are you seeking a parliamentary inquiry?
▶ 1:07:20Okay. Lady is nice to the reminder that you just gave us parliamentary inquiry. Does that also apply to former Uh, I don't believe because we hear a lot from the other side about the former administration. The general lady asked a question and I I just read from you and I mean I can read a little further if you'd like in terms of revering where it is in the house roles um and be be glad to do that. It's just a yes or no. It only applies to sitting presidents.
▶ 1:07:50Only to sitting president. Okay. Yeah. Um All right. Seeing no other members, I'm going to go ahead and speak on the amendment. Uh the reforms in the base text of the committee, print and short snap works the way that Congress intended it to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach.
▶ 1:08:12This will preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the program uh moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us. This amendment would cause the committee to fail to meet its reconciliation instructions, risking a tax hike for all Americans next year. And it would perpetuate poor management by states that hurt SNAP beneficiaries when the states claw back their overpayments, which contributes to their error rate.
▶ 1:08:42Um, and I urge a no vote on the amendment. Um we uh okay given that uh we're um this is Mr. David Scott amendment number 18. Uh all in favor of that amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 1:09:12A recorded vote has been requested. Pursuant to committee rule 313i2, further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Other members seeking uh uh recognition to introduce amendments under u subtitle a Mr. U. The clerk will distribute uh uh Mr.
▶ 1:09:41And you know what the number of your amendment is would help us. 20 uh number 20 I believe amen number 20 and the clerk will distribute the uh the
▶ 1:10:28All right. I've been advised that we uh we don't have to wait for it to be fully circulated. Is coming to everyone at their desk. So without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. And now recognized the distinguished gentleman the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment. Thank you um Mr. Chairman and uh the ranking member.
▶ 1:10:55Look, um, as I sit here in the committee listening to an attempts to take away food benefits from people who needed the most. Reminds me of the days when I was growing up in India.
▶ 1:11:27six sisters, a brother. My father lost job. And there was time we had periods, 24-hour periods at times of hunger. There times when I didn't know where my next meal is going to come from.
▶ 1:11:52and many a night I have been to Today I have the honor to represent Michigan's 13th congressional district, including uh the city of Detroit. One in four households rely on these benefits.
▶ 1:12:20These are people who want to get ahead, want to work hard, make a life for themselves, but they need a little helping hand as they take care of their families and pursue their American dream like I did. And I got some helping hands. I got some help.
▶ 1:12:45I'm grateful to this country that I entered when I was 24 years old with a $20 in my pocket and this country has given me so much and we need to give those who are struggling a little help. So, Mr.
▶ 1:13:03Chairman, we can all agree that giving Americans the tools they need to thrive in the training, child care, and transportation is important, but may no make no mistake. The Republican policies being discussed today will do nothing to create jobs or improve the SNAP program.
▶ 1:13:28In fact, data shows that adding more of the paperwork requirement being discussed today will actually lead to fewer people working. According to Forbes, half of all layoffs in America this year can be linked directly or indirectly to Doge. It is beyond cruel that Republicans want to punish people who lost their jobs, oftentimes because of the Trump administration by taking away their food, too.
▶ 1:13:58If these changes, my amendment strikes are implemented, the 3 million Americans will lose their food benefits. This bill is about Republican kicking tens of millions of Americans off food assistance to pay for tax breaks for their billionaire donors.
▶ 1:14:17Single mothers, people suffering from chronic ill illnesses, and those who are caring for family members who are elderly or disabled will all have their benefits stripped away. This bill does nothing to stop bad actors from scamming America's most vulnerable, but it will permanently make lives harder for those vulnerable groups who depend on food assistance to survive.
▶ 1:14:47At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, rising prices, and plummeting consumer confidence, we need to help people gain the skills they need to work, not punish the seniors. rural Americans who will be the most likely to be hurt by losing their jobs and food assistant. That's why I'm offering my amendment to undo these harmful changes to SNAP and I urge my colleagues to support it.
▶ 1:15:14Uh this is something that's very close and dear to my heart and uh I have taken with many of my constituents and they are fearful, they're worried, they're afraid and uh I want uh and I appeal to my colleagues here to support uh this amendment. Uh and with that I yield back, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He yields back.
▶ 1:15:42other members that you wish to uh speak on the amendment. Seeing none, I'll take uh my liberty to speak on the amendment. First of all, uh um I just want to share with him my remarks a visit I made recently to a wonderful school actually in Brockway, Pennsylvania, Jefferson County. And I have a very rural district, a lot of high lot of high poverty.
▶ 1:16:10And this is a school that um uh they have two programs in particular a reference. One is a medical technologist uh program. The other is a pharmacy technology program. As you can imagine, the opportunities for being hired when you graduate from that, which is not a it's not a even associate degree. Um and the and it's mostly the entirety of the program right now.
▶ 1:16:32There have been men involved in the past, but the entirety right now are are mostly single parent moms with with children and and u and they don't pay anything out of pocket for this great program. And you know how they access it? Through the SNAP program, you know, it pays pays the tuition and it it's transformational um to the lives that are there for these individuals.
▶ 1:16:57I spent a lot of time talking with them and talking with uh Christina who had graduated from the program and now works has quite a few kids and single parent mom and and uh and we can be very proud of what we do in SNAP and the program integrity measures that we're taking are really about uh making sure that program continues to work well and provide even even greater opportunity.
▶ 1:17:20Um and so uh uh despite a a time limited and and work requirement enshrined in law for able-bodied adults without dependence uh on SNAP. Uh oh, by the way, there's the monies are as a part of that actually um uh has and can help with child care and things like transportation and the other barriers that uh in particular single parent moms may but not just single parent moms.
▶ 1:17:49I'm not trying to leave a few people out, but it really helps u uh that group um deal with those issues. So, but despite a time limited and work requirement enshrined in law for able-bodied adults without dependence on SNAP, only 28% of these individuals have earned income from from work.
▶ 1:18:09uh USDA and states have intentionally limited enforcement of SNAP work requirements for Abods through waivers leaving 40% of these work ready individuals today under a waiver of a work requirements uh really preventing them from the opportunities u that come from through the SNAP program and they remain on the SNAP roles long after the three-month time limit.
▶ 1:18:35Uh the changes in this committee print are necessary to restore integrity to work requirements to SNAP by ensuring waiverss can only be used during times of true economic hardship, not states and counties with unemployment below 5%. U so uh uh with that I urge a no vote on this amendment. Um hearing no other conversation or questions on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I.
▶ 1:19:06I. All those opposed by saying no. No. In the opinion of the of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Is there uh any any other amendments? Uh Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh Miss Brown from Ohio has an amendment.
▶ 1:19:27Uh the clerk will distribute the amendment and uh uh actually before you do that I'll ask the clerk to uh um apologize lost. Um the clerk will report the title of amendment. M you know what the number is for your 11.
▶ 1:19:5711 11 amendment number 11 offered by Miss Brown of Ohio. Very good. Um without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentle lady uh to sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you.
▶ 1:20:21My amendment would strike two especially harsh provisions in this bill, both rooted in cruelty, not policy. First, it would strike the provision that redefineses a dependent child as under age seven instead of under 18. And second, it would strike the provision that only exempts two parent households from the new expanded work requirements. So, let's have an honest conversation about what these provisions really mean.
▶ 1:20:50They punish single parents and they punish caregivers of schoolage children, families who are already doing everything they can just to stay afloat. Right now, SNAP rules give parents and caregivers with kids under the age of 18 some flexibility. If they can't meet the 80hour a month work requirement because they are raising kids, caring for family, or stuck in jobs with unpredictable hours, they don't lose access to food.
▶ 1:21:20This bill changes that. It pulls away basic benefits from the moment a child turns Seven. But we can all agree child care for schoolage children isn't easy. It's expensive. It's unreliable. And in many cases, it just doesn't exist. Picture a single mother of a nine-year-old child.
▶ 1:21:45She's working a part-time job at a convenience store trying to manage school pickup, sick days, and the patchwork of afterchool care, which is sometimes often costs more than she can earn in a day. Her schedule is unpredictable. She doesn't have a partner at home to lean on. Under this new provision, if she can't clock 80 hours every month, she loses snap. Period.
▶ 1:22:14Never mind how hard she's trying or how many barriers she faces. That's not motivation. That's punishment. Plain and simple. My amendment also moves to strike the narrow carveout for two parent households that allow only one caregiver to be subject to the work requirements. Now, what is that about?
▶ 1:22:34Because to me, it seems to tell single parent families, which make up around 21% of all SNAP households, that they're less deserving of help because they don't have a partner. Their kids matter less. Is that what we're saying? Really, this bill is backwards, outofouch policy that ignores the real lives of working families.
▶ 1:22:56These provisions ignore the daily struggles parents face as they juggle low wage jobs, child care, child care gaps, and unpredictable schedules just to keep food on the table. It doesn't encourage stability or self-sufficiency. It punishes poverty. People do not want to be poor. People do not wake up wanting to be poor.
▶ 1:23:23It's punishing the poor and it sends a dangerous message. It sends the message that if you're struggling then you are on your own. Mr. Chairman, we should be lifting up families, not trapping them in a cycle of shame and blame. And with that, I yield back. Jay yields back that um any members seek recognition.
▶ 1:23:50Um, gentle lady, u, Miss McDonald Rivet, please recognize for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I I um I I want to thank um my colleague for offering this amendment.
▶ 1:24:03I think it's important for our consideration and debate particularly there is having been a single mom with two kids I can tell you um that if you have never known the stress the worry and almost terror when you uh have an 8-year-old that your is is stuck at school uh when your child care has fallen through and they have no way of getting home and you have no way of getting of leaving your job that is uh absolute fear.
▶ 1:24:32fear as a mother. But what I really want to talk about and I think really deserves our consideration is that in this new language, it does not give consideration for parents who have children with disabilities in the work requirement. So if you have a child um at home with a uh over the age of seven, the work requirement is in place.
▶ 1:24:59and I have spent the last three years meeting with families across Mid Michigan who are caring for children with profound disabilities. There is no child care uh at any time of the day, let alone in situations. I also want to point out that this is $6 a day. Most of us spent that on our uh Starbucks on the way here.
▶ 1:25:28$6 a day. So what we are doing is taking th that money away from single moms who have a child in a wheelchair, maybe one with a feeding tube. uh we are cutting their Medicare benefits that are will assist with home health care insurance health care for those kids and the results are likely catastrophic.
▶ 1:25:59This is not about people sitting on a couch which we heard over and over again last night. This is about people who need food. This isn't cash payments. This isn't luxury cars or airplanes. This is food. And I think the idea that we are not allowing exemptions for children with disabilities is um cruel. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Mr. McGovern for five minutes.
▶ 1:26:29Yeah, thank you. Um I strongly support the Brown Amendment and and uh and this really gets to the heart of the matter. Um, what this is about is setting up hurdles to make it harder for for the people who need food assistance to get food assistance. Uh, nobody here is saying that SNAP is perfect. Uh, but the Republican bill makes it worse, not better. And a no vote on this amendment makes it clear uh that you don't want to make it better.
▶ 1:26:55Um, and uh, you know, this Republican bill is not about helping people. Um, it's not about helping people find jobs. It's about kicking people off of a modest food benefits when times are tough, you know, so spare me the tired old right-wing talking points. Republicans are not serious about helping people find work. Trump's budget proposes large cuts to the Department of Labor training programs.
▶ 1:27:19Musk's Doge clowns have sabotaged uh the women's bureau at the Department of Labor. Ed and work ed the ed and workforce committee Republicans advanced a bill as part of this budget process that cuts Pell grants which help regular kids go to college to get them set up for successful careers. Uh Doge eliminated the Head Start regional office in Boston dealing a catastrophic blow to a program that actually provides support and child care to families so that parents can work knowing that their kids are safe.
▶ 1:27:50The school day ends at 2 p.m. earlier in some places. What happens if you don't have access to child care and your job hours aren't flexible enough to allow you to care for your young kids after school? The Republican plan says if you are a single parent with kids seven and older and you can't find a job that fits with the hours you need to raise your kids, then you get kicked off of benefits after three months. That is cruel. It is cruel.
▶ 1:28:18And make no mistake, this proposal cuts into the food budget of the entire family unit. There aren't many eight-year-olds who do their own grocery shopping. So when you cut a parents access to food, you are also limiting the amount of money the entire family can use to eat nutritiously. Think about the example I used in my opening statement last night. A single mom gets laid off when a local restaurant shuts down. There aren't any available jobs nearby and she doesn't have access to child care.
▶ 1:28:46She has young kids to feed but cruy gets kicked off of food assistance after 90 days. I mean, you are taking food away from that family to give to Elon to give Elon Musk another tax break. Really? Really? That's why you all came to Congress. Now, I get it. I know where you're coming from. Uh poor people don't have super PACs. You know, they don't host big fundraisers.
▶ 1:29:11you know, they're not the kind of people who hang out with Trump um and his billionaire cabinet in Mara Lago. But here's the deal. The rich and powerful do not need more friends in Congress. Regular working people do, and we should have their backs. I strongly, strongly support the Brown Amendment, which will prevent this disastrous new time limit policy, which will cut the food budgets of regular families when they need a little extra help.
▶ 1:29:40You know, I I u I'd love to hear I mean maybe we'll hear from the chair, but I'd love to hear from a single Republican. I'd like them to explain why they will vote no on this. I mean, why they will why why why why they think this is a good idea. I mean, because if you think this is a good idea, you're clueless when it comes to what struggling families are going through, what it's like to be a single parent with young kids.
▶ 1:30:03I mean I again I mean if somebody wants to I'll yield the remaining time to anybody who wants to to respond to that. Well apparently I don't have any takers but the bottom line is um the Brown amendment is a good amendment. We all should support it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:30:31I would like to strongly speak in support of Miss Brown's amendment. Uh this is one of the most egregious parts of this entire package. And you know this is designed to make cuts to SNAP. But this is a policy choice that I can't believe we're even having a conversation about today to redefine dependence in our country as anyone younger than seven years old in our nation.
▶ 1:31:01No hearings, no discussion, conversation, no witnesses who can talk about the impact that this would have on lives. This amendment would strike these harm harmful provisions that attempt to say that dependent children older than six aren't actually dependent. for families with kids aged seven and up.
▶ 1:31:25It would subject parents and caregivers this bill to extreme paperwork requirements and specifically targets single parents. I I honestly can't understand how my Republican colleagues can think it's a good idea to take food away and put more pressure on families who have seven, eight, nine, 10 year olds. I mean, it's almost like nobody's got a seven, eight, nine, 10 year old.
▶ 1:31:52Hell, I had four sons who range in age now from 22 to 27, which means I had all of those ages at once, their entire childhood. Are you kidding? Have you ever left a four-year-old, a seven-year-old, and two eight-year-olds together all by themselves? There's all kinds of trouble they get into. All kinds. Think about this for a minute.
▶ 1:32:22This is this is one of the most egregious parts of this entire bill. And look, you know, my mom was a single mom. She had three kids. And her story, our story, is that she went to college at night for almost nine years, taking one class at a time to try to become a teacher. And she did.
▶ 1:32:48and she taught she served our community for over 30 years after that struggle. Do we really want to tell single moms that actually we want you to spend 80 hours a month not going to school to pull yourself up, but we want you to go to work at the local grocery store because we're going to make you choose between taking care of your kids or pulling up or feeding your children
▶ 1:33:19$6 a day. I mean, this is insane, folks. This is one of the most insane parts of this bill. Look, I strongly believe that we need to give people the tools they need to find work like education and training, child care, and transportation. Unfortunately, that isn't the conversation today. Hunger is a policy choice.
▶ 1:33:45Giving people opportunity to pull themselves up is a policy choice. We act like there's some magic dust we can just sprinkle throughout our country and all of a sudden it's all going to be fixed. There's no magic way to do this, folks. It's a policy choice. You keep the federal minimum wage at $7 plus an hour. That is a policy choice. What are we doing here, folks?
▶ 1:34:16We're trying to save $300 billion dollars so that we can plus up a few farm programs that should be plused up in a farm bill so that we can hand out tax breaks to the most wealthy people in country. That's all policy choices we just laid out and they're all bad choices as we sit here today. Let's come together.
▶ 1:34:44Let's work on a five-year bipartisan farm bill. My colleagues know that doing this in this route is bad. Most of them know that sevenyear-olds should not be on their own while they're single parent.
▶ 1:35:01Often a single mom is responsible for their child care, for food, for the development, for the opportunity for that family to move forward and do better. So folks, I am urging yes on this amendment and I am urging no when we get to the finish line on this package. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from Florida, Dr.
▶ 1:35:30Adams for five minutes. North Carolina. North Carolina. Thank you, M. Thank you. North Carolina's a great state, too. Florida is North Carolina. Nothing could be Let Let Thank Thank you. I want to speak in support of the amendment. Uh it's it's a good amendment. It's absolutely necessary. I'm listening to all of the words from coming from members of this committee. Here we are again. PPP punishing poor people.
▶ 1:36:01But listen, children live in poverty because their parents do. And no one would consider, I don't think they would, a seven-year-old child to to not be dependent on their parent or or guardian to provide them with food, shelter, and other necessities.
▶ 1:36:18And so this is a cruel proposal and it would subject parents uh of children as young as seven years old to requirements that would just lead to more families who are eligible for support to lose their food assistance for no good reason. And exempting them only if they are married and and live with their spouse. Well, that's downright cruel.
▶ 1:36:42It's critical to give everyone, especially single moms and dads, the support that they need to to work from education to to child care to health care and transportation. Uh but but instead of helping people into jobs, uh Republicans are are just taking away food assistance from single moms and their kids. And that's downright unacceptable. This is a a good amendment.
▶ 1:37:10and and and and this amendment uh will strike those harmful provisions that would devastate families and children. Uh I I support the the um Brown amendment and I would urge my colleagues to support it as well. And Mr. Chairman, uh I'll yield my time to Miss Brown. Uh Brown is recognized. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:37:32Um, as I as I think about this um, from a personal place, um, my mother was on food assistance when I was in school. Um, and I think about when I grew up as a child with epilepsy, petite mall seizures, having to rely on food assistance. To this day, I hate cold cuts because I had so many bologn sandwiches growing up because that's all we could afford.
▶ 1:37:59baloney sandwiches, pancakes for dinner, which I thought was a treat, but later learned that's all we could afford for because we depended on food stamps. I had epilepsy, seizures.
▶ 1:38:24My mother was afraid to go to work because she never knew when her daughter could have a seizure. She did not drive. She was on public transportation. That was the assistance that she needed to help us survive. To help us survive. She didn't wake up wanting to be on food stamps.
▶ 1:38:47She didn't wake up wanting to have a daughter who had unpredictable medical conditions that prevented her from keeping a regular job. But thank God for those food stamps. Thank God for those pancakes for dinner. Thank God for those syrup sandwiches. Thank God for those toasted cheese sandwiches that we got because we received the cheese to make toasted cheese sandwiches that I grew up on because of food assistance.
▶ 1:39:18And now you want to take things like away from people who need them, who depend on them, who are just trying to by because of systemic structural institutional barriers that have put many people in impoverished conditions that they did not decide to be a part of.
▶ 1:39:43But because of the systems that we are still utilizing to oppress people are in place when we could be giving them a helping hand, but instead we want to take money from poor people so we can give it to rich people. Make that make sense. Make it make sense.
▶ 1:40:10People depend on this money not so they can get rich, not so they can invest it, not so they can get a jet, not so they can get a a a yacht, so they can have a meal, so they can eat. But we want to take it away from people and give it to rich people.
▶ 1:40:40Let it sink in. That's what we're doing. We're talking about food, poor people, and Gentle's time is expired. Now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Riley, for 5 minutes. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, and, um, I'm I'll be proud to support this amendment.
▶ 1:41:02I'm I'm trying to understand what the reasoning is in this bill of changing the age of dependency because right now under current law I think we all know it's 18 years old. Uh and I think that makes a ton of sense because um at 18, you know, you become an adult. Uh you can sign up for the draft. Uh you can vote. Uh you can get called for jury duty in a lot of places.
▶ 1:41:29uh at 18 you can start entering into legally binding contracts on your own. If you commit a crime, you can be uh tried as an adult. You can go buy a tin of skull at the 7-Eleven if you want to. Uh you get to make your own healthc care decisions. And that's the difference from 17 to 18. All of those things come into place because now you're 18, now you're an adult. And what I what I'm I'm having a really hard time understanding is what how did how did y'all come up with the transition from six to seven?
▶ 1:41:56like what is the big thing that happens from when you go from six years old to seven years old that justifies changing the law? And I don't know the answer because we didn't have any hearings. My kids are two and five. So maybe I'll see when they go from being six to seven what the magical transformation is. Um but right now I don't get it. I was trying to think maybe I think maybe the thing is when you're six it's real hard to color between the lines and when you get to seven you can probably do it a little better.
▶ 1:42:25Um, right now we my my 5-year-old, we cut his apple juice with water. Maybe once you get to seven, you can drink the apple juice straight. And that's like the the magic uh thing here. My 5-year-old still, we're trying to get him to understand inside voice, outside voice. So maybe seven uh you can go to the library, not not disrupt everyone. We've got a thing every morning when I try to get Patricio out to school.
▶ 1:42:47Every morning he he puts the shoes down in front of him and he says, "Did I get the shoes on the right feet?" and he's he's getting it right like probably 80% of the time now. Um by the time he's seven, uh I bet he can get his shoes on the right feet all the time. Get his start putting his undies on the right way and not backwards. Um and so then I was thinking there's got to be some magic thing. This is all this is a big bill. Must have been really well thought out.
▶ 1:43:12And so I thought there must be some magic thing that happens when you go from six to seven that justifies uh change in the law. So, I looked it up what your math skills are as a sixth grader versus a seventh grader. And I was like, surely this is it because now we're going to let you you stay home. Like, at least you're going to have the the the the the math skills. But it turns out it's not like you're doing multiplication tables. It's not like you're doing long division when you're seven.
▶ 1:43:37In fact, the arithmetic from being a six-year-old to a seven-year-old is basically exactly the same, except that once you turn seven, you can start doing some word problems. You know how they do math and you have three apples, you take away two, how many apples do you have left? Uh, you know, you had $6 a day for food and Congress took it all away. How much do you have left? At 7 years old, you can figure out those uh math problems.
▶ 1:44:02So I I'm just curious if anybody could help us understand like what was the and this is I'm seriously trying to understand this was what was the the the social science or the basis to to define dependency not as 18 years old when you're an adult but but seven years old. I have the gentleman to yield. Yeah, I'd love to hear the answer to it. Uh it's a sign significant milestone. Um at age seven uh children enter into the school system.
▶ 1:44:30We currently have two different sets of work requirements. One for general work requirements under under SNAP which we've had since 1977. Nothing new. Uh not this millennium last. Um and we have the Abald ones. Our goal is to is basically align those two.
▶ 1:44:50Um and the the logic behind going uh making this uh so that when at least most children are ending the school system and are in school for six hours a day or whatever it might be depending on the school in the state um that there will be time for that for that parent to be able to engage in one of three uh options again which have been around for a very long time. One of it is uh work 20 hours a week.
▶ 1:45:20Uh one of them is uh and by the way we um well anyways one of I'm not going to get into the weeds with it but 20 hours a week one of them is uh uh the uh my personal preference as somebody who really leads on career and technical education in another committee is to be engaged in SNAP employment career and technical education uh which we pay for through the nutrition title that's reaching a wrong higher and lateral opportunity.
▶ 1:45:45I don't know uh anyone that doesn't want to do better for financially and and as a model for for their for their children. And and then I also don't want to forget that the option there's 20 hours of uh you could do 20 hours of volunteer time a week which would satisfy the requirement as well. So there's there's no magic on age six to seven. It's basically looking at at preschool children uh which aligns with aligns the two definitions.
▶ 1:46:15So, and I appreciate the gentleman asking. Yeah. No, I I I like I I think all that makes sense except that Well, it doesn't because you're saying the line is six years old because that's when the kids are going to school. Uh really, I mean, I think a lot of kids are going to school at five, right, for kindergarten. So, we're talking about the difference between usually first and second grade. In any event, if the line is where kids are going to school, what's going to happen next? You guys are going to come here doing the next thing and lower the age to five?
▶ 1:46:40I mean, the the idea that you can leave a six-year-old at home makes no sense. 18, you can defend it, but six makes no sense. And everything you're talking about, the things that parents should be doing. Yeah. Let's just take all that at face value that these parents should be in these these programs. Like, we're not investing in rural healthare. We're not investing in raising the minimum wage.
▶ 1:47:04And since since you gave me an opportunity to take part of your time, I did take that during count gave you extra time, but the time has expired at this point. Um, and I believe Miss McDonald River Rivet, you've already spoke on this amendment. Okay. Well, then get somebody like to yield to you. Um, and uh, and then we're now to Miss Hayes from Connecticut. Thank you.
▶ 1:47:28Uh I rise in support of this amendment and just for clarification the age that students enter uh school system is five. It's required by law uh on or before September 30th when children turn five they're in kindergarten. So it's not seven, it's five. And coming back to this piece of legislation, I remember when it was first introduced um what a minor child was. They started at 9 years old.
▶ 1:47:57So, I don't know how they went from 9 to seven. It just seems like an arbitrary number at this point. We hear time and time again how uh our colleagues on the other side support pregnancy but not parenting. They support women having children but not helping support those children and putting programs and structures in place.
▶ 1:48:19And the other thing I want everyone to consider, which you may not have considered, is not only are we taking meals away from these children at home, we would also by default be taking meals away from them at school because most schools use SNAP eligibility to determine free and reduced lunch. So these kids will no longer be eligible for food at school either. A seven-year-old can't fend for themselves. They can't decide.
▶ 1:48:46They can't say, "My mom is not doing enough, so I'm gonna go out there and find a job so that our family doesn't lose benefits." So, we are literally punishing children who have no control over their situation. We're also punishing once again single parents.
▶ 1:49:08And while my colleagues like to define or think that a single parent is someone who doesn't care, who is running fast and loose, who doesn't have a father for their children, but many children live in households where they they are raised by grandparents, by caregivers, where their parent may have been widowed, a situation again totally beyond their control.
▶ 1:49:31And we're saying that if that one parent isn't out actively in the workforce for whatever reason, with no exceptions, then you don't deserve to eat. But in a two parent household, it's okay for one of those parents to stay home and care for their child and provide all of the support and res that it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. But I want everybody to hear what I am saying.
▶ 1:49:59We are taking with this with this change. We would be taking food not only from children at home but also at school which is crazy. Let that sink in. Without reevaluating the thrifty food plan, they would also lose summer EBT meals. So even when school is not in session, there's a lot of things we disagree with on this committee. Feeding children should not be one of them.
▶ 1:50:29And literally us discussing if a seven-year-old should be eligible for food benefits is insane right now. It is insane. You can talk about able-bodied adults without dependence and we can have the conversation and debate and make the case, but there is no definition of a that should be required to fend for themselves.
▶ 1:50:56a child whose parent is doing the best that they can. But either way, it's so far beyond the child's control. And at seven-year-old, they're they're in school all day. So, if they're not eating before school, they're not even eating in school. It just doesn't make sense. There's no rationale for it. They started at nine, they're down to seven. Who knows? Maybe it'll it'll change to five by the time it gets to rules.
▶ 1:51:22But the idea that they double down on this doesn't affect pregnant women. Okay. But once again, it's not just about having a child. It's about caring for that child after it's born.
▶ 1:51:36All of the legislation is supporting pregnant women, encouraging women to have children, but not putting any services in place, not putting any educational supports, not putting any wraparound programs, child care, anything to enable those children to thrive so that they can change the cycle of poverty and not themselves have to rely on public assistance. I will be supporting this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:52:05Is anyone else refused to go ahead? Gentle lady from Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Um I I I'll be speaking in support of this I um I ordinarily don't speak on on these things unless I've had a chance to really stop and um and and figure out exactly what I want to say because everything that we do uh in these jobs as members of Congress is important.
▶ 1:52:35Uh whether we agree or disagree in terms of policy and in in these debates that we have around um around the policy. Um but I and I also am I don't I don't love having to uh having to have members or um or anyone have to share uh particular personal details um to make to make a point, but
▶ 1:53:05sometimes that's what's absolutely necessary. Uh, I was raised by a single mom and I know I have a lot of colleagues there. There are people on both sides of the aisle that have have been raised by a single parent that have uh lived in a household where they made use of the nutrition assistance programs in one way or another that were recipients of free or reduced lunch that uh as a native person I've we we call it commods.
▶ 1:53:35Love the cheese. Um, but I I would I always hope that when when members are speaking about their personal experiences that it's not used uh as a way to say that they know every single thing that could possibly happen. And that feels like what a lot of this is. Uh when someone says they have made use of nutrition assistance programs growing up because they grew up with a single parent.
▶ 1:54:04When I say that, I'm not saying it because I think that means I know everything there is and all the circumstances that would lead a person to make use of these programs, but rather that it helps us understand that we don't know everything. Members of Congress do not know everything. Whether you're in Kansas, Missouri, Georgia, Nebraska, I don't know anything about how each of these other states besides Kansas works.
▶ 1:54:32And I wouldn't presume to assume what the state is going to be able to do. I don't know what would lead a parent to be by themselves raising three kids. I know what happened with my family and I know why some of these programs were so important.
▶ 1:54:50But I think that deciding whole cloth policy decisions about reducing the age from 18 down to seven is one that makes a lot of assumptions about why someone makes use of these Additionally, allowing for an exception for married people does feel a bit like a slap in the face to people who
▶ 1:55:20end up raising kids by themselves. I can tell you that there have been multiple times in my life where uh when I was 16 and I was thinking Mr. Riley asking questions about what is the logic even if it had been 16. I'm not saying I would have supported that, but it would have made a little bit of logical sense. I had two jobs when I was 16. I worked Monday to Thursday after school and then I worked on the weekends and on the weekends I worked at Chuck-E-Cheese.
▶ 1:55:50So I was able to bring food home actually. And then when I was 17, I live I I worked at a Sonic and I was able to bring not just tips home, but also food home. And I think that every single person I know who has been on these types of programs is out here trying to hustle and make sure that their family can eat.
▶ 1:56:13I don't actually think a 16-year-old should be coming home and wondering whether or not they should get a job to help bring money into the family. they should probably be trying to figure out what they want to do as adults and whether that's going into a technical program or going to college if that's what they decide they want to do or enlist in the military which is what my did.
▶ 1:56:38And I do think that this is probably one of the more egregious uh policy proposals that we're going to be talking about today. And I am fully in support of Miss Brown's amendment and I'll yield to Chris McDonald Ribbit the rest of my time. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:57:00Um uh I I just have a a follow-up question and that is if there are any uh exemptions or or um uh guardrails in place that accommodate for when school is not in session for children over the age of seven like summer break and spring break. Um what or or winter break long periods of time when school is not in session for children over the age of seven. Nothing nothing specific.
▶ 1:57:29I mean the choice of programs and education we don't dictate obviously uh that would be something that an individual could work with a local workforce investment board or career link u in order to identify a program that fits within the um the needs many of the programs many of the states do provide assistance with child care and transportation issues when it comes to these programs that's that is what I have observed so uh Um, anyways,
▶ 1:58:00I if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to address the question you originally brought up. Uh, there is uh um there is a blanket exemption for anyone in a household that is caring for a disabled person of any age. Uh they there's a waiver from having to comply with either the the volunteer time, the education time, or the work time.
▶ 1:58:24If you have a disabled person, could be a child, uh could be an adult, um could be a um a relative, a senior, an older adult in your home that is disabled. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to remind you that we and other parts of the budget are cutting Head Start in the child care subsidy program uh and the other programs that are providing providing those those services at the state level. Thank you. I thank the general lady as a champion for community services block ramp. done my best to keep that from happening.
▶ 1:58:55Let's see. Uh on here, uh Mr. Manion uh seeks recognition for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I'm going to reiterate what I said yesterday, some of the opening remarks uh the voters of this country did not make this a priority. They were not voting for this.
▶ 1:59:19They were not voting for cuts to some of our most needy in this country to provide tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. So I will share my story as I have in this committee before and I'm compelled to do so by some of the conversations or statements that happened before me. Uh my grandfather was a dairy farmer in Ireland.
▶ 1:59:45He left that island to flee an oppressive limited monarchy that was going to conscribe him into World War I. He came to this country and he fought for his new country. He went back to Ireland after the war, married my grandmother, and settled in Syracuse, New York with a great job, an American dream, building luxury automobiles.
▶ 2:00:14He lost that job when the Great Depression hit. He passed away shortly afterwards, leaving my grandmother with four children. the youngest, five years old with Down syndrome, my aunt Marilyn. My father, the second oldest, at age 14, spoke to me of the shame he felt by walking through the neighborhood where everyone knew everyone to pick up his government allotted
▶ 2:00:44food and carrying that food through that neighborhood. What was projected out in a loaf of bread that was very long and covered in a brown wrapper identified him as someone on welfare at age 14. But he reminded me that dignity comes with providing for your family in whatever way possible.
▶ 2:01:12My grandmother could not provide for that family. My father dropped out of school at age 14 after receiving those supports from the government that needed to provide for him and his family at that time because my grandmother could not.
▶ 2:01:33When my oldest uncle enlisted in World War II, that left my father as the quote unquote head of the household at that time as a male. He dropped out of school at age 16, no high school diploma, and worked for 42 years at the New York Central Railroad, one employer.
▶ 2:01:59and he also helped to provide for my aunt who had Down syndrome throughout her years. So I'm glad to hear that there are provisions in place for any parent, single parents or otherwise if they are caring for a disabled individual, child or adult. But that is the Manion family American dream where necessary supports were in place when we needed it the most.
▶ 2:02:29And I may add that my grandfather spoke with an accent as a US citizen and my grandmother spoke with an accent after her husband passed away. and they both discrimination not because of their last name or their skin color but because of accent. That is what America is supposed to do. Supposed to lift up everyone so that they can meet their American dream.
▶ 2:02:59I thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the time to tell the Manion family story. And I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Any other individuals wish to speak on amendment number 11? Mr. Jackson is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman. Um I too stand in support of this amendment with um Miss Shantel Brown. We all know that it's expensive being poor. You have to prepay for phone services.
▶ 2:03:30You have higher cost. You have no access and very limited access to credit. And now I see this is to be extremely complex to have limited funds in an era where we're talking about efficiency. Uh why can't we streamline this to ensure that every child that's hungry has something to eat? But by the time you go through this ablebodied adult with without dependent seven years old you can't leave a seven-year-old child at home alone.
▶ 2:03:59That's illegal in the state of Illinois and most parts of the country. So, I am all for crop insurance and I wish people would also look at having food security as food insurance. Every child deserves to have a meal on their plate. I don't think that the government should be this far into the weeds trying to determine if uh a child has the able-bodied willing adult. The statistics, the numbers are all in.
▶ 2:04:24These children come from very difficult families and uh we can't monitor this in a very efficient manner. But fortunately, we're a blessed country to have enough food. So, let's streamline this process and just ensure make it a mandate, make it a value that every child can eat. I yield back my time to the honorable Andrew Craig. Uh, the ranking members recognized. Mr.
▶ 2:04:47Chairman, I I think this entire debate on this amendment is really illustrative of why we should have a hearing on a policy change of this magnitude. When I think about this and how it's gone back and forth, I'm thinking about, well, well, you know, there are there are there is assistance available at states for child care. Are you kidding me?
▶ 2:05:09One hour of child care is going to cost more than the $6 a day that we are denying a family because their child happened to turn seven years old. And I am a big fan of AI, just so we all know. So I took the opportunity to look up a few laws here as we've been sitting here and I'm thinking about the unintended consequence of this policy change.
▶ 2:05:38You know, we know that single parents across our great nation are going to be forced to choose if we change this between going to work and leaving their child at home alone. We know that is going to be the case. The number of us who grew up in single families across this dis. That's what makes this country great is having folks who can bring this actual experience.
▶ 2:06:07But we know these parents are going to be forced to choose. And let me tell you, in Illinois, a child has to be at least 14 years old to be left home alone. In Maryland, a child under eight must be supervised by somebody at least 13. North Carolina, nope, not under eight. Oregon, Tennessee, Washington recommend a minimum age of 10 to be left home alone.
▶ 2:06:33Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, 12 years old, Michigan, 11 should not be left home Folks, we are going to with a policy change of this magnitude force parents across this country to make very difficult decisions every single day for what? Six damn dollars a day.
▶ 2:07:00I would note that South Dakota has absolutely no age limit to leave a child home alone. To my good friend from South Dakota. So with that, again, I recommend a yes on this amendment and a no on this illvised package of policy changes. And I would uh pass the rest of my time to Mr. Vinman. Actually need to yield back to Oh, sorry.
▶ 2:07:27I got to yield back to Mr. Jackson. M Jackson can yield. Thank you. I yield back to the chairman. Thank you to Benman. Yeah, got you. Um, thank you. I'm not sure if it's Mr. Jackson or ranking member or the chairman, but thank you. In any case, uh I do have a question and first of all, I want to um thank um the chairman for actually taking the time to debate and discuss uh these provisions.
▶ 2:07:53I think spending this much time on discussing um food security for 7-year-olds is appropriate. And so I do have a question based on the dialogue between uh you and and my colleague from New York, Mr. Riley. What about um parents that homeschool their children? What happens to the parents that homeschool their children?
▶ 2:08:14Do they are they not eligible for SNAP benefits after 7 years old or I mean a lot of our constituents and certainly in in Midwestern states and others um homesooled children. How does that affect homeschooled kids? Thank I'll have to go back and look. We have a long history of this.
▶ 2:08:36Um, what you all are debating as being uh of consequence and something that's brand new has been part of the existing SNAP law uh I think since 1977 under the general work requirements pre you know the exemption was really only when you had preschool children u in the house. This is not something new.
▶ 2:09:00We're we're just trying to line the there's two sets which creates confusion obviously for states as well when you have Abods and you have general work requirements and and they're not aligned. We're we are aligning those. Just know that uh um it a a great question. I I think we there's a obviously a record of history to look at.
▶ 2:09:24Um, I I am not uh I can honestly say that I've not had that um those concerns brought forward by homeschooling parents in the past. Uh um um so I mean we'll take a look. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:09:47I think that u again I appreciate the dialogue here because I think this is an important topic and it it does raise an important question that I think we um could resolve uh through hearings and and further discussion rather than um a partisan piece of legislation like this. But thank you Mr. Jackson's time has expired. Mr. Chairman, Mr. C is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I'd like to yield uh some time to my colleague Mr. McGovern. So Mr.
▶ 2:10:16Vinman's uh question I think that one is recognized I think is important uh and again it goes to the point it goes to the fact that we've had no discussion on any of this stuff. I mean, there were real life implications to these policy changes and we didn't even do a hearing on any of this stuff, you know, and and I'm I'm listening to this debate um and I'm listen and listening to my Republicans responses and the silence and I'm reminded of of the words of uh my former colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, when he was asked to explain,
▶ 2:10:46you know, Republican uh ways of thinking and he said that Republicans believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth. Uh and I think that that uh kind of is illustrated by what is happening here. You're making a major policy change. Uh that's going to that's going to impact millions and millions of families. Um and we don't even know all the implications and all the negative implications of this policy change.
▶ 2:11:15The fact of the matter is uh you know parents can't leave seven year olds alone. I mean you know what is a seven-year-old supposed to do? go to the food bank if he or she needs food? Do they walk to the grocery store on their own? Um, you know, uh, I mean, you know, what are what what is a seven-year-old supposed to do? You going to leave them alone? What parent would do that? And so then the choice is that you have to go without food.
▶ 2:11:42And again, for a benefit that is on average of about $2 per person per meal, that's all we're talking about. And you guys are nickel and dimming the SNAP program again, not to make it better, not to make improvements, not to make it more efficient, uh not to make it more effective, but basically to take that money um and and pay for a tax cut for Elon Musk and billionaires. It's outrageous that we are even having this discussion.
▶ 2:12:11Um and look um you know, these are not only matters of policy, they're matters of conscience. And to my Republican colleagues, I get it. You're under a lot of pressure from this White House and Trump's billionaire cabinet. You know, you're under a lot of pressure from the MAGA wing of the Republican party. Uh but, you know, making sure that people have food, making sure that they're not hungry. Um it's it's it's about good policy.
▶ 2:12:38Um and it is it's it's also about um it's a it's a matter of conscience. And I would urge you, don't throw away your conscience. you know, uh, vote no on this stuff, you know, and there is existing law, by the way, for those who are watching, there's existing law about work requirements already. There already are work requirements. So, let's put that to rest. There are work requirements already in place. Lowering a the age to seven, seven years old. Lowering the age to seven years old is brand new.
▶ 2:13:08Um, and and it is shameful that we were we having this discussion. I yield back to the gentleman from California. Mr. Costa, anyone? I I I yield to my colleague, Mr. Gentle from Ohio is recognized. Thank you.
▶ 2:13:26Um, again, when you when you're talking about seven year olds, um, I think Miss Davids made the point that the just just just the idea that we are punishing children. Miss Hayes made the point, we are punishing children and that this will have ramifications far beyond the parents. This will impact them when they go to school. And what happens when they don't go to school? What happens during summer break?
▶ 2:13:56What happens during the spring break? What happens to these seven, eight, and nine year olds who are depending on this program to eat just to have a meal. something that far too many folks probably on the other side of the aisle have been taking for granted. What happens to them? What happens?
▶ 2:14:22And the silence from the other side of the aisle is clear to me that even they recognize their absence is indicative that this is indefensible. And I applaud you, Mr. chairman for your attempt to try to clarify some of these things.
▶ 2:14:44But if we had a hearing, if we went through the regular order, the proper process, we could know some of these ramifications and perhaps spare some of your colleagues the embarrassment of putting forth legislation that will have damaging ramifications to people who do who don't deserve it.
▶ 2:15:09people who are simply in need, people who just want to have a meal. And with that, I yield back. I yield back. I will remind members again of uh our uh of on parliamentary language of impuging the motives of a colleague. Um and it's just a warning. Um who else seeks recognition to speak on this amendment? Miss Selenus.
▶ 2:15:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to um answer Miss Brown's question. What happens to these children when their parents have to make the choice to either leave them at home alone and who knows what the consequences are there of a seven, eight, nineyear-old, seven-year-old being left at home alone.
▶ 2:16:01I always thought my house would burn or or basically make forcing the child not to eat and there are severe consequences around that. and just a few from John's Hopkins National Institutes of Health.
▶ 2:16:18Things like impaired physical growth, weight loss, immune system vulnerability, neurological disorders, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome. Those are just a few of the things that happen when a child does not get enough nutrition. Those are lifelong And I would remind my colleagues that we are not working in a vacuum right now.
▶ 2:16:46We are seeing the energy and commerce committee and ways and means committee committees mark up a bill that will gut almost a trillion dollars out of our Medicaid programs that will take away that health care when these children have these serious lifelong consequences. Why would we not prevent this from happening in the first place? for $6 a day. This is one of the best returns on our investment.
▶ 2:17:14We can avoid those downstream health care consequences and costs if we just provide a meal today. And I will yield to my colleague, Miss Brown, for the remainder of my time. From Ohio is recognized. I will yield back. Miss Hayes, I think, has something to say. I will yield to Miss Hayes. Miss Hayes is Thank you.
▶ 2:17:37Um, we're hearing over and over about this amendment and I want everybody at home to understand that this is brand new. This there's this this is not existing law.
▶ 2:17:51There is existing law that talks about work requirements as we've heard over and over for able-bodied individual able-bodied individuals without This amendment that we're discussing in the legislation is to lower the age of a minor child from 18 to seven. So children between 7 and 17 is brand new. This is not something that has been in law since 1960 whatever you said.
▶ 2:18:21This is not something that we've discussed previously on this committee. This is a brand new policy change that would have implications. Yesterday in my opening, I talked about in different districts the number of households that had children.
▶ 2:18:42And I don't think that this is impugning my colleagues to ask what happens to those children in your states well. What happens to those children? This started with literally we have to reform SNAP because abledbodied individuals without dependence were not working and collecting benefits and has devolved into on a child's seventh birthday which by the
▶ 2:19:12way they don't even want their parents to be able to buy a birthday cake with those SNAP benefits but on that seventh cakeless birthday they'll be thrown off. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
▶ 2:19:27And we are on a committee where again I don't think it's imputing anyone to say half of the other side of the room has left, is not even engaging in the dialogue, is not even defending their positions, is not even discussing these issues or making the case for why we should begin to understand or appreciate what it is they're trying to do. They're just saying nothing. saying nothing.
▶ 2:19:55So, I need everyone to understand whether you have a seven-year-old in your household or not, just basic human dignity should compel us to ask the question, what will happen to these children if these changes are made? And if we can't at least begin to discuss answers to those questions, then we shouldn't even be considering making this kind of a change. father was kid.
▶ 2:20:20So I urge my colleagues to support uh Miss Brown's amendment and if this is something that truly need merits discussion then we have hearings and we talk about we go down all these rabbit holes and talk about what will happen to homeschooled children, what will happen to children with disabilities, what will happen to impacted families, what like all of these whatifs so that we have real answers before we make this kind of a policy change.
▶ 2:20:48And with that, I yield back to Miss I yield back my time. Miss uh yields back her time. Other any other members wish to speak on this Uh Mr. Lalfa. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:21:09I guess the concept that's being lost here is that uh if all your children are seven years or older, they're in school for about seven hours per day, five days a week generally in round numbers. So it's 35 hours a week that would leave the parent or parents time to do something outside the home. Oh my god.
▶ 2:21:36work, volunteer, further their education, 35 hours a week when the requirement is only 20 hours a week of employment. So, we have a lot of drama going on in this room, in this conversation, probably every committee, a lot of drama when we aren't talking about the real concept, the real policy here.
▶ 2:22:00And so for other people that do not receive these benefits, but out there paying taxes and working, they're wondering why people can't go earn some of the benefits or help somebody else out with volunteerism like that too with that time when their kids are not at home. A lot of parents, a lot of people that don't get this benefit have a situation where they have latch key kids. Not the greatest deal in the world, but no one really thinks about the taxpayers out there on us.
▶ 2:22:30They're thinking about having um drama that they can put out on YouTube. I yel back. Oh my god. Oh my god. Gentleman yields back. Uh Mr. Senson's recognized for five minutes. Um I don't want to speak about the drama. Um but all right. Um Mr. Lafa, we we could talk about this because you know what? Pretty soon kids are going to go on summer break.
▶ 2:22:58You know, kids don't go to school seven days a week. Let's let's understand what we're doing here. You know, uh we have to make sure that we're not putting the onus down on kids who are in the third grade, right? You know, I hear from constituents all the time. Ruth and Rockford was telling me, she goes, "I have three kids." She's got uh two young young ones and then there's an 11year-old.
▶ 2:23:29And and she goes, "I can't afford this." And she goes, "I can't believe that we're what we're you're doing in Congress is you're just going to let them give the millionaires a break. Give me a break." Um, and with that, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleoman from Ohio. Thank you so much. From Ohio is recognized.
▶ 2:23:54I just want to um cl make one clarification to the claim that there is an exemption for families with a member who has disabilities. Um, this exemption primarily applies to people receiving Social Security disability benefits. It is extremely hard to be approved for Social Security disability benefits. Um and there's a backlog of 1 million plus people waiting for their application to be approved.
▶ 2:24:20So um things asthma, things like epilepsy, which I lived with, um hearing impairments, and some diabetes wouldn't even qualify for Social Security disability. And if they did, it would take months and a major major paperwork burden to get those things approved.
▶ 2:24:40I just wanted to clarify that um that is the disability exemption that was put forth um before this committee. So when we talk about the increasing work requirements, it just sounds like we're increasing requirements, not really work requirements because they already exist.
▶ 2:25:05And with that, um, I thank the gentleman for his time and I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to our ranking member. The ranking members recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I just want to make sure that um our colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that you don't get SNAP benefits for furthering your education in our country. You must leave the class.
▶ 2:25:34leave your child, try to find a minimum wage job, or else they will take your food away. That is not part of what happens in our country today. truthfully, I'm pretty proud of my colleagues here today for being here in the room, for pointing out that we should be debating this policy and understanding the unintended consequences of it.
▶ 2:26:05If we're going to have a policy change in our country of magnitude, there's no answer for what about stay-at-home parents uh who are homeschooling their child. There's no answer yet that I can hear on the fact that our kids are out of school every summer. You know, the the bus drops your kid back off in middle school around 2:15, 3:00.
▶ 2:26:34Um there's no explanation for any of this. And if we were working this through regular order, we would be able, I believe, to convince many of our colleagues that this is a terrible policy change that is going to leave kids at home by themselves, parents forced to choose between violating the law, or whether their food comes to them and their child doesn't go hungry.
▶ 2:27:04I yield back to Mr. Swornson. thank you. Um, in my previous life, I did a lot of um, school visits and I would uh, I'd talk about the weather to kids and um, my favorite school was Nashold Elementary School in Rockford, Illinois. And um, I would go back there and one time I got to be the principal for a day and um, I got to talk with the teachers there. I didn't know this was such an impoverished school because the teachers are so good at their jobs. But you know what the teachers told me?
▶ 2:27:34They're like, "We know all of the kids in our school that need the extra banana. They need the extra granola bar because they know which kids aren't getting fed at home. So, how dare we change the rules or cut the food for our growing kids?" And I yield back. Yields. Anyone else seek Uh, I'm just looking.
▶ 2:28:04Mr. Oh, you haven't already spoke. It didn't look like Mr. Venman's recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this discussion is has raised a number of interesting questions here and I want to just respond uh to my colleague uh Mr. Lalfa that you know sometimes you have families that have uh more than one child. You have I have an identical twin brother. Uh I don't think my parents expected that and so we were a bit of a surprise.
▶ 2:28:33Sometimes we were a bit of a handful as well. And we also heard from my colleague uh Miss Brown that you know the the u disabilities that qualify um for uh the exception that we have for for SNAP benefits are those recognized by SSI and that there are a whole host of of uh disabilities that are not um that are not recognized.
▶ 2:29:00And so I obviously have a ton of questions about that. Um and I'm not sure exactly what the parameters are. I think we could have hashed this out uh better if we had uh hearings on this point. But with states now um getting rid of sort of child uh work limits, work requirements, I'm just wondering if an 8-year-old um is no longer a minor, um you know, we expect um that 8-year-old to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and
▶ 2:29:30and uh get their SNAP benefits. Would they be able to um would their work qualify a parent or the rest of the household to receive SNAP benefits? Um, you know, it's it's a silly question, I think, but it's sad because yesterday we heard during opening statements, um, my my colleague Mr. Fincher said the zero the standard was zero error rate.
▶ 2:29:57We want to get to a zero error rate um, on on states um, supple supplemental nutrition assistance program. And I think where we want the actual zero rate is for our seven eight-year-old kids uh going hungry. That's what I think, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:30:21Um and so I'm I'm happy to have anybody answer those questions for me, but um with that, I yield to Mr. Riley. Mr. Riley is right. Yeah.
▶ 2:30:34just I mean I'm new here so uh you know just genuine question like why why not have a hearing on this like this sounds like some pretty important stuff like pretty great question that uh my colleague from Michigan had about summer breaks I mean we were just trying to get our kiddos enrolled in uh summer camp uh you know not not not the easiest uh thing to do uh it can cost a lot um we had questions about what disability uh what disabilities
▶ 2:31:05are covered here. I I don't think we've heard an answer uh to that question. This homeschool question is a really good one. I would love to hear how this is gonna impact them. Um you know, I think we had a a discussion about the social science or the rationale behind uh choosing seven years old as as an age of of no longer being a dependent, but the the answer there uh didn't really hold water because if it's when kids go to school, you would think the answer would be five.
▶ 2:31:30And so I'm not, you know, I just these these are really good questions and I think if we're going to do this big bill and have a vote and change all the laws here, we should probably probably have a hearing. And I'm just wondering why what's the resistance to that? If if anybody could could explain that. I know we're busy, but we could find time to have a hearing, right? We'd all be here, right? I mean, we'd all show up for a hearing.
▶ 2:31:52I would love to have a hearing and just ask a witness like you know what what is it that when you turn six to seven you become you know a uh no longer uh dependent and so I don't know I'm just asking can we have a hearing does anybody want to have a no you don't nobody you guys don't want to hear right hearing would be helpful could Could Gentleman, yield
▶ 2:32:22to me. I'll yield back. Yeah. Could Mr. Bman, could you yield to me for just to make an observation? McGovern here. Oh, yeah. What do I Do I have to say magic words or somebody else? Mr. Mr. Govern. We'll figure this out. Okay. Uh, I yield to uh Mr. McGovern. Yeah. I just I just want to make an observation.
▶ 2:32:43I mean, um, Republicans are arguing for more work requirements for poor people, yet most of them on this committee can't even bother to show up, uh, to their current jobs and participate in this hearing. And I think that speaks volumes and I thank the gentleman. I yield back. I will say, M. McGomery, you're getting very close to me taking your words down, but I'll just we'll give you three warnings. So, uh, let's let's just keep it civil and focus on the issue and not on the personalities of the people here.
▶ 2:33:09So, this committee does really well being focused on that. Any other I I think I have 14 seconds left. You sure? Go for it. Um with that, I will just say in the absence of a hearing or a real responses, um I recommend that we provide um our 8-year-olds uh little tiny boots with little tiny bootstraps. And uh with that, I yield back.
▶ 2:33:41Jackson, you've already been recognized. Five minutes. Sorry. We'll get you for the next amendment, though. How's that? Any any other members? Me see, Mr. Davis seeks to speak on the Mr. Chair, I yield um to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson is recognized. Thank you so much. Uh the longer we talk about this in absence of us having a hearing even the more absurd I think it becomes.
▶ 2:34:09You're talking about uh an adolescent. This is just beyond childhood far off of away from adulthood. We're talking about um a child that is going to lose its teeth to start moving into adult teeth.
▶ 2:34:29And yet they're being punished like they had no choice in coming into this world and now because their parent that may be differently aabled and when I'm using that term that their parents haven't recently incurred a physical malady of some such that they may not have access to hospitalization or care that they haven't even gone through all the proper diagnosis.
▶ 2:34:54There's a reason as members of Congress, we have access to the office of the attending physician because we can't get back in time to our respective districts and states to necessarily get health care if we weren't here. And it's doubly difficult for someone in a district that has to live in a rural area or in an urban area that is a burden to get to a doctor's office. It is a extremely difficult situation in my district.
▶ 2:35:21For example, I live in a neighborhood that has in the immediate area five safety net hospitals. So, healthc care is not that accessible. And with these cutbacks that are going on, there are fewer people to even qualify people for these programs. I just want to not to be lost on the ironing of a child that doesn't have adult teeth that we are now punishing as if it's some fault of their own. We've gone from not just punishing women and punishing families.
▶ 2:35:51Now it's down to the level of punishing children. And I do respect most of my colleagues in here on the Republican side. And I do take offense that uh we cannot have a hearing. I do take offense that they're being paid to be here and during this limited markup session that they won't give us the courtesy. And I thank you, Chair Thompson, for having uh been so gracious in you giving us the time to discuss this.
▶ 2:36:17And I wish others would learn from you and grant us the courtesy to hear us out and show this institution that level of respect. I yield back. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Miss Davis yields back. Anyone else seek recognition to speak on amendment number 11 offered by Miss Brown of Ohio. Seeing none, I'll finish up with u just some thoughts. I I'd like to request Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
▶ 2:36:44Um the uh first of all uh we spend as a nation um so don't tell me we don't care as a nation or we don't the two parties don't care um because the last two farm bills were Republican le uh we spend a trillion dollars over 10 years on the nutrition title.
▶ 2:37:06Um and so we uh far more than what we invest in the folks that need to make sure they reproduce the food to be able to get the people to everybody people need. And if you want a true definition of oppression and what is cruel, it is keeping pe families permanently stuck in poverty. That is truly oppression and truly cruel. and we uh we're we're trying to make sure that that does not occur.
▶ 2:37:36As a senior member in the education workforce committee, I just want to be clear that uh this is not going to prevent any child from being qualifying for free and reduced meals. There is a process to qualify. Um and I'm very pleased actually that I'm a recovering school board member as well as in addition to being product of public education.
▶ 2:37:56I'm very pleased that today uh most schools if they got their act together are using a process that was not like when I went to school where it was clear what kids were on free and reduced meals. Uh today schools have the option to to do that in a way where there those kids are not standing out. So this has nothing to do with schools uh with these children qualifying.
▶ 2:38:19There is a process that is poverty that is And let me share with you uh I think this is information freely available. It's as easy as the USDA website u on the SNAP work requirements and there are two requirements as I'd mentioned to everyone here. We're looking to simplify so that there is certainty and ease for those who are um eligible for these programs to be able to navigate them.
▶ 2:38:47They have certainty and clarity and then to make it easier. Right now it's very confusing if you've got two sets of rules as you think about it. You go to this website, which one do you pick? Uh so I'm going to just focus on the general work requirements which u some of my colleagues have been shocked to think this is something brand new we're trying to impose and I was wrong. It wasn't 1977. It was 1970 that this had been in place over 50 years.
▶ 2:39:14Um and it has to do with uh uh so let me just I'm going to just I'm not going to read the whole thing. you can go as easy as I did to be able to find this. Uh but in terms of one of the exemption if you're taking a care of a child under six, we're going to move that to SE. We want to move that to seven. I don't think that's a bad thing. Uh or an incapacitated person.
▶ 2:39:39Doesn't say anything about being social security disability uh or anything like that. Uh it is an incapacitated person. um quite frankly has somebody worked with persons with disabilities. I don't like that language but uh um it is what it is in there. Um unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation. So uh and the aal work requirements uh again an acronym I'm not particularly favorable of. I hate labels.
▶ 2:40:10Uh but that is we use that a lot. Uh and it is on this website and you compare those two. So that said, there's growing academic evidence that growing up around adults who work uh is crucial for a child shot at upward mobility. It's not casting a judgment on those individuals, those adults for whatever reason that don't work.
▶ 2:40:32Uh but it is a u by being around adults that do work that academic studies have shown that that does have a positive impact on the child's future. This text ensures that a shot at the American dream becomes a reality for more children growing up on SNAP. Now, we maintain the exemptions for pregnant women and caretakers of children with disabilities or aging adults. Again, we the idea is to be able to uh uh to align these two requirements.
▶ 2:41:01Uh one around has been around for 50 55 years I guess at this point. Um, it is important that parents and caretaker caretakers whose kids are in school and who can work do work. This amendment would also put the committee below its instruction risking right a tax hike on all Americans next year and I urge a no vote on the amendment.
▶ 2:41:26And so in terms we were talking about just for clarity amendment number 11 by Miss Brown from Ohio. Uh, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I those opposed by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. A uh recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed.
▶ 2:41:57Uh and I think Mr. Jackson had an amendment that uh he wanted to offer under subtitle A. Yes, sir. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk uh number 16. Thank you, sir. The clerk will uh uh we'll circulate the amendment and uh uh Mr. Jackson has offered an amendment. The clerk will report the title of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just suspend.
▶ 2:42:27We we just need to get the clerk the amendment number 16 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois. All right. Thank you. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Now recognize distinguished gentleman from Illinois, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment. Thank you. I recognize the distinguished chairman. Uh I rise today in strong support of striking section 100002 or 10,0002 or 12 of this reconciliation package.
▶ 2:42:58a provision that unjustly expands work requirements to Americans aged 55 to 64 years of age. Let's be clear, this policy is not just misguided. It's a betrayal of the very principles that shaped our nation's safety net. Uh when President by way of history, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act of 1935. He called it a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but by no means complete.
▶ 2:43:27That structure forged by leaders like Francis Perkins, the first female labor secretary was designed to perfect family dignity in times of hardship. Yet today, some would unravel that legacy by imposing punitive requirements on seniors who have already spent decades contributing to our economy. This amendment is our chance to say enough and we can fix it. Let's revisit history if you will.
▶ 2:43:54In 1996, Congress passed bipartisan welfare reform under then President Clinton and Speaker N. Gingrich introducing work requirements for programs like the TANF, the temporary assistance for needy families. But even then, lawmakers were conscious enough that they recognized the unique challenges facing older Americans. Those over 50 were largely exempt. Why?
▶ 2:44:21Because Congress understood that age discrimination, health crisis, and caregiving duties make steady work unrealistic for many in this age gap. I give the benefit of the doubt to people that are working that have limited means. I don't distrust them like many on my opposite side of this spotting do. Fast forward to 2023.
▶ 2:44:45The debt sealing deal expanded SNAP work requirements to adults up to age 54, threatening benefits of over 750,000 people. Now, this bill even pushes it further to age 64. Let's talk about who this impacts. Mr. Chairman, 4.1 million Americans aged 55 to 64 live before the poverty line.
▶ 2:45:10Working poverty, 64% of workers over 55 report facing age discrimination per the AARP. One in three adults aged 55 to 64 has a chronic health condition, limiting work, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. These great Americans aren't lazy.
▶ 2:45:32There are people like Linda, a young lady I spoke to in my district, 59 years of age, who lost her retail job during COVID and now cares for her husband with Parkinson's. This provision would force her to choose between feeding her family and caring for her spouse. Proponents claim work requirements promote self-sufficiency, but the data tells a different story.
▶ 2:45:56In 2023, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study found the similar requirements in Medicaid reduced enrollment by 40% without improving employment. I just randomly picked a state. It was Arkansas. 18,000 people lost healthc care coverage in just 6 months under such rules. Many due to bureaucratic red tape, not the refusal to work.
▶ 2:46:20So, I'm saying it's a scheme to push people off the ROS because they burden them with additional paperwork. Let's address the fiscal myth. Cutting SNAP or Medicaid for seniors does not save money. It shifts cost. For every dollar cut from SNAP, hospitals incur $4 in emergency care cost for malnutrition related admissions. This is horrifying that there is malnutrition rising in America.
▶ 2:46:48And I take the time to make sure we talk about supplemental nutritional assistance program. This is not a full meal. This is simply a supplement. We're taking the last bit of the crumb off of the table. Is that responsible governance? I would say that's moral decay. This just isn't just about policy. It's about our values. The people should matter. Unless there is life and safe and secure, we cannot have a secure nation.
▶ 2:47:16I also would like to say that expanding work requirements to seniors isn't just a not right. It's in direct contradiction to the compassion that's denied Americans greatest reforms from the New Deal to the federal care act. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, reject this cruel and counterproductive policy. Vote yes on this amendment. Let's honor our history, protect our seniors, and prove that this Congress still believes in Roosevelt's vision.
▶ 2:47:45That after a lifetime of labor, every American deserves security, not suspicion, and I thank you. I yield back. Thank the gentleman from Illinois uh yields back. Miss Adams is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I do want to speak in support of um Mr. Jackson's amendment.
▶ 2:48:06It is a good amendment and if we think about it um this uh amendment if if enacted um would force uh this provision of course would for force older adults between 55 and 64 to fill out paperwork showing that they're working or or or working enough. So let let's be clear about this.
▶ 2:48:30Most people on SNAP who can work do work and and that's not different uh really no different for seniors. But what is different for seniors is that they have more difficulty finding jobs. Especially older Americans are more likely to to face age discrimination and even sex discrimination. Women especially uh when searching for jobs in later life.
▶ 2:48:55and and they often need a longer period of time to find work if they lose their jobs. So, it may take more than three months. That's not a long time. That that's that's 90 days to find the job. And so, we should be talking about about ways to actually help people gain the skills that they need to work. And as a matter of fact, we need to raise this dog on minimum wage.
▶ 2:49:19Uh it's just ridiculous that for 17 or whatever number of years uh we have had a federal minimum wage of 725 and I recall being in the North Carolina House for all those years those two decades that I served there and our minimum wage was $5.50 and in 2006 I had a bill that we worked on for like 10 years and we only got a dollar increase. So we've got to we're talking about uh respectable work.
▶ 2:49:46We've got to respect people who work and we've got to pay them a living wage. But so three months is just not enough. So we should really be talking about how people gain the skills that they need to work and not punishing the seniors and rural Americans who will be most likely hurt uh by losing their jobs and food assistance. Again, it's still all about punishing poor people.
▶ 2:50:11And now we're talking about punishing uh the elderly, punishing grandmothers and great-grandmothers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers and and that's just not the thing we should be doing. Uh I I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I want to thank the gentleman for for offering it. I yield back. I think thank the gentle lady from North Carolina for she yields yields back. Um, anyone else wish to speak on this amendment?
▶ 2:50:44Mr. Lamal from California is recognized. Mr. Chairman, what committee is this? This would be the House Agriculture Committee. Agriculture. Okay. My Oxford dictionary definition of agriculture is the science of practice of farming including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool and other products. All right.
▶ 2:51:06So, as we uh know that in the farm bill about 82% of the spending on it is on the SNAP program and some of the rest of the farm bill is the farm part of the bill. I'm curious about this amendment too and that do you know Mr. Chairman that the average age of a farmer in the US is 58.1 years old.
▶ 2:51:27So I guess um that type of work isn't recognized under the So and did you know Mr. chairman that the age of farmers many many are getting to be above 65 due to young people not being encouraged to get into agriculture anymore because of the outlook for the farm farm economy and uh the uh
▶ 2:51:58regulatory load and the price of fuel and the price of fertilizer it's not looking so great. So, I don't know. I'm just curious how this amendment here on um 55 to 64 being somehow not being uh not being appropriate to be in the SNAP program is uh has has been arrived at. So, I don't know couple of thoughts, Mr. Chairman. No, you bet. Well, just for a point of clarification, interesting clarification.
▶ 2:52:26It clearly is a gerine question and a gerine amendment uh given that uh uh these work requirements um this opportunity requirements has been in law since 1970 70 1970 I think Led Zeppelin came out with her second album back then. Yeah. All right. I'll yield back Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Uh recognize Mr. McGovern for five minutes.
▶ 2:52:54It's Sometimes I can't believe what I'm hearing um in this committee. Um if the gentleman is wondering like why what what SNAP has to do with farmers um I might remind him and others that um what you can purchase with SNAP is food. Um and who grows food but our farmers. I mean I I don't know. I didn't think that was a tough one to make the connection uh about but that's just the reality.
▶ 2:53:21Um and um and so farmers benefit from SNAP SNAP because people are purchasing um products that they grow. Um and some of the programs that the administration uh current administration is going after like the double ups double up bucks program again farmers benefit even more.
▶ 2:53:38I can tell you in in my state of Massachusetts that that program um farmers really embrace because they can sell more of their products and more of what they grow directly to consumers uh in Massachusetts and they now have the ability to be able to afford that. So the idea that somehow we don't we can't make the connection um you know I I I don't know I I didn't think that was a tough question.
▶ 2:54:01But going to the gentleman's amendment again, uh you know, uh sometimes when you're 63 or 64 or 62 and you find yourself suddenly unemployed, uh sometimes it's a little more more difficult to find a job.
▶ 2:54:16Um, and so the deal is is that if you are somehow laid off and you can't find a job, this bill says that you get you you lose your SNAP benefit um in in three months. You're out of luck. The other thing about SNAP again and the other benefit of SNAP is it provides people access to food. And last time I checked, people need food to sustain themselves.
▶ 2:54:46So again, I mean, what the gentleman's amendment basically says is let's not screw over old people. Um what what what he's basically saying is that it's just not enough for people here in Congress to say, "Grandma, go back to work. You know, find a job within, you know, three months or you or you're losing your benefit." I mean, I I that that this is somehow a a controversial topic that people can't quite understand why there's concern about it.
▶ 2:55:15Again, read your letter from AARP that all of you received. They're deeply concerned about the impact on senior citizens. Uh you know, we we have to do better. You have to do better here. Uh on behalf of our not only our seniors, but all the people who benefit from SNAP, the gentleman's amendment is right on target. Uh we ought to we ought to all support it. This should not be controversial. But again, just a reminder to the gentleman from California.
▶ 2:55:42All you could buy with SNAP is food and food is grown by farmers. So that's the connection. I yield back. Thanks for Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if you're a citizen watching this, you've heard a lot of things. And I want to read to you something from uh the SNAP brochure that was updated September of 2023.
▶ 2:56:10So this was done this was written u under the pre previous administration under President Biden. This is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program able-bodied adults without dependence policy guide. and and all of this talk from the other side and all of the accusations that have been made from the other side.
▶ 2:56:31On the first second page, second paragraph in the introduction, federal law limits the amount of time a timelmited participant, commonly referred to the able-bodied adult without dependence, can participate in SNAP to any three countable months in a 36month period unless the person meets
▶ 2:57:01the work requirements. There are general work requirement exemptions for people that are that are disabled and and and those are listed in here. There are also there are also then those who are able-bodied adults without dependence.
▶ 2:57:20And so it you this this idea that these changes are done in an effort to be cruel or mean or or encourage anything other than the exception that work is good for people. And the only way to get out of poverty is a job. Period. The government's not going to carry you out of poverty. You have to work. We're not trying to be mean.
▶ 2:57:47We may have differences of opinion on whether or not people should work at different ages or other things, but I want the American citizens to understand there's a lot of drama coming from the other side. I'm reading to you from the publication that was published when Joe Biden was president of the United States about the limitations. It will tell you exactly what the general work requirement exemptions are. Right now, it's 16 to 60. We're changing that from 16 to 18.
▶ 2:58:15So that is a plus on the side of people who could receive uh an exemption from the general work requirements. We're moving it up from 60 to uh 64 on the upper end. Uh but then if you read in there, responsible for care of the child under age six is also a general work exemption. We're changing that six to seven. We're changing that six to seven.
▶ 2:58:43And then they're we're making the six to the seven and the 18 to 63 match with u the able-bodied adults without dependence. Those are the changes that we're making. I know there are a lot of people there's a lot of drama trying to scare a lot of people. I would encourage you to pull the publication that was printed when Joe Biden was president of the United States. Those are the changes that we're talking about. They're very simple. I personally believe that work is good. I think people be will be healthier when they go back to work.
▶ 2:59:12I do agree that the system will keep you in poverty. Uh and and that we need to again encourage people to go back to work. Work is good. I when she has now recognized Miss Hayes for five minutes. Thank you. I think that the members on this side of the dis also believe that work is good.
▶ 2:59:37But what we're talking about is expanding this policy, changing the age, making it harder for people to literally stabilize themsel while they're finding employment. And if Joe uh thought differently, then he's wrong. Then he's wrong.
▶ 2:59:59We had a hearing and I remember the witnesses that came here talked about the availability of jobs as truck drivers and in the construction industry. This these expansions wouldn't even allow localities to make exemptions based on the types of jobs that were available. So just the idea that there are jobs available, a 64 year old is not going to work in construction as a new job opportunity. They do it all. This is my time, sir.
▶ 3:00:30This is my time. Can you please instruct your members? Can you instruct your members entering a new um workforce as a beginning as a construction worker at age 64 and the idea that there was no connection. Yes, this is the committee on agriculture, but we have jurisdiction over nutrition. It is not farmers or feeding people.
▶ 3:00:56This committee committee has a responsibility to do both and to keep pitting the nutrition title against every other title. It's a through line since we're reading definitions. Farmers produce food primarily to feed the human population and also to supply raw materials for various industries. This production is essential for improving nutrition, ending hunger, and supporting economic and social development.
▶ 3:01:25What do we think farmers are producing food for if not to feed people? I don't understand. Literally, we want to plus up one side of of this committee but not provide a reliable, stable market for goods. Yes, it is trillions of dollars.
▶ 3:01:47And that's why we should be doing this through regular order and through committee work and not making these changes with these narrow definitions. And these are expanding work requirements. They keep going back to able-bodied individuals without dependence.
▶ 3:02:03as if the only people that are benefiting from SNAP are 20 year olds on a sofa somewhere playing video games or posting I don't know influencers and not seniors and children and disabled people and veterans and all the people all the hungry people in this country who benefit from these programs you it's indefensible you can't defend it which is why no one's here to defend it I will be supporting my colleague colleagues
▶ 3:02:33amendment and I think that everyone needs to read the text of this bill because to keep going back to in the 1970s this is what it was and this is when Led Zeppelin dropped their first album. We have the ability to change things moving forward. That's what we as a Congress should be doing evaluating the current situation that we're in and making it better and moving forward. Not saying in 1969 people left their kids at home so we should be able to do that now. When you know better you do better.
▶ 3:03:03When you know better, you do better. And now at a time when we are cutting every other safety net program, it is not so people can have a lifetime of dependency on public assistance. We have supported industry after industry, including the a industry in times of need. That is our job. That is our job. So to pit farmers families is not what we're here to do.
▶ 3:03:32We have a responsibility to support both the farmers who produce the food and the people who need Because every member of Congress may not have a rural or a farming community, but I guarantee you every person in this body has constituents who eat. I yield back. Jelly yields back. Now recognize the uh uh representative McDonald Rivet for 5 minutes.
▶ 3:04:02Thank you so much, Chair. I I just think it's important to bring us back to the core of this conversation, the core of this debate because it is not whether or not people who can work should work. I have not heard any argument against that. In fact, the law already the the program already requires able-bodied people to work.
▶ 3:04:24I I think what we're calling into question is in a program that has less than 1% fraud that already requires abledbody people to work, how we can get to $300 billion dollar of savings by the what the m majority is saying are very small tweaks in a program with very little fraud where able-bodied people are already working.
▶ 3:04:55Now, there's room for improvement in there, and I got to confess, I have a liberal arts degree, but I can still do basic math, and it just doesn't add up. The idea that benefits are not going to be impacted for millions of Americans because these are just small tweaks is an outandout lie. I yield back. Ja yields back. Now, recognize representative uh wrong list.
▶ 3:05:23Mlan Delaney for five Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as I've been listening to this debate going back and forth, um, I think we do have to say work is good. And many, many of my constituents do want to work and they cannot.
▶ 3:05:41But changing the age requirement, as many of my colleagues have said, without a hearing and data is something that we really should find As Congressman Jackson said, 4.1 million Americans 55 to 64 live below the poverty line. And the data does tell us a different story about the rationality of this legislation.
▶ 3:06:01Older adults really do face additional barriers to employment due to a variety of factors and more over half of lowincome adults report health barriers. Specifically, many of these older care older individuals are also caregivers to disabled or sick family members or to their own grandchildren. And in my own state of Maryland, there are 29,000 adults ages 55 to 64 at risk of SNAP.
▶ 3:06:32And many, many of these adults are veterans and those who have long served their country. Sadly, many seniors are not able-bodied, and they are just hungry and sometimes sick. I I say, Mr. Chair, we can do better and I um urge supporting um this amendment. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Figus is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:06:58Um I um I'm new here. I'm a freshman. I I admittedly I've never never been here before um before this current Congress, but I know process and I know common sense and I know what happens in the real world and the process that we've run here to give a bill um 24 hours to review policy changes of this matter. This is not how you would run a business.
▶ 3:07:26This is not how you would run a household. It's not how you would raise your children. It's not how you would do anything. And I would say this if it was Democrats in charge. This is a bad process to run. Giving people 24 hours to review legislation that makes such substantive changes. I don't know if that's the norm. I don't know if that's the way we always do it. I don't even know if Democrats have done it in the past. But if they have, they were wrong. They were equally as wrong as we are today sitting here doing this.
▶ 3:07:57This is not the way you govern. And it doesn't take a senior member of the US representatives to be able to come to that conclusion. It's like a kid telling you about a school project that's due the morning you're taking them to school. It doesn't make it it. It's I'm sure all parents in here have been in that situation or the night before you find out about a project or you find out about a field trip. It's it's childish.
▶ 3:08:23Like it is it is it is beyond comprehension that anybody Democrat, Republican, independent, black, white, rich, poor, conservative, liberal, thinks that this is the right way to do things. It's just not. And we should not be sitting here engaging in a process that is this faulted. We cannot do this. We should be doing much better than this. And I urge you, Mr.
▶ 3:08:46Chairman, I urge our ranking member, I urge Democrats and Republicans to do a better job at being fair to the American people when it comes time to review substantive policy changes that we don't just say here in the 11th hour before you do it. Nobody thinks this makes sense. Nobody. If you were going to buy a car and somebody said, "All right, come in and close, but we're closing. I need you to sign this this document five minutes before we close." you're not going to do it.
▶ 3:09:16You're going to say, "I need more time." And so this this process is just flawed at its core. Uh and with that, I'll yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Thank you very much. Illinois is recognized. Thank you very much. I think for our persons that are watching this and at home that if I could take the liberty to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the Democratic side, we believe in balanced budgets. We believe in business. We believe in family.
▶ 3:09:44I don't think it's fair to try to paint us as if we don't care about um the individual's dignity and doing work. I absolutely believe everyone should work that can work. But I think this approach of having a blanket of saying there are groups of millions of people in America that are 55 to 64 that don't work. I find that offensive. There are many people that are doing the best that they can. There's some people that can't get to work because they don't have medicine.
▶ 3:10:15There's some people that can't get to work because their bodies and lifestyles have changed. They have to put their parents to bed at night. They've got to take care of other people's children. There's lack of employment. And so, I think if we widen the scope, not look at life through a keyhole, but through a door, I think would also help if many of our colleagues would sit through this hearing so we can get to know each other and they could hear us and not talk past us.
▶ 3:10:41I know some have fundraisers to go to and contributions to accept, but this is an opportunity for us to talk and hear one another out. We come from different areas. And when they ask what is the linkage between people and the city and the farmers, there are consumers and there are producers and we're all on the same continuum. And I just want to make it clear that people are doing the best that they can. I think we should recognize people that are struggling, people that work in this very building.
▶ 3:11:10like I said last night, that don't have enough to eat, that clean out the garbage bins and keep the grounds, and that everyone needs a little helping hand. And I trust people that are working every day around this facility. I don't think there should be an ownorous burden on those that have little means and those that are wealthing. Someone on the other side of the world is pouting right now because they can't be gifted a 747. I think that's absolutely ridiculous.
▶ 3:11:40And this is not in a vacuum. We're also talking about tax cuts in other rooms in this building at the same time. So, we're talking about taking money and food. We're talking about taking money from those that are most in need and giving it to those that have been enormously blessed. I yield back and I thank you, Chairman, before you gave me out. I I thank the gentleman who um I was very proud of him milking his first cow in the state of Missouri. did a great job doing it.
▶ 3:12:10Um uh any others uh seek uh seek to speak on uh Mr. Jackson's amendment number 16? All right. Seeing none, let me uh take the opportunity to be able to make some final remarks here.
▶ 3:12:28First of all, I think uh ju just for clarification and and uh you know and you know and I think uh certainly our um you know in concurrence with what some of my friends here um sitting to my right u had said that you know the nutrition title is multiaceted. It is about food security, but it is officially in law also a workforce development title.
▶ 3:12:53Uh that was put in place um during the uh um the fiscal accountability act, the debt ceiling and signed into law by President Biden uh making the nutrition title as much about food security as workforce uh workforce development. And it it absolutely is a market title, too. There's not a calorie consumed. and it's not going somewhere by a produced by a farmer or a ranch family someplace.
▶ 3:13:21Um and uh uh and just for clarification uh with u my good friend from um South Chicago uh you know uh if you have a condition you know where you have take medication some type of that would probably border on incapacitated unable to work in your 60s uh um or you're caring for an older adult you're you're
▶ 3:13:51You're exempt. You're exempt currently. You're going to be exempt in the future from any of these requirements. But I will say, and I do start to take this a little personally now, and I'm in my 60s. Hard to believe I got there. Um that uh it is tough. I mean, I work on workforce development. This a lot of my colleagues know because we work together in education workforce. And you lose your job in this when you're 60 years old, in your 60s, it's near impossible because employers are looking to hire younger and cheaper. you know, it's a cost cutting measure.
▶ 3:14:22Uh they lose all that wisdom. Um they miss out on all that wisdom and experience of an older worker that has developed that over the course of a of a career. And so, you know, I love what Miss Miss Adams said, Dr. Adams said, the difficulties of someone in their 60s. That's what this bill does right now. We deny people in their 60s uh the opportunity to access this SNAP employment and career and technical education. We're not asking them to go back to school to get a a bachelor's degree or an associate degree.
▶ 3:14:51It may be a short-term course. Uh but it it it equip them. And there are plenty of jobs on a work site. And I agree with you. Swinging a hammer in your 60s is it's it's got to be hard. I have a hard I've always had a hard time doing it no matter how old I was. Uh but there is plenty there is foremans, there's purchasing agents, there are there are folks that are driving and and and delivering the equipment.
▶ 3:15:13There are lots of great paying jobs that even in the even in the construction industry and so let's not deny these individuals an opportunity that really comes um um you know the fiscal accountability act you know my partner that I worked with to go from age 49 to 54 uh whether you agree with him or not that was President Joe Biden we sat in the white house and that's where we landed on on 54 because we recognized that it was important for more people
▶ 3:15:43would have opportunity and access to these SNAP employment and career and technical education benefits that we pay for. Um so taking it uh um and the older I get I I see the value of taking up to 64 uh to have that opportunity to be able to do that. This bill modernizes work requirements to align with the age folks are Medicare eligible.
▶ 3:16:07I I think it's appropriate and the taxpayers would expect that 55 to 64 year olds who are work ready um should not just work for SNAP benefits but be able to have all the benefits within the SNAP program which is SNAP employment and career and technical education. And let's face it, we need workforce. We I mean people are living longer with dignity. And that's a really cool thing. They're living longer and being very productive.
▶ 3:16:28and helping people to be able to do that is uh you know life doesn't end at uh and I'm really happy to say this life doesn't end at age 65 you know uh u the the work requirement does not impact anyone who's mentally or physically disabled and incapacitated is the word and according to um USDA u the SNAP um information this amendment would also put the committee below its instruction risking a tax height from all Americans next year
▶ 3:16:59and I urge a no vote on the amendment. Uh so the question is on amendment number 16 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Um all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I I oppose those by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Um Mr. Chairman I'd like a recorded vote.
▶ 3:17:26Recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3II2. Further proceedings on amendments shall be postponed. Are there any other amendments under subtitle A? Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized, please? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that for the majority of this markup so far, most of my Republican colleagues have been absolutely absent or silent. We are debating the largest roll back of an anti-hunger program in American history.
▶ 3:17:57And most of my Republican colleagues can't even bother to be in the room. Well, does the gentle lady have Mr. Chairman? No. No. I I I of any of our members. I'm not demeaning anyone. Chairman, they're not here. That's a fact. That's not That's not Well, that that is a fact. And I thank the general lady for Thank you. Well, I I move to adjourn. Okay. There Motion to adjurnn.
▶ 3:18:23I make a motion to I second. All those in favor of the motion to adjurnn signify by saying I. I. All oppose signify by signing nay. Nay. Any opinion of the chair. The nos have it. I'd like a recorded vote please. Motion to adjourn is not agreed to.
▶ 3:18:53Um and uh we uh appeal the rule of the move. Can we vote? I'd like to vote please. Recorded vote. What's that? Okay. The uh clerk will clerk will call the role. Mr. Lucas, no. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Austin Scott, no. Mr. Austin Scott votes no. Mr. Crawford, no. Mr.
▶ 3:19:23Crawford votes no. Mr. Dejarlay. Mr. Lamalfa. Mr. Lamalfa votes no. Mr. Rouseer, no. Mr. Rouser votes no. Mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Bacon. Mr. Bacon votes no. Mr. Boast. No. Mr. Boast votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Baird. Mr.
▶ 3:19:53Baird. Mr. Man. Mr. Man. Mr. Fenstra. Mr. Fenstra. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Moore votes no. Mrs. Kamik, Mrs. Kamik. Mr. Finstad, no. Mr. Finstad votes no. Rose, Mr. Rose, Mr.
▶ 3:20:23Jackson of Texas, no. Mr. Jackson of Texas votes no. Miss De La Cruz. Miss Dea Cruz. Mr. Nun, no. Mr. Nun votes no. Mr. Mr. Van Orton Mr. Van Orordan Mr. New House Mr. New House Mr. Weed Mr. Weed Mr. Breznahan Mr.
▶ 3:20:52Breznahan Mr. Mesmer no Mr. Mesmer votes no Mr. Harris no Mr. Harris votes no Mr. Mr. Taylor. No. Mr. Taylor votes no. Miss Craig. Yes. Miss Craig votes yes. Mr. David Scott. Mr. David Scott. Mr. Costa. Costa. Mr. McGovern.
▶ 3:21:23Yes. Mr. McGovern votes yes. Miss Adams. Yes. Miss Adams votes yes. Mrs. Hayes. Yes. Mrs. Hayes votes yes. Miss Brown. Yes. Miss Brown votes yes. Miss Davids of Kansas, yes. Miss Davids of Kansas votes yes. Miss Selenus, yes. Miss Selenus votes yes. Mr. Davis of North Carolina, yes. Mr. Davis of North Carolina votes yes. Miss Takuda, yes. Miss Takuda votes yes. Miss Buzzinski, yes. Miss Bazinski votes yes. Mr.
▶ 3:21:52Sorenson, yes. Mr. Sorenson votes yes. Mr. Vasquez, yes. Mr. Vasquez votes yes. Mr. Jackson of Illinois, yes. Mr. Mr. Jacksonville of Illinois votes yes. Tandar, Mr. Tandar, Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray, Miss McDonald Rivet, yes. Miss McDonald Rivet votes yes. Mr. Figures, yes. Mr. Figures votes yes. Mr. Vinman, yes. Mr.
▶ 3:22:22Vinman votes yes. Mr. Riley, yes. Mr. Riley votes yes. Mr. Mr. Manion. Yes. Mr. Manion votes yes. Mrs. Mcclean Delaney yes. Mrs. Mlan Delaney votes yes. Miss Pingri yes. Miss Pingry votes yes. Mr. Carbajal.
▶ 3:22:59M Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Mr. Kelly's recorded as No. Mr. Van Orton, how is he recorded? Mr. V Mr. Van Orton is not recorded. Mr. Van Orton votes no. Mr. Van Orton votes no. Mr. Breznahan is not recorded. Mr. Mr. Brazan votes no.
▶ 3:23:35Mr. Man. Um, will the clerk How am I recorded? Uh, Mr. Man is not recorded. Uh, man votes no. The clerk would uh go ahead and call the names of members who have not voted. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baird, Mr. Mr. Fenstra, no. Mr. Fenstra votes no. Mrs. Miller, no. Mrs. Miller votes no. Mrs.
▶ 3:24:03Kamik, Miss Mr. Rose, Miss Da Cruz. Mr. New House, no. Mr. New House votes no. Mr. Weed, no. Mr. Weed votes no. Mr. Dejarlay, no. Mr. Dejarlay votes no. Mr. David Scott, Mr. Costa, Mr.
▶ 3:24:33Tandar, Mr. Gray, Mr. Carbajal is I Yeah. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Mr.
▶ 3:25:03Lucas is recorded as no. Chairman, how's how is Austin Scott Mr. Austin Scott is recorded as no. Mr. Chairman, how is Miss Kameck recorded? Mrs. Kamik is not recorded.
▶ 3:25:33Votes no. Mrs. Kamock votes no. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Mr. Costa. Oh, Mr. Costa is not recorded. Mr. Costa votes I. Mr. Costa votes I. How is Mr. Rose recorded? Mr. Rose is not recorded.
▶ 3:26:04No. Mr. Rose votes no. How is Mr. Rouseer recorded? Mr. Rouseer is recorded as no.
▶ 3:26:40Miss Mr. Chairman, how is Miss Delacruz recorded? Miss Dea Cruz is not recorded. Miss Dea Cruz votes no. Mr. Chair, how how am I recorded? Oh, yeah.
▶ 3:27:11She's going to be here. into the evening. Now, how is Mr. Deja recorded? Mr. Dejarlay is recorded as no. Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Johnson voted? Mr. Johnson is not recorded. No. Mr. Johnson votes no.
▶ 3:27:57How is Mr. Mesmer recorded? Mr. Mesmer is recorded as no Mr. Chairman, how is more recorded? Moore is recorded as no.
▶ 3:28:31Mr. Mr. Gray is not recorded. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mr. Chairman, how's Mr. Bar reporting? Mr. Gray votes I Mr. Chairs, how's Mr. Bar reported? Mr. Mr. Baird is not recorded. Votes no. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:29:01Clerk, how's Mr. Lamalfa vote? Voted. Mr. Lalfa is voted as no. Okay, Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? New house. Uh, Mr. New House has voted no. Thank No, you're the last one. Okay. Should I ask him how I voted?
▶ 3:29:44I was here. Mr. Clerk, how is the chairman voted? The chairman is not recorded. The chairman votes no. Mr. Chairman votes no. That clerk will report the role. How am I reported? Right here, Mary Miller. Mrs.
▶ 3:30:13Miller is recorded as no member. Has has everybody has every member voted? Any member you want to change their vote? If not, the the clerk will now report the role. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the A's are 23 and the Naz are 29.
▶ 3:30:36Uh the uh motion to adjurnn is not All right. Where we were we when you did Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. There we go. We're back to Welcome back. There we go. Welcome back. Mrs. Hayes has amendment at the desk that the uh that the clerk will What number is that Mrs. Hayes?
▶ 3:31:06Number 12. The clerk will uh report the amendment. Amendment number or 12 offered by Mrs. Hayes of um Connecticut. The amendment will be distributed to each member. Um and um while we're doing that, we um no, without objection, amendment will be considered as read.
▶ 3:31:31And now recognize the distinguished gentle lady from Connecticut, sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Welcome. The legislation we are considering today seeks to make drastic changes to SNAP without regard for program participants or the employees who ensure children, families, and seniors receive their benefits. The public sector has faced unprecedented attacks by this administration and Republicans in Congress.
▶ 3:31:59The bill we are considering establishes an untested new structure for SNAP, requiring states to pay a share of SNAP benefits for the first time. States have always been responsible for hiring staff and dispersing benefits received from the federal government.
▶ 3:32:17The cost is split 5050 between the states and the federal Now, Republicans want the federal government to reduce its contributions to 25% and for states to cover 75% of these costs.
▶ 3:32:34The Connecticut Department of Social Services estimates that this would cost $118 million each year, nearly $40 million in additional administrative Congress has always included a tolerance threshold for errors which is currently set at $56. Any error less than $56 does not count towards the error rate of the state.
▶ 3:33:02Under this bill, that threshold would be reduced to $0 and a workforce already facing shortages would be asked to spend time and effort looking for single dollar errors. This is remarkable that it is an expectation that there would be zero errors at all.
▶ 3:33:24We want this number to be as low as possible but zero at a time where a Pentagon budget is being approved where they have failed multiple audits. States will be forced to budget more for SNAP benefits with less for administrators. With fewer administrative staff, it it is inevitable that errors will increase. SNAP administrators are vital to this program running efficiently and effectively.
▶ 3:33:53If this committee insists on increasing the burden on states, then we should offer states greater assistance in hiring and retaining the qualified employees who operate this program. My amendment would increase the federal cost share from 50% to 100%. So states can focus on maintaining and expanding the staff necessary to operate the program so that they can reach that limit.
▶ 3:34:22It would also align the wages of state SNAP administrators with federal wage standards, including annual updates and locality adjustments to ensure wages remain competitive. My amendment would also require states to use these funds on administrative personnel costs for existing or full-time equivalent positions so that the workforce is supported to ensure benefits actually reach the intended participants.
▶ 3:34:49If Republicans want to make SNAP more efficient, they should work to make the program make sure the program is fully staffed by qualified personnel personnel and we can eliminate all waste, fraud, and abuse. With fewer SNAP staff, we will see more waste and more fraud and families will go hungry. So, let's make sure that they are fully staffed so that this program can operate as efficiently and effectively as possible.
▶ 3:35:17I urge the members of this committee to adopt my amendment and I yield back. Julie yields back. Any members seek uh recognition to speak on the amendment? Miss Brown from Ohio is recognized for five minutes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I I strongly support Miss Hayes's amendment. Um this bill before us um that you've the Republicans have put forth thinks that we can get more accuracy when people are overworked.
▶ 3:35:48Um the majority thinks that states can do more with way less. But we know that is not how things works. By reducing the amount that we pay the state administration of SNAP, states will hire fewer people and make fewer changes to their computer systems, many of them which are already outdated. So, so what you may ask? You might say, who cares? So, what?
▶ 3:36:14Well, it's those things that actually um reduces errors. Those are the things that makes the system work better. And when you can focus on fewer clients and have a system that doesn't crash all the time, it turns out you can have more accuracy in your benefit and eligibility requirement. So, it just makes sense. Look, we agree that we need to make sure every penny we spend goes to the right people in the right amount and the right amount of time.
▶ 3:36:45So, let's work together and reduce errors by investing in states. This amendment does just that. And given how frequently my Republican colleagues have talked about their wishes with uh eliminating fraud, waste, abuse, I am sure they will support this just as I do. Right.
▶ 3:37:06I'm so glad that you're back in the room to support this amazing amendment that Miss Hayes has put forth because it will help us get on track to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse because that's what we want to do, right? That's the goal and this amendment does just that. So with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield the balance of my time to Miss Hayes. Miss Hayes is recognized. I just I failed to mention that this amendment is based on my legislation, the SNAP administrators act.
▶ 3:37:36So I actually have put forth legislation not just in this Congress but in the last Congress that addresses this many of the concerns that my colleagues have about inefficiencies in the way the program is run and making sure that uh applications can be processed quickly and people who are not eligible won't receive benefits because they were are properly screened um by by highqualified trained employees who know how to do this.
▶ 3:38:06So again, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield the time back to Miss Brown. So just a quick question, if I may engage in a colloquy, do the the the legislation that you introduced, have we had a hearing on it? No, actually in the subcommittee on nutrition, we haven't had any hearings. Okay.
▶ 3:38:27And would that be helpful to getting an explanation out to the constituents and the committee about how we can make improvements to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse? It would actually it would absolutely be helpful. It would also address many of the concerns that my Republican colleagues have, but allow us to possibly make adjustments based on those concerns because we would be engaging in a hearing and an actual discussion. Okay. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:38:58Gentle yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I think this amendment makes a lot of sense. Um, you know, moving rather than having state and federal bureaucracy uh involved with this this current proposal, Mr. Sharon, uh moving the uh financial responsibility to one end and also the ability to hold folks accountable uh on these air rates makes a ton of sense.
▶ 3:39:27And then obviously freeing up state funds for investments and other important programs at the state level. And um yeah, it just seems like a really great landing spot based on some of the conversation brought up by my Republican colleagues. Uh this seems like it would fit very neatly uh into their goals for the bill. And uh with that, I uh yield my time back to uh chair. I thank the gentleman. Gentleman yields rolls back. Well done.
▶ 3:39:56Um any other members seek recognition to speak on amendment number 12 by Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut? Seeing none, I'll take the opportunity. You know, from 2021 to 2023, in response to the COVID pandemic, the federal government reimbured 100% of the state's SNAP administrative costs.
▶ 3:40:22During that time, costs ballooned and error rates skyrocketed. And I just want to say that the folks are hurt most by high error rates, especially where it's an overpayment, are the beneficiaries. You think about it, people living paycheck to paycheck, living in in or close to poverty.
▶ 3:40:42Um, uh, these states and a lot of those errors are overpayments and so they'll, uh, upcharge, uh, to the, uh, SNAP EBT card, and I quite frankly, I don't blame any family. They have more money on their EBT card. They, they go out and they spend it. They they use it for food to be to be expected only to have the states come back three, four, six months later and claw that money back that's already been spent.
▶ 3:41:13And where do we where do you expect if we allow these higher rates to continue? Where where do you expect those folks to get that that money to pay back? Um it's just not there and so they get punished. So, state administrative costs have not returned to prepandemic levels and CBO projects federal spending on SNAP administration to increase by 40% by 2035, higher than the rate of inflation.
▶ 3:41:39This text takes important steps to control runaway costs in the states and encourage states to serve SNAP participants in a more efficient manner and I would say a more u respectful manner too to avoid those overpayments that get clawed back. Uh so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. So the question before us uh is on amendment number 12 offered by Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut.
▶ 3:42:08All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3i2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Does anyone else seek recognition under subtitle A? Mr. Chair, I have a amendment at the desk. I'm sorry, I didn't see who was speaking.
▶ 3:42:38Oh, Mr. Dandar, you uh uh do you the um do we have an amendment number? Uh 21. 21. and the the clerk will uh uh will report the title of the Amendment number 21 offered by Mr. Tandar of Michigan. Uh the clerk will circulate that amendment to uh all the members.
▶ 3:43:07Um but we will um we will proceed the uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. Now recognize the distinguished gentleman uh the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear.
▶ 3:43:30The Republican proposal that completely eliminates SNAP ed is not only harmful to the American people today, but it will also make it harder for working class to achieve the American dream for generations to come. The Department of Health and Human Services claims it wants to improve the health of Americans through the Make America Healthy Again initiative.
▶ 3:43:59Yet, this committee is intent on cutting programs that give participants the knowledge and tools to make nutritious food choices in order to be in good The two state implementing agencies in Michigan are MSU Extension and the Michigan Fitness Foundation.
▶ 3:44:25Together, they serve more than 4,000 sites across the great state of Michigan. In my district, in Detroit and the surrounding areas, there were a total of 263 sites that provided SNAP ed programming last year.
▶ 3:44:51Historically, SNAP ed has contributed to reducing food insecurity among children, older adults, and people with disability. The program has also proven to increase the consumption of nutritious foods such as fruits and vegetables and boost physical activity in those enrolled in the program. Mr.
▶ 3:45:17Chairman, the fact is that SNAP ed is a highly effective evidence-based program that helps individuals and families make more nutritious food choices, stretch limited food budgets, increase physical activity, and make healthier choices easier in their community.
▶ 3:45:45The fact that Republicans are willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of Americans in order to spend money on tax cuts for their billionaire donors is frankly disheartening and disappointing. that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank the gentleman yields back. Any other members wish to speak on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 3:46:13Takuda from Hawaii is recognized for uh with that wonderful looking pineapple sitting in front. Thank you. And there is candy in it. Five minutes. It's our bipartisan pineapple. Here you go. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today in strong support of the amendment from Representative Thanodor to strike this provision and preserve SNAP ed, which plays a crucial role in supporting the health and well-being of our nation's most vulnerable communities in nearly every state across the country.
▶ 3:46:41Now, we're not talking about just a tweak here. We're not talking about trimming fat or finding efficiencies. We're talking about eliminating eliminating $536 million in support for low-income families. Gone just like that. Let me ask you, if you believe in pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, as we've heard, and making America healthy again, then why would you rip away the very program that helps people do just that? How does it make sense to take away the tools that help families stretch $6 a day to feed our kids?
▶ 3:47:11SNAPED helps people make better food choices, avoid chronic diseases, and build healthier lives. It's not just about hunger. It's about health and dignity and giving people a fighting chance. It's about teaching parents how to turn limited resources into nutrition, not just empty calories. It's prevention. It's empowerment. And yes, it's smart policy that saves us money in the long run by reducing health care costs. Programs like SNAPED work because of their deep community roots.
▶ 3:47:39Land grant universities like the University of Hawaii, 58 land grant universities across this country and 49 states. They don't just drop in with cookie cutter solutions. They know their communities. They deliver culturally relevant education designed with the people they serve in mind. This is what effective government looks like. And now we're supposed to believe that zering it out, not just reducing it, but completely scrapping it, is somehow fiscally responsible. No, let's be real about this. This isn't responsibility.
▶ 3:48:08It's about helping families do more with less through this program. If it were, we wouldn't be gutting a program that literally teaches people to do just that. This is about priorities. And once again, regular Americans are being told they don't matter. The irony is almost cruel. SNAP benefits are being cut in this hearing right now through this bill. And now we're also talking about taking away the education that helps families stretch them further. If you're a billionaire, you're doing fine in this town.
▶ 3:48:39But if you're a single mom working two jobs trying to figure out how to feed your kids on six bucks a day, well, good luck to you. I'd like to also yesterday talked about a death about death through a thousand cuts at the state level. How right now we are simply just passing the buck on to the states. We're claiming we're not the ones cutting, but if made to face an impossible choice, states will have to choose between things like food benefits, health care through Medicaid, and programs like this.
▶ 3:49:05By the way, that support $536 million going to state land grant institutions, nonprofit organizations. Pennsylvania gets $29.8 million. Minnesota gets $9.5 million. Oklahoma 7.9 million. Georgia 10.5 million. Arkansas 2.7 million. Tennessee 5.8 million. California 132.2 million. North Carolina 10.9 million. Mississippi 4.5 million. Nebraska 2 million.
▶ 3:49:35Illinois 19.8 million. South Dakota barely makes a million, but still that's money. Indiana 7.3 million. Kansas 2.8 million. Iowa $3 million. Florida 21.4 million. Alabama 7.1 million. Texas 24.9 million, Wisconsin 11.8 million, Washington 11.9 million, and Ohio 11.2 million.
▶ 3:50:02This is real money that we know with all the burdens and cuts that we are imposing on states will likely not see the light of day in terms of being funded and supplanted by the states. This is money that will be taken away from our land grant institutions and universities, from nonprofits, and especially money that was meant to help families, yes, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and somehow become healthier again. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Gentle yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 3:50:31Chairman, I seek recognition to speak in strong support on the amendment. Gentle is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, I've always said that I was about common sense and this is not this is nonsensical. I'm incredibly concerned about the provisions in in this reconciliation bill eliminating SNAPED programming. Nutrition educational programming makes our country healthier, stronger, and more resilient.
▶ 3:50:59On a local level in at the University of Maryland in my home state, its extension program runs the SNAPED program for the entire state. It employs over 70 people and these 70 people whose jobs could be at risk from these very cuts are incredibly efficient in supporting over 600 local partners across the state and currently work with all major state partners implementing large-scale health programs.
▶ 3:51:24For example, the Maryland State Department of Education is working with a SNAP ed on a wellness policy for all of our school districts across the state. Education of our kids is really about the health of our kids and healthy choices to combat obesity and even diseases like diabetes.
▶ 3:51:43In Frederick County, over 8,000 children and adults participated in nutrition education through the University of Maryland and UMD has a strong footprint in 37 prek programs in our county. And in Alageney County, SNAPED reaches 3,400 students with a series of nine lessons throughout the school year. Over the years, there's been a demonstrated health benefit across the state because of this education.
▶ 3:52:11Slashing funding to SNAPED is nonsensical. It's ineffective in its aim and scope and will cost much more in health in the long run. Thank you. And I urge support and yield back to Mr. Thank the gentle lady. U any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, I'll take the liberty to make some comments here.
▶ 3:52:39Um, you know, I've always looked from 35,000 ft on SNAP education as a really good thing. I thought it would be beneficial. Um I was pleased when we kind of linked it up with our land grant universities because what they do they measure outcomes uh as a part of the effort that they do and so felt um in the past when I had the privilege of chairing the nutrition committee that that was a good move and we'd be able to have um
▶ 3:53:09a good level of transparency and accountability on the return on investments. That said, I'm very disappointed in in what those outcomes show. Uh, numerous studies from both the United States Department of Agriculture and the and the GAO have found absolutely no evidence that SNAP ed has influenced long-term behaviors or affected nutrition or obes obesity in any meaningful way.
▶ 3:53:39Uh, additionally, nutrition education is widely accessible through many public and nonprofit government programs, including but not limited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Uh, this text takes an important step to eliminate duplicative and wasteful government programs. Uh, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. So, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr.
▶ 3:54:07Tandar uh amendment 21. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nags have it and the amendment is not agreed Uh Mr. Chair, could I ask for a recorded vote? A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 3II2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed.
▶ 3:54:36Does any other member have a We do have votes coming up. Can you give me an update on where votes are called now? They just called them. So, why don't we uh let's if uh no objections, let's recess. It's a perfect time to do it. Um get you time down there early for the votes. We will um the vote series has been called. The committees will stand in recess until the vote series is complete.
▶ 3:55:03I would just ask you upon that final vote, you would come back to the committee room uh right as soon as you vote. So we stand in recess. I got to take my garbage out.
▶ 3:55:19Things are starting to feel move
▶ 5:01:51my script. Here we go. The committee shall come to order. I note that there is a quorum present. Before recessing, the committee and postpone further consideration amendments offered. The consideration of those amendments is now before the committee. I do have a queue here. I'll share u next up and I'll share the next four. Um uh Dr. Adams amendment number three, Dr.
▶ 5:02:15Adams amendment number four, Representative Takuna number nine, and Representative David Scott number 17. And so uh uh Dr. Adams has a uh amendment at the desk uh three. and the uh I'll ask that the um the clerk uh ask the clerk to report the title of the amendment.
▶ 5:02:43Amendment number three offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished uh gentle lady from North Carolina, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you to our ranking member as well.
▶ 5:03:05Uh this amendment would would change the formula used to calculate SNAP benefits from the thrifty food uh plan to the lowcost food plan. The Thrifty Food Plan is the backbone of SNAP and and yet it's still inadequate when we're talking about the fundamental purpose of SNAP, which is to make sure that families, veterans, seniors, and children are fed.
▶ 5:03:32Well, we are now I I I believe all familiar, I hope, uh that on average SNAP provides just $2 per meal per day to participants. $6 a day. Well, that's less than the cost of of a cup of coffee from the cafeteria.
▶ 5:03:49Attacks on the Thrifty Food Plan over the course of the Farm Bill deliberations have forced us to defend it from cuts, including requiring that that any updates to be held costneutral, and I'm glad that we've defended it. We also need to to be honest with that fact that this is simply not enough money. It's just not enough.
▶ 5:04:14And that's why my closing the meal gap uh act that I've continued to introduce would move SNAP benefit calculations from the thrifty food plan to the lowcost food plan and that would be of course more generous. This would make sure that working families have enough to spend on food. food that's nutritious and reflects what we know about dietary patterns and accounts for a limited budget.
▶ 5:04:42You cannot be serious uh Mr. Chairman when you say that you want to make America healthier again and at the same time you're proposing to take away or cut SNAP benefits and imposing more restrictions on them. Well, that's a bit hypocritical in my opinion. It's insensitive and it is cruel.
▶ 5:05:03And for an administration that wants to promote efficiency, I think that it would be more beneficial and more efficient to improve SNAP benefit adequacy than it would be to bring back the logistical nightmare of a food box program. Making people healthier means increasing SNAP benefits, not decreasing them. Because you can't be healthy if you're hungry. You know, this amendment would do just that.
▶ 5:05:32But while I will withdraw this amendment, I I do want to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support moving SNAP to the lowcost food plan as it is outlined in my closing the meal gap act. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh I uh yield back. Gentle lady withdraws her amendment. I appreciate her yielding back. I do recognize again Mrs.
▶ 5:05:59Miss Adams for u uh for amendment number four. I I don't think she withdrew. She said she intends to withdraw, but she hasn't didn't withdraw. I'm sorry. When she said she intend to withdraw, I took that as but uh so you're not you're not withdrawing at this point? No. Okay. Uh is anyone uh have and you have yielded Did you yield back? I'm I'm yielding. Very good. anyone uh u you know Mr.
▶ 5:06:27McGovern wants to speak on anyone else here to speak of Mr. McGovern you're recognized. No I I I just I want to say that I support uh what the general lady is trying to do. Um and uh I know given the conversation that we have had in this committee or the lack of conversation on these issues um it you know may seem a little eccentric to be talking about the importance of um increasing the benefit for people.
▶ 5:06:54But I just want I I want everybody to understand that prior to the pandemic the average SNAP benefit in this country was about a$140 per person per meal. That was the case for many many many years with some minor adjustments. And then during co there were plus ups uh uh which included the the thrifty update. Um and um and uh and we actually that helped a lot of people. We actually saw hunger decrease in the United States.
▶ 5:07:23Then a lot of those plus ups expired because they were all they all had an expiration date. Uh but the uh the thrifty uh update stayed in place and so uh now the average benefit is about $2 uh per person per meal. That's it. That's it. And I hear members get on the House floor and talk about we need to make America healthy again and people need to make better choices and people need to buy fresh fruits and vegetables and all this kind of stuff.
▶ 5:07:50And again, understand uh the benefit is only on average $2 per person per meal. Uh I don't know how many of you have been in a supermarket lately, but you can't buy a hell of a lot for two bucks. And as the gentle lady pointed out, you can't even buy a cup of coffee in the capital for $2.
▶ 5:08:10So, you know, if if we if we really want to make America healthy again, if we re really want to address the food insecurity problem in this country, uh we need to understand that this benefit is inadequate. It is grossly inadequate. Uh which makes it even more frustrating that we are here today uh talking about a bill that would cut over $300 million. 300 what?
▶ 5:08:37320 313 313 billion dollars from this program from this program. I I again I don't know a planet we're living on when we're having these conversations. Uh you want to talk about inefficiencies, look at the Department of Defense. Uh you want to talk about fraud, waste, and abuse, look at some of the cost overruns there. You know, look at our tax structure.
▶ 5:09:00Uh we have we have a tax structure right now in this country where the effective tax rate for billionaires is lower than the effective tax rate for regular working families. I mean the everything's all screwed up here. And all we're saying here is do no harm to this program. There's there's not I I I hate to even call it modest because it is not adequate um at its current levels, but do no harm to this program.
▶ 5:09:26Um, and we ought to be having hearings and discussions on how we move forward here. Some people have talked about increasing the minimum wage. By the way, the majority of people who are able to work on SNAP actually do work, but they earned so little they still need the benefit to be able to put food on the table for their families. Uh so I think the uh the the the gentle lady's u amendment is uh is right on target and I thank her for offering it and at least raising this issue and beginning this discussion which quite frankly we we should have started a long time ago.
▶ 5:09:57I thank the chairman and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other members wish to speak on Mrs. Adams uh amendment number three. All right. Seeing none. Mr. Chairman Mrs. Adams recognized. Yes. Uh, I'm I'm going to withdraw the amendment. Miss Adams has officially withdrawn and uh now recognize uh Mrs. Adams for her amendment number four.
▶ 5:10:23The uh um clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number four offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina. The amendment is uh will be distributed um among um the members. And now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina uh who is the author of this amendment to speak on the nature of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:10:49Um this amendment would standardize and increase the medical expense deduction used when calculating the SNAP benefit amount that a participant receives. SNAP benefits have have SNAP participants have to make the impossible choice between food and medicine. They do it every day because they have to.
▶ 5:11:13And this is especially true of low-income people who are elderly, who are disabled, or who have family members who are uh and therefore they have higher than usual medical costs.
▶ 5:11:29And this amendment, which echoes a provision in the closing the meal gap that I spoke about a moment ago, would change the SNAP benefit determination process so that participants could deduct a higher standardized medical expense from their income when it is used to calculate their benefits. That seems really fair.
▶ 5:11:52the people who are are probably if they're working, they're making uh less minimum wage or or or even less because no one should have to make this impossible choice. And and a 290 billion dollar cut to SNAP would make sure that even more people would be unable to afford basic goods. And so I want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
▶ 5:12:18I believe that it is fair to the people who really need they need medicine and they need food. Uh again, you can't be healthy if you're hungry. And so in solidarity with all of those who have to go hungry because they cannot afford food due to their medical expenses, uh I would urge my colleagues to vote for for the amendment. And I do plan to withdraw it uh so that we can come together.
▶ 5:12:45I hope and I know that we can to standardize the medical deduction by passing the closing the meal gap. Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Does any other members wish to speak on Mrs. Adams amendment number four?
▶ 5:13:05Seeing none, let me um let me just share that the the law already provides for deductions from income for the purposes of determining SNAP eligibility. Households can deduct shelter costs, uh medical expenses, a percentage of earned income, child care expenses, and and more. And so this amendment would also put the committee above its instruction, risking a a uh um a tax hike for all Americans next year.
▶ 5:13:34And so I urge a no vote on the amendment. Uh with that, um let's see. Hearing no, Mr. Chairman. Oh, yes, ma'am. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm I'm going to withdraw the amendment. of the gentle lady withdraws her amendment and we will move on to uh Mr. Tuda has an amendment at the desk.
▶ 5:14:02Um it is number nine and the uh the clerk will uh um state the the title of the amendment. Amendment number nine offered by Miss Takuda of Hawaii. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the the gentle lady from Hawaii, the per the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:14:28Uh, no community in America is spared from the brutal snap cuts in this bill, but rural districts like mine in Hawaii will suffer the most. You know, when I travel my district to some of Hawaii's most rural and remote areas, I hear stories of grit and determination in the face of relentless challenges. unaffordable housing, limited access to health care, broken transportation, and yes, food insecurity. Rural communities have the highest SNAP usage. One in six rural households rely on it.
▶ 5:14:57At a time when rural urban disparities are only widening, it's unconscionable to slash a program that puts food on rural tables and dollars into rural economies. That the communities growing our nation's food, fiber, and fuel face the highest rates of food insecurity isn't just cruel irony. It's a fundamental injustice. SNAP helps correct it by both feeding families and sustaining local economies. SNAP isn't just a safety net. It's economic infrastructure.
▶ 5:15:24I know we've heard this time and time again in these hearings, but it bears repeating. Every dollar in SNAP generates over a$150 in economic activity, supporting grocerers, truckers, farmers, and local businesses in every corner of America. Let's be clear about what happens if these cuts go through. Food insecurity spikes immediately, especially in rural communities. Seniors, kids, veterans, and rural people with disabilities will go hungry first. Rural economies will start to unravel.
▶ 5:15:55SNAP dollars keep smalltown grocerers, farmers markets, and retailers afloat. Without them, doors will close. A recent study found these cuts would harm 27,000 retailers nationwide. And the worst damage will be in rural counties, including many across Hawaii. These are already areas with limited food access. SNAP cuts will turn shortages into fullblown food deserts. When stores disappear, we know families will leave. Farmers will lose customers. Communities will collapse.
▶ 5:16:25These cuts will push people out of the places they've called home for generations. This is not just about food. It's about survival. People in rural areas already live shorter, sicker lives thanks to limited access to health care. And now Republicans not only want to gut SNAP, but also Medicaid, which covers 15 million rural Americans, including nearly 40% of children. Let me say it plainly.
▶ 5:16:52This is a coordinated and cruel abandonment of rural America. Cutting food, killing local businesses, stripping away healthcare. And many of you here, you know how important health is to rural America. Some of you even sit with me on the bipartisan rural health caucus. Mr. Lalfa, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Man, Miss Miller, M. Mr. Finstead, Mr. Rose, Dr. Jackson, Miss Dela Cruz, and Mr. Van Orton, Mr. Chairman, you and I have talked about this.
▶ 5:17:21You're one of our very first members of the bipartisan rural health caucus, and you know better than anyone, food is medicine. Healthy food is essential to rural health. Cutting SNAP is not just wrong, it's life-threatening. My amendment is simple. Before these cuts go into effect, prove. Let's prove they won't harm rural communities. That's it. If we care about rural America, this should be a no-brainer.
▶ 5:17:47I think of this amendment as an oath that we should take to do no harm to rural America. The heartland held the heart of this country. Right now, rural America is struggling. Rural America deserves better and rural America is watching. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition?
▶ 5:18:16U gentleman from uh uh that we haven't heard from yet. We give an opportunity the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to speak uh plainly about what's at stake here and fully support uh Mr. Cuda's amendment. SNAP is a is vital to rural communities to farmers and economies.
▶ 5:18:37It provides vital dollars that support both our farmers but also small groceries like that of which I spoke about yesterday and rule Lordsburg, New Mexico, the only grocery store within a 30 mile radius and that feeds families in rural America. For 50 years, SNAP has been a promise that no matter where you live in this country, your kids should be able to eat, your parents should be able to age with dignity, and your neighbors shouldn't have to choose between medicine and groceries. Now, today, I brought this meal to show you what $6 buys you in New Mexico.
▶ 5:19:08And yes, the tortillas are cut in half because that would mean $8, $9. That's a can of pinto beans. And you can't go without green chili in New Mexico. So this is what some kid somewhere out in rural New Mexico in my state gets to eat for $6 a day. That's breakfast. That is lunch. And that is dinner. Now, would you feed that to your own kids? Could you live off of $6 a day yourself? Probably not.
▶ 5:19:34Too many New Mexican families, especially those with young children, are already stretching every dollar and every meal. Taking food off of kids plates while handing tax breaks to billionaires is just wrong. If you're not willing to eat on $6 a day, then don't you dare expect your children or the children in my district to do the same. This partisan legislation breaks that promise and it'll leave rural communities in the dust. All in order to give these massive tax breaks to corporations and the ultra wealthy.
▶ 5:20:03Under this partisan plan, it would cost the state of New Mexico around $255 million just in next year and an estimated $2.4 billion over the next 10 years. Folks, we don't have that kind of money. That bill would force rural New Mexicans to choose between feeding their children or educating them, between building rural health care clinics or keeping small grocery stores open, and between supporting small farmers or feeding hungry seniors.
▶ 5:20:28Not in the name of fiscal responsibility as some have claimed in this committee or in order to reduce the national debt because this bill and the uh this entire bill does none of that, but simply to line the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Hungry people can't work. Hungry kids can't learn. Hungry families can't raise their children. And a hungry nation cannot prosper. New Mexican children, families, farmers, and rural communities should not be forced to pay for these reckless tax breaks for the wealthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:20:58I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, if I'm correct, the gentleman's from New Mexico. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So, so just New Mexico had a three and a half billion dollar budget surplus in 2023 and another $ three and half billion dollar surplus last year. And I just uh if I might, Mr.
▶ 5:21:25Chairman, to quote, "The oil and gas boom has helped New Mexico become the nation's second biggest oil producing state despite having a population just over two Taxes paid on the state's oil production will generate, and this is in quotations, more money than we know what to do with, according to Democrat state senator and legislative finance committee vice chair George Munos. With that, I yield. Yields back. Now recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Mr. Costa. Five minutes.
▶ 5:21:55Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd like to ask the author of the amendment a question and then uh make a statement. Um I I support your amendment uh for all the reasons you stated and and myself representing a large part of rural California. Uh what's the definition under your amendment uh to determine what is u rural in America?
▶ 5:22:25Thank you, Mr. Costa. Hold on, let me grab it. Well, let me as you're looking for it, let me tell you because I've dealt with this issue over the years. There are different definitions under USDA and one that I've struggled with for years has been that if a county has a city that has a population of 50,000 people or more, it is not considered to be rural. And uh I must say that I've represented nine out of the 10 counties in the Sanwaqing Valley through five reaportionments.
▶ 5:22:56been around for a while and uh from Kern County to uh Stannislos every one of those counties have a city at least of 50,000 population or more. They are among the most rural areas of of California with all the needs that rural America needs and and and and but we cannot change that definition.
▶ 5:23:19So, I'm just inquiring whether or not how this definition of rural uh is construct in your amendment. It's it's based upon rural counties and I will agree with you. I have many counties in Hawaii that should be considered rural, but by various definitions are actually considered urban. I think that's for another day for us to crack down on those particular definitions. But for this point, specifically, rural counties as defined within the the USDA. All right. Well, thank you for answering the question. and I'll support the amendment regardless.
▶ 5:23:50Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, on my own time, I want to first of all say thank you, uh, last night for recognizing the the passing of a family member of mine and other committee members who have weighed in on that and I appreciate that very much. I uh, would have liked to have been with all of you last night. Um, I don't think or maybe a colleague of mine did submit my statement uh that you allowed members to do, but let me just summarize it quickly.
▶ 5:24:19I appreciate all of your efforts uh and trying to work together in a bipartisan effort. I lamented in my statement that this is my fourth farm bill and it appears I hope I'm wrong that uh this may be the first time in the four efforts that I've been engaged in that we will not have a bipartisan farm bill. Since 1973 there has been a tradition in which we have been able to do that and why it's been one of the more bipartisan efforts.
▶ 5:24:46Uh certainly reconciliation in my view is not the the appropriate way in which you you you get that opportunity to have the bipartisan support not only for the nutrition programs that we've talked about here today which are critical to feeding 44 million Americans who are in food insecure but also for the critical titles that all of us have talked about that you and I have discussed that I think are critical to uh agriculture in America because as I believe and you've heard me say every
▶ 5:25:16time I'm in this committee hearing, food is a national security issue. It's a national security issue as to whether or not you're producing that food, whether you're the farm workers who partner with the farmers of uh dairymen and women and ranchers to put that food on America's dinner table or whether you're among the 44 million Americans that are food insecure. I hope that um somehow we'll figure out a way to to to do better.
▶ 5:25:43But I do appreciate your efforts and thank you uh for the courtesies extended to me and obviously we got more work to do. I'll yield back the balance of my time and submit my statement for the record without objection. Okay. And gentleman yields back. Uh I believe Mr. Sorenson. Thank you, Mr. Five minutes. Please go ahead. Um and thank you to my colleague from Hawaii uh for this amendment.
▶ 5:26:10um in front of me, much like uh the congressman from New Mexico. Um you know, $4, $5, $6. That's it. That's all you've got. Um but one of the things that we don't talk about is how much food costs in rural areas. You can get it cheaper um if you're in a city, but if you're outside the city, um you got to save more. You're going to have to pay more.
▶ 5:26:38Um, and also we're not talking about how this bill will hurt the people and the economy of rural America. Now, some of you might be shocked to learn Illinois 17, we do not have one HOV lane. Most of us in Illinois 17, we actually don't even get on interstates in a week. We take gravel roads and we take the blacktop. There's no Whole Foods and there's no Trader Joe's in my district.
▶ 5:27:04We meet our neighbors at the county market, at Fairway, at Kroger, and at Shnooks. We shop the sales. We click on the digital coupons if you can figure out how their app works. But some of us still clip our paper coupons. Um, I shop at the Cityline Plaza Jewel in Molen, Illinois. A lot of my neighbors going through the checkout counter there use their snap carts. Um, and if you go to the Jewel store, let me just tell you, go to the checkout counter where Steve's working.
▶ 5:27:34Because Steve grew up in that neighborhood and he has worked at that grocery store and my grocery store checking out neighbors for 50 years straight. What happens when Albertson's, which owns the jewel, loses 20% of the revenue at my store? It's not that people will just go hungry in my neighborhood. Steve loses his job after 50 years. The people in the meat department lose their jobs.
▶ 5:28:02the pharmacist loses her job, the florist loses their job, stores will close. And so, let's understand that. And in rural areas, if you've only got a Dollar General, the Dollar General's going to close. The Casey's General's going to close. The small town grocery store is going to close. It doesn't take a meteorologist to forecast that there's going to be food deserts everywhere. Would the gentleman yield? Um, if I can if I can go finish. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
▶ 5:28:33This isn't a scare tact. Um, even representatives from a small mom and pop that you may have heard of, Walmart, um, they've even reached out to me and they said, "Our entire food system in the nation will change if food assistance gets cut from hungry people." The GOP now wants Illinois to magically find $222 million to feed hungry people. I'll vote yes on uh Miss Takuda's amendment.
▶ 5:29:02I urge my colleagues to do the same and with the balance of my time, I'd like to give some time to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez. Gentleman from New Mexico is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. U just wanted to quickly respond to Mr. Scott. And on Tuesday in New Mexico, the state legislative finance committee, they had their first meeting of the year. They uh expected that the Republican proposal to cut Medicaid would cost the state $1.1 billion as I mentioned before $250 million just in the next year in SNAP cuts and billions more over the next seven years.
▶ 5:29:32We have to realize is that we don't exist in a vacuum in this committee. All those cuts put together and and let me also say oil and gas royalties go to the land grant permanent fund which are earmarked for schools and hospitals. So those dollars are not accessible to unlock them for makeup in in the loss of federal dollars. And so again, uh just wanted to make sure to get those facts correct because New Mexico suffers from one of the highest food insecurity rates in the country. One in four kids still go hungry. In particular, this impacts rural areas and my tribal communities.
▶ 5:30:02With that, I'll yield back my time to Mr. Sorenson. And I'd like to give the balance of my one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. Thank you. Mr. Costa is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. just to underline uh the gentleman's uh point. Um a lot of those food desert areas that we all represent uh the de facto grocery store has become the convenience store with a gas station and the cost of the food that you can get there is even higher.
▶ 5:30:31Um and that's a sad reality. But uh you know and and people a lot of farm workers come in there for lunch and and try to buy you know what they what they can. Um, and often times, and we have a peculiar thing, if the food is heated, you can't use your your food stamps, right? That's kind of, I think, crazy.
▶ 5:30:53Uh, but if you if you buy it from the chilled uh area of the convenience store, the many of them have a microwave and you can then heat it up. None of this makes any sense. So, it just underlines the the challenges of rural areas without grocery stores. Thank you. I yield back the balance of your your time. Mr. Sersonson yields and now recognize gentle lady from Maine, Mrs. Pengri for five minutes. Uh, thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 5:31:22Chair, and uh, thank you to my colleague from Hawaii for submitting this amendment. Why while Hawaii and Maine may seem very far apart, um, and in fact, we are. Um, the fact is, uh, we both think a lot about our rural communities, and Maine is often considered the most rural state in the nation. Um, I myself represent 125 districts. The largest city in our state is 60,000 people. And most of our towns are towns of 8 to 10,000.
▶ 5:31:49And I represent many under a thousand or under 500. We have island communities. We have distant communities. And we have so many of the problems that people are talking about today. We have about 1500 retailers who serve uh SNAP benefits in our district. They're grocery stores, but they're also little corner markets, general stores, mom and pop shops, and they would be deeply impacted, as you've heard my colleagues say, um, by the challenges in this major cut back to SNAP.
▶ 5:32:16Rural people are also often more impacted, I've heard my colleagues say it's often more expensive to buy food in rural areas. You're distant from it. But we also often are able to get things directly uh from the farmer um at rural markets, at um farm stands um through direct purchases from farmers and that could be impacted as well.
▶ 5:32:39And uh as my colleagues have mentioned earlier, we are the agriculture committee and we should be thinking about all those ways we can make sure we're supporting farmers in making sure people get healthy food benefits. But I wanted to go back to one point we were talking about a little bit earlier and that is the big gimmick that's going on here to take away these benefits. And I think that gimmick will impact our rural communities as much as anything. As you know my colleagues in order to say that there are actually no cuts being made.
▶ 5:33:08They're saying well we're just shifting it back to the states. And I've heard people mention oh some states have surpluses. It's not very much money. Maybe a couple million here or there. But again, looking up the numbers for my state, um if we had to pay 25% of the costs of SNAP in the state of Maine, we would now take over hund00 million in cuts.
▶ 5:33:29And that's at the same time we're also seeing major cuts to Medicaid in another committee going on where we're already suffering from the cuts that have been made by DOGE which are impacted all of our states and looking at the 2026 budget which has cuts to housing and urban development the EPA the department of education and a whole variety of accounts that we will be experiencing. So it will be deeply impactful for our states. Um this proposal also has administrative cuts.
▶ 5:33:57So right now our states pay 50% of the administrative costs for SNAP benefits. This would take it down another 25%. So our states would now pay 75%. So we'd have even less ability to finance the administrators who do this work. And guess what? That might possibly result in higher error rates. This whole idea of cutting your state's benefits based on your error rate is uh I think an underlying challenge of what we're doing here today.
▶ 5:34:28We are somehow assuming that this is about fraud or devious behavior. That's not true. The fraud rate is about 1.6% in SNAP and this uh USDA has worked very hard to get that fraud rate down. This is literally the error rate in in in terms of mistakes. These are mistakes that are made. For instance, in my state, people have a variety of sources of income. They work a lot of different jobs. Maybe you're a fisherman part of the year. You're a house painter part of the year. You got to bring all that information to provide what your income is.
▶ 5:34:57What if you accidentally forget to report one or the number isn't quite right? That's an error. What if the state worker forgets to ask you a question? What if there's a payment system glitch? What if there's a computer error? What if there is just some plain old honest mistake that happens with a very complicated bureaucratic system? Uh that is what we're talking about. So if your state doesn't do well and if in fact your state has a huge administrative cut so it doesn't in the future have as many people uh you could even increase this rate.
▶ 5:35:25SNAP does a good job of tracking these questions closely. They are required to correct over or under payments. Um but that doesn't matter. this will be counted against you and you may end up having to pay 25% of the costs. And as we've said before, what's going to happen to these state budgets? Most of us don't have a surplus. And if we did, it would be gone pretty soon anyway because of the incredible cuts that are going to come from the federal government. And then what will happen?
▶ 5:35:51People will see deep cuts in rural communities to all accounts to local aid to education, to um environmental protection, to uh a whole host of things that they're currently funding now. And most likely that will go back to the property taxes in our communities and in rural communities. That's the lifeblood of how we fund our community. And that is often the biggest challenge people have in keeping uh their keeping their home, being able to afford the cost of housing. Uh and we will be undermining that.
▶ 5:36:19So um with that, I need to yield back my time, but uh this is a very very dangerous thing to do and I appreciate this amendment and we'll be supporting it. Joe lady's time has expired. Now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh we know that these cuts would hit rural America hardest because SNAP's economic impact is stronger in rural communities and small towns where people are participating at higher rates than in urban areas of our country.
▶ 5:36:48And SNAP dollars provide even higher returns to the local rural economy. You know, SNAP also supports small and rural grocerers, and the cuts being considered put more than 27,000 retailers, nearly 80% located in rural communities, at risk of closing their doors. Uh, I support this amendment because we should not bankrupt rural communities in order to pay tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and large corporations. And with that, Mr.
▶ 5:37:18Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to Miss Duda. gentleman, general woman from Hawaii is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, to continue on to what has been a series of storytellings, the real faces, the people behind the pain that these cuts and this bill is proposing, I wanted to share with you two stories literally from Hilo to Hanlay in my district.
▶ 5:37:43Dulania of Pajoa, if anyone's ever been there, very remote, shared that I live in a place with very high food prices as everything has to be shipped here. All my money goes to basic bills. Without SNAP benefits, our family would struggle to eat. We definitely could not afford to consider eating healthy. Please remember that benefits keep people alive. Thank you.
▶ 5:38:06And all the way to the other end of my islands in the state, uh Joel of Hana writes, "I'm writing to you as a small business owner and community member of the Henna Wii Wayha area on Kauaii's Northshore. At Wiiha Country Market, we proudly accept SNAP EBT. And I want to share just how critical this program is to our community. Our area is geographically isolated and still deeply recovering from past natural disasters.
▶ 5:38:33Many families here rely on SNAP benefits not just to get by, but to access fresh, local, and healthy foods, most of which we source directly from Kauaii farmers, ranchers, and small producers. SNAP is not just feeding our community. It's sustaining a local food economy and keeping dollars circulating close to home. Federal cuts to SNAP would have a disproportionate impact on rural areas like ours.
▶ 5:38:57They would hurt not just the individuals and families who depend on these B benefits, but also the local businesses like mine that are working hard to create food security from the ground up. Please continue to advocate for full funding of SNAP and protect this essential program from any budget cuts. You know, I know that for some you have a lot of grocerers, you have a lot of options, you don't live in food deserts, but let me tell you, I have two islands in my district that only have two supermarkets on their island. And I wouldn't even call it a supermarket.
▶ 5:39:27You'd probably call it a mini mart. On Mokai that has only one traffic light, we've got Friendly Market and Msakis. On Lai that has zero traffic lights, we have Richard's Market and Pine Isle Market. Both of these literally depend on the barge to be able to supply the food that they have. They supplement from local farmers that grow things right in their backyard. But can you imagine businesses like this country markets in your own hometowns throughout this country? They already live on razor thin margins as it is.
▶ 5:39:56Yet they're supporting entire communities in feeding families that we represent. If they are forced to close because they don't have a customer base, because no one has a SNAP benefits to come in and invest in their businesses, everyone in these towns and these communities will ultimately go hungry. So, as we all go back for the weekend to our her homes, I ask you to please go visit those country markets. Go visit those small stores.
▶ 5:40:21Go visit them and talk to the proprietors and ask them if SNAP gets cut, who's going to be walking through your doors. Thank you very much for your time and I um urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I guess I yield back the remainder of my time to the ranking Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 5:40:48As you can see, uh I'm three eggs short of a dozen right here. And uh I've been accused of that in the past, but um for today, I actually brought bought a dozen eggs, but since they cost $749, which exceeds the benefit, I had to take three out. So, we have nine eggs left here. Um, the nine eggs are about 630 calories and healthy kids need at least 1500 calories a day.
▶ 5:41:16And I have one question from my Republican colleagues. Um, and is this all our kids deserve? 670 calories, nine eggs a day. Mr. Chairman, it doesn't make any sense to feed people on less than a carton of eggs a day and expect kids to be good students, adults, to get good jobs, or young people to be productive in the workforce.
▶ 5:41:40This is especially true in farm country, and so many families in the Commonwealth of Virginia will get less than this or nothing at all each day if their states have to stretch budgets for error rates. So on the on the uh demand side, you have folks that are going to be losing their benefits, but it also hurts hurts suppliers. On the supply side, and I mentioned this, I talked about u the owner of a chicken house.
▶ 5:42:05U she's suffering because uh her farm lost funding from USDA. And so when you're attacking both the demand side and the supply side, you're going to hurt producers, you're going to hurt families. And um I think that's just unacceptable. And so that's why will vote yes for this amendment and I urge all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to to speak on uh Mr.
▶ 5:42:35Takuda's uh amendment number nine? Not I'll take the opportunity to make some remarks here. Um uh certainly u you know my colleagues and I know my colleagues know this obviously when you get on a committee you you work hard to to learn as much as you can about all these different programs in your area of jurisdiction.
▶ 5:42:57Um know that what we're talking about SNAP is within the nutrition title which includes the emergency food program includes some summer programs for kids. I mean, there just so much that is there for the nutrition title and SNAP specifically is a supplemental nutrition assistance program with the emphasis being on on supplemental. Um, you know, trying to provide the illusion that that there's no other assistance out there other than just the one meals.
▶ 5:43:27Uh, not to opposed to any of the meals you proposed. That looks pretty good to me. Um but uh you know the reforms that we talk about ensure that we're putting forward ensure the SNAP works the way Congress intended it to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach.
▶ 5:43:52Um once again I've got to say when the states have high error rates it is the beneficiaries that are harmed and sometimes in very cruel ways when overp payments are made and it's time at some point the states will identify that and claw that back. Um, and so what we're doing, this will preserve the integrity and the fiscal sustainability of the program moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us.
▶ 5:44:22This amendment would put the committee under its reconciliation instructions, risking a tax hike for all Americans next year and risking not providing the improvements to SNAP program integrity that benefits those most in need. So I urge a no vote on the amendment. So the question is on uh Mrs. Takuda's amendment number nine. Um and uh all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I.
▶ 5:44:53Those opposed saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, request a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3II2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. I will now open up the measure for remaining amendment. And actually I'm going to go to Mr. Scott uh from Georgia. Uh Mr.
▶ 5:45:21David Scott from Georgia has a amendment at the desk number 17. And I'll ask to uh the clerk to report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 17 offered by Mr. Scott of Georgia. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman uh from Georgia, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment.
▶ 5:45:49Chairman, I rise once again to voice my strong and heartfelt opposition to this Republican bill that proposes a cruel and deeply misguided cut to the SNAP benefits of our veterans and our military families.
▶ 5:46:19imposing work requirements and reducing benefits for veterans and the surviving families of service members who died in the line of duty or from a service connected disability is a betrayal. Plain and My amendment will do this.
▶ 5:46:48It will prohibit the implementation of any SNAP provision of this bill USDA and state agencies evaluate them My amendment will also require confirmation that no veteran or surviving family members of those who died in the line of duty
▶ 5:47:19will lose their I will remind my colleagues that these are the men and women who risk their lives or gave their lives for our country and their families.
▶ 5:47:36Right now, there are around 610,000 men and women in our nation spouses died in the line of duty or from a service related disability.
▶ 5:47:53Further, there are currently right now 26,000 children who have lost a parent in a military service related death. Additionally, 1.2 Two million veterans rely on SNAP right now to put food on their tables.
▶ 5:48:18Cutting SNAP benefits for even one of these veterans, our patriots, is an affront to our entire military community. But now this Republican rec reconciliation bill is telling our military community that unless they meet arbitrary work requirements or navigate a maze of
▶ 5:48:48bureaucratic red tape that they won't get help putting food on their tables. Ladies and gentlemen, the compensation for surviving military families in our nation is less than $20,000 a year.
▶ 5:49:09Oftent times this is not enough and many families have to rely on other federal support programs to meet their needs. My amendment will ensure that SNAP continues to be a nutritional lifetime for our military families and veterans.
▶ 5:49:33To single out these families for additional burdens is not just bad policy. It is heartless and downright wrong and is unamerican.
▶ 5:49:49I would ask my Republican colleagues, would you look into the eyes of a child who lost their mother or father to war and tell them that they need to work harder to deserve food? Would you say to this to a veteran who is injured while defending our nation?
▶ 5:50:16Now, we Republicans and Democrats, we can debate budgets. We can argue over policy, and Lord knows we do. But if we can agree that our veterans and our families of fallen heroes deserve our support, then we have truly lost our way as a great nation.
▶ 5:50:43And let me remind you, the world is watching us as to how we treat our veterans. And I urge a yes vote on my amendment. My time is out. I yield back. Please vote for the amendment. I take the opportunity to just to speak um on the on my good friend's amendment.
▶ 5:51:09You know, these reforms ensure the SNAP works the way Congress intended it to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and then again executive and state overreach that hurts the the the most um uh challenged individuals. Um and again, this will preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability program moving forward so it continue to serve the most vulnerable among us, including veterans.
▶ 5:51:38And I I just I need to note uh with my good friend uh this committee Mark continues to exempt veterans. That was part of the negotiations I reached with President Biden during the the fiscal responsibility act negotiations. Our veterans are exempt from the SNAP work requirement. That is the law. We're not change proposing to to change that law, Mr. Scott.
▶ 5:52:03So, and I but I'll be glad to yield time to you for for followup on that if if you have anything additional you'd like to speak to. I want to see what Mr. Scott does first. It's his amendment that he put forward, you know, to exempt veterans. I'm just pointing out that is the current law and we're not changing it. Well, I'm not clear on that.
▶ 5:52:25Well, it's it that's there were three there were three categories of individuals and I hope I'm going to remember all three um that were exempt from SNAP work requirements that was negotiated. I negotiated with those with President Biden and and that is um our veterans uh youth coming out of foster care and I'm going to have to that's um I don't know where the next one is.
▶ 5:52:55So um so I'm gonna um Well, Mr. Chairman, yeah, you yield back to me. Yield back and then he's going to give me my five Okay. Well, you Yes, I am. And if you want, I'll yield to you so we can do kind of a call. Thank you. Thank you so much, GT. Um, we appreciate that veterans uh have been excluded. We understand and know that. I think Mr.
▶ 5:53:23uh Scott's amendment actually covers the surviving spouses or children of service members or veterans who passed during active duty or from a service related uh disability. So, I would like to speak in support of Mr.
▶ 5:53:38Scott's amendment given that uh that's what we're asking for is that you know someone who dies on behalf of this country, their surviving spouse should not have to go to work 20 plus hours a week if they are struggling for food security in their homes. Uh that to me uh is exactly what we should be doing in this country and I applaud Mr. Scott for putting this amendment forward.
▶ 5:54:07And you know I also just want to add that you know we we have a lot of talking points today about you know the way Congress was intended to work and we are having an entire decimation conversation markup process with none of my Republican colleagues here again by the way in order to absolutely decimate a title of the farm bill.
▶ 5:54:38This should be a farm bill markup if this committee wants to decimate a title of the farm bill. So, Mr. Scott, thank you for your amendment. I certainly uh support it. Um I it's just stunning that here we are again. And here we are again. Thank you, sir. I yield back to Mr. Scott. Yep. I'm going to hold on a second. I'm gonna reclaim my time. Um I thought it was my No, we I you get another five minutes if you want.
▶ 5:55:08So awesome. So you got lots of time. This this is all on my dime right now. I just want to give the three categories that are the law that was changed under the fiscal responsibility act. It was folks who are homeless. I apologize that didn't come to my mind. It is homeless, any veterans and foster children that are aging out. And um and I I'll yield to Mr. Scott, since he's his five minutes is up, he can use my last minute.
▶ 5:55:36Well, it's very clear that we need to deal with this. I'm raising this concern because I've heard from my district, our commodant for our veterans there and the children of veterans.
▶ 5:55:54Once that military officer is killed in the line of duty, he's gone and we say, "God bless him." But he leaves a family.
▶ 5:56:09And if these work requirements got to go to that uh wife or that child or somebody else in order to get it's obvious that we need to address this and make sure that any of our military services members who have the courage, the dedication to put their lives on the line and they are all over this world
▶ 5:56:40and my my time has expired. Um so um Mr. McGovern recognize Mr. McGovern for for five minutes. The way I read Mr. Scott's amendment is much more broadly than you interpreted it, Mr. Chairman. Um the according to this, the amendment would ensure that veterans and surviving families will not lose access to SNAP benefits. I I didn't interpret the amendment, if you'll bear with me. All I did was just give the exemptions for that were previously negotiated and put into law.
▶ 5:57:08Yeah, look at we have a hunger problem in the United States of America. 46 million Americans are food insecure or hungry. Um and the face and and there are many faces of hunger. It includes people who are jobless who are homeless, but it also includes working families. Um it includes older people, it includes younger people. Uh it includes you name it, right? Um and it's a scandal.
▶ 5:57:33that also includes a lot of veterans and their families and um that any veteran uh in this country uh is food insecure um is a tragedy. Uh these are people who have served our country.
▶ 5:57:48uh many who have protected us um during times of war and um and there's nothing in this bill to protect them from cuts that may happen under the awful cost share system that my Republican friends are setting up. You guys keep on telling us that nobody's going to be hurt by this bill. So here's your chance uh to uh you know put your money where your mouth is.
▶ 5:58:14Uh the bottom line is we established this last night and we repeated it today that you know a lot of states cannot afford uh the hundreds of millions of dollars uh that they will have to come up with in order for people not to lose their benefits. Um now I I guess some states can they can raise property taxes and if Republicans want to be the the face of raising property taxes then have at it. Uh but that's one of the most regressive ways uh to uh to to raise revenue.
▶ 5:58:44Uh but the bottom line is that there is no way that veterans and their families will not be adversely impacted uh by this reconciliation bill because states will not be able to uh be able to find the resources uh to be able to make sure the benefits are not cut. Uh, and I would just say that um, you know, um, a no vote on this amendment, on Scots, Mr.
▶ 5:59:11Scott's amendment would mean that you you that you really can't look at a veteran um, or a member of his or her family uh, in the eye and say with any certainty that their benefits won't be cut because because almost certainly they will be if this bill were to become law. Uh again, if if the intent is not to harm veterans and their families, then uh vote yes on this amendment.
▶ 5:59:37This is a this is basically a do no harm to our veterans and their families amendment and it should not be controversial. Um and I think it's the least we ought to be able to do. Again, I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership. I want to yield uh to Mr. Scott if you have anything else you would like to add. I will or I'll yield to I will yield to ranking member ranking members Thank you.
▶ 6:00:03Um, I I just want to reiterate the point that if we were sitting across the table in a farm bill negotiation that we would be negotiating perhaps to change the nutrition title of the farm bill to exclude from these requirements the children of veterans in our country who've died in the line of duty.
▶ 6:00:28And again, this entire necessity of this amendment just brings back to highlight how ridiculous this entire process is where um we're changing policy that is going to save apparently the federal government some money and we're going to give it to the most wealthy among us and the largest of corporations in our country.
▶ 6:00:57But in fact, we're saving nothing because we're shifting those costs to the states. And in fact, you are setting up a situation where every single one of us sitting here today knows that benefits will be cut. And it's um it's so disturbing that this is the process by which we are using to have these conversations um or at least the ones of us who are in the room today. And let me let me reclaim my time. Mr. Mr.
▶ 6:01:27Chairman, just simply say again that lower benefit levels mean veterans and military families will not get enough food. Period. Uh and uh so that is why it is imperative that we support Mr. Scott's amendment. I yield back yields back. Now recognized the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vinman, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, we've heard um it a lot today, but it's true.
▶ 6:01:53Um, this partisan Republican bill is taking $6 of food away from hungry kids to fund tax breaks for billionaires. That's the the top line. We can't forget that. That's what's going on here. No sane person should be in favor of this.
▶ 6:02:07But as a 25-y year Army veteran, I'm proud to support Representative Scott's pro- veteran, pro-surviving family, pro-s surviving spouse amendment to prevent these SNAP cuts from going into effect unless all states in the USDA can certify that no veteran or their surviving family could be kicked off the program. It makes I mean it makes no sense to cut veterans benefits and uh benefits to surviving families.
▶ 6:02:37Our vets were prepared to give their lives for our safety. We must support them and their families if they don't if the vets don't come home and $6 a day for those who need it is the bare minimum. I'm proud to represent a district that's home to 72,000 veterans and over 20,000 active duty service members, many of whom are insecure, especially the junior enlisted soldiers. Many of my colleagues across the aisle are also veterans, although I don't see that many of them in the room right now.
▶ 6:03:07Um, yeah. Are you? Okay, I'll give you credit. 22 years. Awesome. You're good. 25. There you go. Um, Air Force, though. Okay. I thought you said military. No, sorry. Um, shots fired, air support. I'm calling it in. All right. Um, when they talk about honoring those who served our country, I believe them. That's why I challenge our Republican colleagues to vote for this amendment and ensure we keep our our veterans and their families fed. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 6:03:40Look at that bipartisanship. Gentleman yields back. now recognize uh uh uh Representative Mlan Delaney for five Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I echo a lot of the same sentiments of my colleagues.
▶ 6:03:55Um, Congressman Scott amendment definitely prevents any SNAP provisions from going into effect unless all states in the USDA can certify that no veteran or their surviving family and their surviving family is is the key word if they pass in the line of duty or from a service related disability.
▶ 6:04:13To me, it makes no sense that we are debating this bill as it would force widows or spouses with ser uh with, you know, in military families with service related injuries to choose between SNAP or taking care of their family. And I say this because my father served in the army. My two uncles served in the air force.
▶ 6:04:34And I know many older struggling widows of military that uh are definitely in need of SNAP benefits. Um we should really protect and defend these families and make ends meet. And I say that not only for the 1.2 million veterans on SNAP, but also for the 21,000 veterans and their families in the Sixth District of Maryland. I promise to have their back and fight for them as they so bravely fought for us.
▶ 6:05:04So, thank you and I uh strongly urge support of this amendment and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Any other members? Mr. Sorenson seeks recognition for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I rise in support of uh Mr. Scott's uh amendment. Um, you know, I didn't think that we were going to be here today, um, looking at a potential cut to veteran services, but here we are.
▶ 6:05:31Um, it's not a rule in Congress that members of Congress have to go and do anything for veterans, but there are a lot of folks that put on um campaign ads that talk about how they support veterans, but do they do anything? pencil away from um just recently um I stopped at the Veterans Dropin Center on Kishwalki Street in Rockford, Illinois. Um fantastic place.
▶ 6:06:00Um it's a place of community. Um I got to talk to vets um because it's that one place where they go and there will be a meal provided. And for many veterans who have served our country, it's the only meal that they get in that one day. I want you to think about that for a minute. Is there a veterans dropin center in your district? Have you been there?
▶ 6:06:27Have you talked to veterans who get one meal a day? How could anyone be against this Especially if anybody is going to run an ad to say they support our veterans. And look, let me be clear. This is exactly what the what this amendment says.
▶ 6:06:48This bill will not result in reduced participation for veterans or surviving spouses or children of service members or veterans who died during active duty or due to service related disability. How can anyone vote against this amendment and say that you support veterans? Seriously.
▶ 6:07:14And if you are a veteran, even more so, because then you're betraying the people that fought alongside of you, you can nod your head all you want, sir, but this is on you. When you vote against veterans, it's going to be on you. I yield the balance of my time to either the ranking member or to the gentleman um whose amendment I am so graciously going to um vote yes to. Ranking members recognized.
▶ 6:07:47Thank you. I This has been a robust debate. I want to sincerely thank U. Mr. Scott of Georgia for this amendment and for raising the issue that we are not serving the families of those who die for us in the way that we should be in this country.
▶ 6:08:08And that the product, the work product that has been presented to us not, you know, more than 48 hours ago does not support and in fact will result in fewer families, at least three million people in our nation having access to SNAP. Mr. Scott, thank you for your leadership here this afternoon. And with that, I yield back to Mr. Sornson.
▶ 6:08:38Mr. Sornson. I yield, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Gentlemen yields back. Any other members seeking to uh recognition to speak on Mr. Scott's amendment number 17. Seeing none, I'll just finish up briefly. I made most my comments already.
▶ 6:08:59This amendment will put the committee under its reconciliation instruction uh risking a tax height for all Americans next year, including those brave souls who have worn the uniform and served our nation in the military. And I urge a no vote on the amendment. The question is on amendment number 17 offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. All in favor signifi signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay.
▶ 6:09:28And depending of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Okay. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. Very good. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And uh uh Miss uh Mlan Delaney has a an amendment at the desk number 22.
▶ 6:09:56And I'd ask the clerk to report the title of the Amendment number 22 offered by Mrs. Mlan Delaney of Maryland. Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. And now recognize the distinguished gentle lady. Sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:10:16Uh, my amendment seeks to block the SNAP cuts in this bill unless USDA and all the states certify that the changes in this bill to SNAP recipients won't hurt households with children. In Maryland's sixth district, 33,000 households and over 76,000 people depend on SNAP to feed their families each month. Half of these individuals are children, almost 40 almost 40,000 of them. The cuts in this bill would impact child food insecurity.
▶ 6:10:46And we all know this. If passed, the bill would be an 18 billion benefit cut for households with children. If passed, this bill would harm one in five children in America that depend on SNAP. If passed, this bill would force burdensome paperwork requirements on parents with children over the age of seven and older Americans, putting millions at risk of losing essential food assistance by making the program more difficult to navigate.
▶ 6:11:16No one would consider a seven-year-old child to not be dependent on their parent or guardian to provide them with food, shelter, or other necessities. We heard about that for a lot of debate uh earlier this morning and we can't let that happen. SNAP just doesn't hurt children today. It jeopardizes their future. This bill prioritizes partisan ideology over the needs of the community and our children will pay the price. I have one story about Heidi.
▶ 6:11:44She's a constituent from my district, Walkersville. Heidi used to be a SNAP user when her kids were young. Uh she speaks to the fact that when her kids were young, she needed SNAP so that her kids could eat. With it, she was able to navigate it and to be able to step forward with the long-term benefits she needed.
▶ 6:12:12I would ask uh that my colleagues step forward with me and use this amendment to fight back against um harm against our children. I yield back. Gentlely yields back. Other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment. Mr. McGovern, you know, I I want to rise in strong support of the MLAN Delaney amendment. Um, let me just say to my colleagues that there are many costs to hunger.
▶ 6:12:41Uh, and it's especially cruel to children. If children are hungry and they go to school, they don't learn. Uh, if children don't get access to decent nutrition, uh, they will develop health problems, oftentimes leading to chronic illnesses that they'll have to deal with uh, through their adult lives. Uh, you know, we we like to say around here that uh our kids are 100% of our future. I really believe that.
▶ 6:13:11And if you believe that, too, then you'll support the MLAN Delaney amendment. Um, I mean, think about what we're doing here. Uh we're we're considering this reconciliation package, which is more concerned about cutting SNAP benefits uh to fund tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than it is about making sure all of our children have access to adequate nutrition or that all of our veterans have access to adequate nutrition.
▶ 6:13:41We're more concerned about cutting this program to fund tax cuts for the welloff and the well-connected, the richest people on the planet. Uh that that is where our focus is. And I I find that um unconscionable. Uh all this says here is that we're not going to support um any benefit cuts to families with children.
▶ 6:14:05Um, I would like, again, I I I I would like to think that this would be a unanimous vote, but we can't we don't seem to have a unanimous vote when it comes to protecting veterans. Uh, but I would like to think that maybe when it comes to children, that my Republican colleagues can join us um in supporting this amendment. Again, you know, our kids are 100% of our future. Uh, if kids go without food, go without adequate nutrition, there are costs into the future. Um, and we need to appreciate that.
▶ 6:14:36And with that, I uh will yield back my time. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on amendment number 22 by Mrs. Mlan Delaney? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Costa is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I support this amendment for some of the same reasons that uh my colleagues have just articulated.
▶ 6:14:59Um and you know we all draw upon experiences uh clearly uh during the pandemic we we found out uh with schools um limited uh how it impacted a lot of our kids. Teaching remotely is is challenging enough but teaching hungry kids uh good luck. The school lunch and school breakfast programs provide a big support in that.
▶ 6:15:25But just families being able to provide who are food insecure food on that dinner table every night is something that I believe we should all uh support. Uh let me just anecdotally share an experience that was a lesson in life that I learned. Um uh when I was at university, I decided to join Big Brothers and Big Sisters to help out some kids and and I must say I learned a lot more from that experience than perhaps I gave.
▶ 6:15:54Uh, Philip Yansy was um, my little brother and he was 15 years old and he lived in the projects. And um, we would get together three or four hours a week, usually on Saturdays, have lunch, do something that was was fun and and good for both of us. And this one day he was extremely hungry and and and he was on his second cheeseburger. And I said, "Gee, Philip, you're really hungry today. A 15-y old kid. I mean, what do you expect?" And he says, he looked down at the shoelaces.
▶ 6:16:23He says, "Well, Thursday, uh, we ran out of food stamps and I had a potato yesterday." Uh, when you realize people that are are dependent upon, uh, this program to provide at least one good meal a day, uh, if not more. Um, it's it it brings it all home.
▶ 6:16:44And uh so I just think we need to remember that uh there are millions and millions of Americans and a lot of kids a lot of kids that um you know without uh this program um would would would have terrible terrible problems beyond what they current currently are dealing with. So I support this effort.
▶ 6:17:09I think that uh we need to do better uh in this country and uh we need to look on how we can work together in a bipartisan effort to eliminate uh food hunger in this country. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Now recognized gentle lady from Ohio, Congresswoman Brown. Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:17:29I just uh want to say that um I strongly support uh the MLAN Delaney uh amendment which prohibits the implementation of SNAP cuts until USDA and all states evaluate and confirm there will be no benefit or eligibility changes to households with children which has seemed to been the declaration on the other side of the aisle already. So, this just seems to make sense because it will hold people accountable.
▶ 6:17:59This bill is about the future. We know, studies have shown children who eat healthy diets do better in school, live healthier lives, and those things are the things that help break poverty cycles, which is something our colleagues say they want to do.
▶ 6:18:19We've had firsthand um testimonies from people on both sides of the aisle about the power of SNAP and how the programs help to put food on their tables. So, this amendment makes sure that children have the same chance that some of us in this very room had to make an impact on the world like we have been able to do today.
▶ 6:18:45So I would just respectfully request that we support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Gentle yields back. Please recognize gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, for five minutes. Thank you. I rise in support of this amendment because once again, changes to SNAP and SNAP eligibility will not only impact children outside of school, but it will also impact them in school.
▶ 6:19:16I've I mean many people know that I came from a public school district. I understand how eligibility for free and reduced school lunches works. not from a committee position, not as a member of Congress, but as someone who was directly impacted from when we went from collecting those forms to when schools could seek reimbursement through C or community eligibility provisions.
▶ 6:19:43Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid would reduce the number of families receiving benefits and will negatively impact school meals. Children on SNAP are directly certified for free school meals and most states use Medicaid and H house household income data to directly certify students for free and reduced school meal prices. If we reduce the number of families who are eligible for SNAP, the children will lose direct access to school meals and end up falling through the cracks.
▶ 6:20:10In addition, fewer schools will be able to apply for federal reimbursement through the community eligibility provision that I that I was just referring to. So, kids will lose benefits. There's no other way around it, not only at home, but also in school. This would make it financially challenging.
▶ 6:20:32I was in the classroom long enough that to know that before it changed, you know, tracking down kids to reertify and get this paperwork filled out over and over again, it the community eligibility provision said that once they were certified for SNAP, they were automatically eligible for meals at school. So, kids will suffer.
▶ 6:20:56And by decreasing the numbers of children who are eligible, we're increasing hunger amongst children. There's no other way around it. I support this provision. I mean, most of our conversations have been or I guess the attacks on the program have been about making sure that able-bodied individuals without dependence are not taking advantage of the system.
▶ 6:21:23This clearly does not fall in that category. So we should be able to agree that we want to protect children who receive food assistance because it is a need. They are not gaming the system. They are not trying to get a workaround. And and also one other thing I' I'd like to address because we keep hearing it over and over about the error rates.
▶ 6:21:46I think we do need to address the error rates and much of this is from the co area era when uh provisions were relaxed in order to make sure people were eating in a time of crisis. There was more people who were seeking assistance than we had seen in the past and literally states were just trying to keep up with with the volume at that time.
▶ 6:22:12So yes, we need to return to, you know, regular order and get back to a system by which we can certify people, make sure that we are checking for eligibility, eligibility and eliminating fraud. But again, this does not include children. So, I urge support for the amendment by my colleague and literally just some grace in protecting our children and making sure that they they eat both in school and at home.
▶ 6:22:42With that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Other members are seeking um recognition to to speak on uh amendment number 22. Seeing none, um, let me, um, weigh in on this. There there is growing academic evidence that growing up around adults who work is crucial for a child shot at upward mobility.
▶ 6:23:10Uh, this text ensures the shot at the American dream becomes a reality for more children growing up uh, on SNAP. It is important that parents and caretakers whose kids are in school and who can work do work. Um the totality of the reforms in this bill will preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the program moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us including children.
▶ 6:23:39I urge a no vote on the amendment. So the question is uh on the amendment number 22 offered by representative Mlan Delaney. Uh all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
▶ 6:24:06Chair, may I ask for a recorded Uh a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be And uh now we I think m Miss Mlan Delaney, you have a another amendment at the desk number 23.
▶ 6:24:29And uh the clerk will report the Amendment number 23 offered by Mrs. Mlan Delaney of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer another amendment. Uh well, give me just a second. Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. And now I recognize distinguished gentle lady, sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of your amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:24:56Amendment 23 blocks the dangerous state cost shift provisions in this bill unless USDA states assert that cuts will not, I repeat, not result in benefit cuts, reduce SNAP participation from eligible recipients, or reduce services to lowincome families. The bill imposes an unfunded mandate on states and cuts food assistance for our most vulnerable Americans.
▶ 6:25:22Shifting SNAP cuts onto states would directly reduce benefits for 16 million children, 8 million seniors, and four million people with disabilities who rely on SNAP each day. Under the cost share provisions of this reconciliation, my home state of Maryland would be required to absorb uh absorb almost 75 million per year if our state did not want our SNAP families to go hungry.
▶ 6:25:46That means that 75 million of Maryland's state funding would be reallocated for other critical and core programs for our lowincome families. The pain won't stop there. These requirements will force states to raise taxes, cut essential local services, and kick people off benefits. Even my colleagues know this is a step too far.
▶ 6:26:10Republicans have even expressed concern that these cost shifts will lead to benefit cuts disproportionately harming our rural communities. In fact, my colleagues earlier referenced this morning that 23 governors, both Republicans and Democrats, who say that their states can simply not backfill these cuts and that there is also another tsunami of cuts in Medicaid and social safety net programs. It is misguided to assume that states will simply make up for these massive cuts with their own resources.
▶ 6:26:39These these provisions are not just a cost shift, they are quite frankly a direct cut to SNAP. Maryland, like almost all states in this country, have skin in the game. This is not This is just another excuse to take food assistance away so that there can be tax breaks for our most wealthy. And unfortunately, it's our most vulnerable families who will ultimately pay the price. I strongly, strongly urge support for this amendment. And I yield back.
▶ 6:27:10Gentle yields back. Uh any other members seeking recognition? Mr. Carbajal. Uh is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of Representative Mlan Delane's amendment. Having served served in local government, I have a unique perspective as to the impacts that this will cause to state and local government.
▶ 6:27:34Not only are my Republican colleagues cutting SNAP, but they are also creating an unfunded mandate for state and local governments. These cuts are promoting unrealistic funding levels for state and local government. Knowing that this would hurt the small rural counties the most, increasing states costs for SNAP administrative expenses from 50 to 75%.
▶ 6:27:59Is absolutely not feasible and it would reduce SNAP participation. Let's call this what it is. It's a cut to SNAP. In areas of my district like Santa Barbara County, nearly 70,000 people are living in the poverty, which is one of the highest poverty rates in California. That's 70,000 people who can benefit from food programs like SNAP. I support Miss Delane's amendment.
▶ 6:28:30If USDA can come up with a report study that proves that state costs share proposals don't reduce SNAP participation, I like the American people would love to see it. States and counties already pay millions of dollars towards the existing 50% administrative cost share for SNAP. Let's stop these charades and smoke and mirrors on trying to hide these drastic cuts to SNAP.
▶ 6:29:00Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman yields back. Other members seek recognition to speak on amendment number 23. Any other members? Seeing none, I'll weigh in. Um, unlike every other state administered entitlement program such as Medicaid, SNAP benefits are entirely federally funded. Um, the status quo is not working.
▶ 6:29:26Federal spending on SNAP has grown by more than 80% since 2019 and 12% of all SNAP benefits are issued incorrectly, more than double the level in 2019. This is an unacceptable and does the most harm to vulnerable Americans that this program was meant to serve.
▶ 6:29:46The time has come to impose clear incentives for states to improve their service to SNAP participants and the only way for that to occur is for them to have some level of skin in the game on benefit expenditures. I urge a no vote on the amendment. The question is on uh the MLAN Delaney amendment number 23. Um, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay.
▶ 6:30:15Independent of the chair. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for a recorded vote, please. The recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee 31i. Uh, further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And now we have uh uh Mrs. Pingry uh has a an amendment at the desk number seven.
▶ 6:30:42And the uh uh the clerk will report the title of the uh of the amendment. Amendment number seven offered by Miss Pingry of Maine. Uh without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. And now recognize the distinguished gentle lady from Maine, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 6:31:13Um, so my amendment is very simple. It would restore the funding for the local food purchase assistance co-op program and the local food for schools cooperative agreement. Uh I have been on this committee on and off for much of the last 16 years and I have always been a strong supporter of purchasing food locally, buying from our local farmers, both for food banks and for our local schools. And that's what these two programs do. You know, during the pandemic, we had a hard lesson.
▶ 6:31:42We saw a lot of empty store shelves and we realized uh that we were way better off buying from the farmer down the road if you couldn't find it at your local grocery store. And in some ways, it was a silver lining that got us to think much more about how to support our local farmers. Um, and USDA has done just that. This program has supported thousands of farmers, boasted local and regional food systems, and kids and families really like it.
▶ 6:32:08People love to buy from their local farms, and kids in school, if there is something on their school lunch program that comes from a farmer down the road, they're even more excited to eat that apple or their carrot. We should not be trucking food like carrots and apples thousands of miles to reach the table when the farmer right up the road grows those very same foods.
▶ 6:32:28The quality is better and we know that this administration has talked about getting more healthy foods into people's diets through places like um school lunches and food banks. This is part of making America healthy again. And one way to make sure we're getting kids more food that is unprocessed or minimally processed food. The impact in Maine of this program has been huge. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of food are going through our local food bank.
▶ 6:32:54But this cancellation means that 500 to 600,000 pounds of fresh local produce is no longer purchased from our farmers or distributed to food insecure people. This means the end of contracts right in the middle of the contracts to farmers like Dan at Forkllor Farm in Cherryfield, Maine, or the Milkhouse Dairy that supplied fresh fruits and vegetables or with the Milkhouse Dairy, it was yogurt. And this is true in many other states, not just Maine, that benefited.
▶ 6:33:21Iowa purchased food for more than 300 individual farmers, losing $19 million in economic activity when these programs were cancelled. North Carolina 350 farmers losing $54 million in economic activity when these programs were abruptly cancelled. Texas purchased from 200 producers losing $185 million in economic activity in Wisconsin 300 farms losing 32 million in economic activity.
▶ 6:33:49And these programs were terminated. They stopped suddenly. The farmers lost the contracts. In a state like Maine, many of these farmers had uh anticipated this. They had set aside food in storage to make sure they could do this or they were growing food in their winter green houses at the time. And our school lunch programs and food banks were harmed. Uh people lost out on healthy fresh foods.
▶ 6:34:15Overall, this has been about $200 million in new direct food purchases that is now lost. $747 million in activity in our rural economies. In the end, this is 8,000 rural farmers and ranchers who were cut out from their contracts with the USDA. Not only did we lose those contracts, but these were new markets for them and relationships between those food banks and the schools.
▶ 6:34:42That's taken a long time to develop and now those are cut overnight. For many of our schools, they can't replace those funds. They have limited amount of money for their school lunch programs. Most of them have been desperate for a long time to get more fresh and healthy food in their lunches and are losing this vital source. We've had the school lunch directors come to visit our office and they've talked about how vital and important this food has been.
▶ 6:35:06And as I have said before about what happens when you make these cuts, you know, our schools get a big percentage of their funding from the local property taxes. So, if the parents and the schools want to make sure that this food still comes in, and the schools say, "Well, we've got a strain for school budget uh to manage this year and we want to add more fresh and healthy foods, this is just going to be that much more uh strain that we put on either our state budgets or our local property taxes." We've
▶ 6:35:36talked a little bit on this committee about how we're the agriculture committee. And while there's been a lot of belly aching about why are we talking about nutrition today, this amendment actually talks about those two vital things. How do we get healthier food, better nutrition into those families that need it, whether it's from a local food bank or from a school lunch program? And how do we make sure those purchases come from the farmers in our state, the farmers down the road, the farmers that can use uh one more contract to help them make ends meet.
▶ 6:36:05I hope you will support this amendment and we will restate these two very vital programs and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. She yields back. Other members seek recognition to speak. Mrs. Tuba is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak in strong support of Rep. Pingre's amendment to reinstate the local food purchase assistance and local food for schools programs. Two extremely successful initiatives that strengthen our food system at its roots. Let's be clear.
▶ 6:36:33Hunger in America is not a food production issue. It's a logistical issue. People go hungry not because we don't grow enough, but because we fail to get food where it's needed. LFPA and LFS fixed that, connecting local farmers directly to schools, child care centers, and food banks. This wasn't a handout. It was smart policy. These programs made food supply chains more resilient, gave producers new market, and put fresh, healthy foods on the plates of the kids who need it most.
▶ 6:37:02And yet, the administration canled them. Why? Because, in their words, they no longer effectuate the goals of this agency. Really, if feeding children and supporting American farmers, giving them access to stable markets like schools and food banks so they can grow more crops and hire more employees isn't a part of USDA's mission, then what is the fallout is already hitting home. Louisiana will lose over $18 million.
▶ 6:37:32One rancher in Ville Plate lost 380,000 in expected school sales. A North Dakota food bank lost 1 million it used to buy from local producers. In Ohio, a chicken farmer who launched his business with LFPA support is now in limbo. In Kentucky, a farmer is ready to trash his hydroponic lettuce grown for local schools now with nowhere to go. And in Hawaii, $1.2 million gone.
▶ 6:37:59Produce meant for 128,000 students not going to feed our hungry kei. In a state like mine that imports 90% of its food, these programs are lifelines, not luxuries. They're about food security, affordability, and keeping our producers in business. In addition to the Trump administration's $1 billion cut to local food programs across the nation, another $500 million in food bank funding, including $2.3 million for Hawaii, has been terminated.
▶ 6:38:30Seven shipping containers full of healthy food, eggs, chicken, pulled pork, proteins, real food, cancelled. That food never reached our islands. That food didn't get to the 171,000 people each month that our Hawaii food bank serve. From Kiki to Capuna, they remain hungry. This is wasteful. This is shortsighted and it's plain cruel. Cancel these these programs didn't just take food off of plates.
▶ 6:39:00It pulled the rug right under our farmers and ranchers across this country. This amendment is a step forward towards fixing this mistake. I thank Rep. Pingry for her leadership and I strongly urge my colleagues to join in supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Gentle A. Thank you, General A. Shields back. Other members will seek recognition to speak on the amendment. I recognize the gentle lady from Kansas for 5 minutes. Thank you, chairman.
▶ 6:39:30Uh I I'm would love to uh offer up my support for this amendment. Uh this is a program that I can tell you has absolutely benefited us in the Kansas third and the entire Kansas City metro area, particularly after we saw the impacts on our supply chains during the pandemic.
▶ 6:39:52I've had plenty of meetings and had the chance to even tour uh some of the farms where uh folks lost some of these contracts. I have met with uh school superintendent and um and the uh folks who feed the children at schools about the impact that losing these contracts has had.
▶ 6:40:15And I can tell you that in addition to feeding kids um and providing some of our some of our struggling farmers with the contracts they need to stay afloat. We've also seen uh the added benefit of just helping our young people understand where their food comes from.
▶ 6:40:35One of the things that uh I certainly have had plenty of conversations with our uh farmers, ranchers, and producers um and even our uh 4 clubs and um future farmers of America is how many people in this country actually are not familiar with where their food comes from. And uh that might not be a stated purpose, but it's certainly one of the things that I have found very heartening and encouraging about the program.
▶ 6:41:04Uh, I again would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It makes sense not just uh not just for the feel-good stuff, but also because it really is going to help keep uh some of our farmers, producers, and um and our kids uh as healthy and thriving as possible. Thank you. And I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 6:41:27Any other members that seek recognition to speak on uh Pingri amendment number seven? If not, let me speak on this. This amendment actually has some flaws in it. Um which is quite frankly I'm surprised with Mrs. Pengri. Um the uh the local food for schools program is not in our jurisdiction.
▶ 6:41:51uh that is education and workforce because it's part of the school nutrition program is administered by UD US USDA but not not our program. The other program clearly is the local food purchase assistance cooperative agreement uh program um and that that is a COVID era program uh that were unauthorized and and never meant to be permanent. Um um I certainly see some value in it.
▶ 6:42:21uh but it was never meant to be permanent and and it is unauthorized. Uh the bid administration created on sustainable programming expectations using again the commodity credit corporation. uh USDA continues to purchase food for TFAP and for distribution in uh uh in those nutrition programs, the child nutrition program, but also certainly our food banks, food pantries u u under u uh the emergency food assistance program.
▶ 6:42:52This amendment would also put the committees below its reconciliation instruction at this point, risking a tax hike for all Americans next year. Um certainly would like to work with you going forward in the future uh on the area we have jurisdiction for, but I have to at this point urge a no vote on the amendment. Um given uh hearing no uh further conversation or questions on the amendment, uh number seven, Pengri.
▶ 6:43:20Um all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay. And the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. An amendment is not agreed to. Recorded vote, Mr. Chair. And a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 32. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And now we have uh Mr. Figures has an amendment at the desk. Uh amendment number eight.
▶ 6:43:50And uh the U clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number eight offered by Mr. Figures of Alabama. Uh, Mr. Figures uh is uh um where are I now recognize the distinguished gentleman uh the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes. Uh and without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Uh Mr.
▶ 6:44:19Figures, you are recognized for five minutes to explain your amendment. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh I hail from Alabama. Uh I think as everybody on this on this committee knows and my district although 70% of the people live in two places uh 11 out of the 13 counties in my district are completely rural counties. They are places that unless you are from Alabama like Mr. Moore over there. Most of you probably have never heard of many of the cities um in my district outside of Mobile Montgomery maybe Tuskegee and Troy.
▶ 6:44:49that these are cities like Pritchard and Union Springs and Leroy and Beatatric and Castleberry and Shorter and Brundage and Clayton uh which is actually the home of Michael Jackson's mother uh believe it or not. Um but very small places, very uh very impoverished places, places I could take you where you would not believe the level of rural poverty uh that you would witness.
▶ 6:45:11Uh and so this amendment has the purpose of ensuring that the proposed changes to SNAP do not reduce benefits or participation uh to individuals located in those areas because our rural areas are often overlooked. Uh but they're also the backbone of this nation. They grow our food. They power our industries. They fuel our economies. Uh this country has historically pulled the human resources from rural communities as well as those people born and raised in those communities very often leave and come to the bigger urban communities um to support those economies.
▶ 6:45:40But there are unique challenges in our rural communities. Higher transportation costs, fewer job opportunities, and limited access to healthcare and social services. And so these challenges make the safety net of uh the SNAP program uh even more essential. And this amendment is about ensuring uh fairness and accountability. It simply says that before any matching funds uh requirement takes effect, we must be certain that it won't harm the very communities uh that need it most uh our rural communities.
▶ 6:46:06And so we must guarantee that no eligible rural American sees their benefits cut uh or the participation in the program uh reduced. And why is this so critical? It's because rural hunger is a it's not an abstract uh policy discussion. It's very real. It's very real, especially in district 2 uh in Alabama. This is one of the poorest congressional districts in this country. Uh the individual median income uh in my district hovers just around $30,000.
▶ 6:46:34And so we're talking poverty at levels that most of us in here cannot comprehend. And so, you know, this is a harsh daily reality for millions of Americans. Um, and cutting these benefits without careful consideration would deepen food insecurity, harm local economies, and strain an already overly burdened charity and food bank system. So, this amendment demands that USDA and the Food Nutrition Service work with state agencies to evaluate the impact of these changes before they are implemented.
▶ 6:47:00It's about ensuring our rural communities do not become collateral damage uh in this political budget battle. Uh these communities are already at a heightened uh threat given the the fact that they are often targeted in the uh card skimming uh schemes that we see deployed across this country and families who allowing these benefits cannot afford to continue to have these benefits stolen especially in states that don't have the capacity uh to replace those stolen benefits.
▶ 6:47:27And so I urge my colleagues uh to support this amendment um as it is a measure of good governance and and just the right thing to do. And you know supporting rural communities is not something that I that I take lightly. It's something that I've prioritized since I've been here. Uh just last week I introduced a bipartisan bill focused exclusively on rural communities and rural hospitals. U my district is one of the worst healthcare outcome districts in this country as well.
▶ 6:47:52Uh the state of Alabama is at risk right now of half, literally half, almost 50% of its rural hospitals uh are at immediate risk of closure. Uh and so I introduced a bipartisan bill just last week with Representative Brian Jack on the Republican side that's aimed at um you know providing the resources that are necessary to keep our rural hospitals open because our rural communities need us and the people that live there need us. We cannot afford to turn our back on them and they cannot afford us to do that.
▶ 6:48:22uh to them. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Who else seeks recognition to speak on the gentleman's amendment? Miss figures of number eight amendment. Mr. McGovern. Yeah. I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Um look, uh the fact is that this administration has slashed program after program that helps people in urban areas and in rural areas get access to nutritious food.
▶ 6:48:49Um, and we are now meeting uh on a bill that uh constitutes the largest cut to SNAP in history. Uh, and while you're at it, uh, in other committees, you're also kicking people off their health care by way of massive cuts to Medicaid. Uh, so uh, you know, I please listen to regular people in your districts. They're scared to death about what these cuts will mean. They don't know how they'll get access to food. Uh, and many are scared they won't have healthcare.
▶ 6:49:18uh you know and all of this really to give uh the billionaire cabinet uh and those that they hang around with in this administration another another tax cut. We heard during previous debates on various amendments about the special challenges that people have in rural areas. Often times there are no supermarkets uh available. Oftentimes the food is more expensive. Often time access to health care is more expensive.
▶ 6:49:45Uh and again, when all is said and done, we're talking about a benefit that is like on average of $6 a day. I mean, that's it. Uh and so, uh Mr. Figur's amendment seems reasonable to me. Again, given the unique challenges that rural communities face, I think this is the least we can do. Again, I um you know, we're talking about food.
▶ 6:50:12We're talking about food and and I I I can't get over the fact that, you know, SNAP is on the chopping block to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. That's what this reconciliation process is all about.
▶ 6:50:28Um and so you know guaranteeing that because of this crazy state share cost share scheme uh that uh people don't get their benefits cut because states can't meet the cost share by the way and in some states it's over a billion dollars they're going to have to come up with it was now lots of luck selling that to your governors to your state legislators. Um, I think this is the least we can do. And again, I thank the gentleman for offering the the amendment.
▶ 6:50:57Um, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Um, other individuals seek recognition to speak on uh this amendment number eight by Mr. Figures from Alabama. Any others? If not, um, I'll just finish up.
▶ 6:51:23Unlike every other state administered entitlement program such as uh, SNAP benefits are entirely federally funded. The status quo is not working. Federal spending on SNAP has grown by more than 80% since 2019, and 12% of all SNAP benefits are used incorrectly, more than double the level in 2019. This is unacceptable and does the most harm to vulnerable Americans this program was meant to serve.
▶ 6:51:49The time has come to impose clear incentives for states to improve their service to snap benefits. And the only way for that to occur is for them to have some level of skin or responsibility in the game on benefit expenditures. And I urge a no vote on the amendment. So the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Figures of Alabama, amendment number nine.
▶ 6:52:15Um uh all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. I. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. And the amendment is not agreed to. Request a recorded vote. Mr. Chair, u a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed.
▶ 6:52:38Um, and I believe what the ranking member told me that that was the last uh last amendment under uh um this particular section. I don't think so. No. sir. I I have to Well, that was in you might have disagree. I'm just saying that the um that was the uh that was the information that was given to me unless unless I'm sorry Mr.
▶ 6:53:08Riley Mr. Riley has amendment number two and so uh the clerk will report the title of amendment number two. Amendment number two offered by Mr. Riley of New York. Um Mr. Riley, you're recognized for uh five minutes to uh speak on the nature of your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and sorry if we got your hopes up that that was the end of the end of the road. I was hopeful. You got that right. We're close, though.
▶ 6:53:37Yeah, we'll see. Um so, I've been spending a lot of time over the last couple months, uh since I got elected at the food banks and the food pantries across my district in upstate New York. And uh what we're seeing I started going uh in December I went to the food pantry uh at Union Endicott High School, my alma mater. Uh two weeks ago I was uh volunteering at a a food pantry in Olter County.
▶ 6:54:05And what you see over the course of time or what I've been seeing at least in my district over the course of time as you go to these food pantries is the lines are getting longer. there's less uh food on the shelves, especially uh fresh produce is harder to come by.
▶ 6:54:23And what struck me the most in all these visits is just seeing how hard people are working to take care of each other in their communities, the folks who are running these food pantries and putting so much sweat and sacrifice into feeding their neighbors. And so the amendment that I'm offering today, I'm doing it I'm doing it for them. the folks who have hosted me at these food pantries and shown me all the hard work that's gone into it.
▶ 6:54:49This is for um for Scott Andrews and Neva Wartell and Reverend Yoast hosted me at the Catskill Food Pantry. Uh the Good Neighbor Food Pantry in Olter County, Rick Orlando, Peter Humphre let me uh load a bunch of food into into a car uh for them at the UEE food center and the food bank of the southern tier. I know Sarah Defrank is watching this entire uh proceeding. Tom Mitchell is doing such great work to feed 180 kids per week at Union High School.
▶ 6:55:17At Sunni Delh High, they have a food pantry that's run by the Okconor Center. Uh spent some time a couple weeks ago in Monaceel at Catholic Charities with with Shannon Kelly. Uh the Sullivan Allies leading together um with uh Colleen and Martin uh doing so much hard work there. And what this amendment would do for them and do for our communities is it would reinstate the the local food purchasing assistance cooperative agreement. I know we just uh spoke about this uh a bit.
▶ 6:55:45Um this is a really good common sense program. I know a lot of the stuff we've been talking about here in this committee over the last uh last night and today there's a lot of disagreement, but this is one thing that I really think we can probably try to find some common ground on. Uh this program is so good for hungry families in our community because it gives them access to really good fresh local food.
▶ 6:56:10It's like my colleague said, we shouldn't be trucking food halfway across the country to upstate New York when we got farmers working hard and making it available there. I actually think this is a great program for taxpayers. The return on investment here I think is substantial. Uh Mr. Chairman, I was so heartened to hear your response to the uh amendment that was offered previously that you said you see the value in this. I think maybe we all do. Uh it also creates a really important market for our small family farms.
▶ 6:56:38It is so hard for folks to compete these days and this gives them a market and an opportunity. And so look, I came here to Congress uh not for the food fights and and all this stuff. I really genuinely came here to get stuff done. Um, I want to work across the aisle and get stuff done on the places where we can agree. I know there's there's passionate disagreement on a lot of things and that's fine. That's democracy. That's the way it should be. But let's not lose sight of the stuff that we can agree on.
▶ 6:57:09And I take that perspective as an upstate New Yorker where we don't really care so much about political parties. What we look at is doing right by our neighbors. And I think this is an issue having local farmers provide local schools to local local food pantries for our neighbors. That's got to be something that transcends partisan lines. And so, um, what I would like to do, I I was going to offer this amendment for a vote.
▶ 6:57:36I I would love to take some of my colleagues up on their interest in this and I would withdraw the amendment if anybody here today wanted to uh work with me and work with some of my colleagues to see if this isn't something that we could get done in the spirit of bipartisanship and demonstrating to the American people that yeah, we disagree on a lot of stuff here, but this is one we can get done uh together. And so I just invite my colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship. If you all want to do this together, uh I I'll withdraw my amendment and and let's get to work and get this done for upstate New York.
▶ 6:58:07Anybody want to take me up on it? Well, Mr. Ters, um if you uh we get 27 seconds, you can either Mr. Nun is looking to be recognized. Um I think he I don't know for sure whether he has interest in that, but um see maybe Well, now you put him on the spot. So, so if uh yeah, I'll yield if that's if the gentleman yields. Mr. Non. Yeah. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I really want to compliment Mr.
▶ 6:58:36Riley uh coming in as a freshman talking about pragmatic ways that we can really get after food insecurity that impacts the entire country and ways that we can be smart about this. Like you, um I've worked very closely with our food banks in Iowa. But we recently led legislation to help ensure innovative ways that in a rural community like mine in Iowa, we can team up with ride share programs to do food distribution to communities that need it that would otherwise never have access to it.
▶ 6:59:06This impacts kids. It impacts first generation Americans. It impacts seniors. It impacts juniors. It impacts everybody. And the reality is we've got great partnerships both on our private sector side, our nonprofit side, our faith-based organizations. It would be expected by our own taxpayers that we find smart solutions to make sure that these programs can not only continue to subsist, but to really thrive in these areas.
▶ 6:59:35Um, you know, our kiddos do something. Uh, we've got six kids, uh, two of them adopted here. What we can do back to the community is volunteer. What we can do in our community and what our girls do is that they, you know, take food out to homeless on their bicycles on the weekend with a group called Japa or with Demar in De Moines to help make sure that we have regional networks that are working together. The exact things that you're doing through the local food purchase assistance cooperative. You know, in Iowa, we just call that farming.
▶ 7:00:05in New York. Uh that's something even more exciting because it means that you're training that next generation of farmers and growers and producers as well. And that can be everything from a local farmers market to uh folks that want to be able to do this in a sustainable future for their community. So I want to salute you on this. This is I think a area where there is great bipartisan opportunity and say even though we're withdrawing the amendment, the legislation can continue to go forward and we can do it in a policy way. U so with that uh Mr. Chair, I would yield my time back but thank Mr.
▶ 7:00:34for Riley for his efforts on this. Get Mr. Riley is once again recognized. Thank you. I'm going to I'm going to take that as a yes. And I'll also say upstate upstate New York when you're talking about farming in New York. Upstate New York is not where you're thinking about is like New York. So when you come visit, we we'll we'll tell you. We call them farmers markets. You call them bodeas. So yeah, we'll be all together. Not upstate. Not upstate. Uh thank you. Uh do can I yield time to Mr. President? Actually, M it's Mr. Nun's time. He could Mr.
▶ 7:01:02With that, I'd uh yield my time to Mr. Rejov. Thank you. Mr. Brnahan is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is something that uh sur first recently surfaced a few months ago and uh appreciate the opportunity to work in a a bipartisan fashion. It's something that our team has started working on um over the last few weeks and I think it's really important to draft bipartisan bill and connect our local communities with the farmers and communities that grow it. So, I really look forward to the opportunity of working together.
▶ 7:01:30I is there Mr. Nun main time is yours. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would yield as much time as may exist to Mr. Messer. Uh, thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Representative Nun. Um, I've got some of the largest produce growers in the country in my district, and I'd be interested in in some solutions to to help make this workable as well. Thank you. Yield my time back. Mr. We're going to find you some more co-sponsors here.
▶ 7:01:59Is there anyone else that'd like to speak on this very important issue? right, Mr. Figures from Alabama. This is an issue that hit Alabama uniquely as it did a lot of communities. We lost 16 million um in the state of Alabama. At least nearly um three of that was in my district that we've been able to uh actually identify. And so this is something Jo or Congressman Riley that I want to work with you uh want to work with you on because we need it.
▶ 7:02:28And this is this is look this is just one of those areas where we have to you know remind you know I asked the questions last night you know um you know where are you from and who are you doing this for? And we're all from where we're from. We're from our hometowns and we're doing this for the people that sent us here in the communities that need us. And this is one of those areas where we have to push back against whatever administration it is that takes an action like this that has such a local direct economical impact on people. I've heard from Democrats.
▶ 7:02:56I've heard from if you could draw a picture of your most maga stereotypical person has come to my office to talk about the loss of revenue from this program. And we've we've heard about it from school districts. We've heard about it from farmers. This is something that never should have happened. And I think we all have an obligation and we owe it to our communities and our constituents locally to make sure that we work with Mr. Riley to uh to restore this funding. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Figures. I yield my time to Mr. Bacon from Nebraska.
▶ 7:03:26I'll say real briefly this is an important program. I look forward to being part of the team. Mrs. Pingry is looking for time. Mr. Nun, if you want to yield. Otherwise, I'll recognize her for five minutes. Yep. Who else want to speak? Sorry. Hey, Miss Hayes. Okay. Hey, Miss Miss Pineigree, did you want to speak on this? Okay. All right. Hey, fair enough. Uh, Mr. Riley, I think we've got you at least five co-sponsors here. Thank you for taking the lead on it. With that, I yield my time to the chair. Mr.
▶ 7:03:55Nun yields back. Mrs. Pengry is recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you uh, uh, thank you, Mr. Riley for uh sponsoring this amendment and continuing the conversation that we uh started in the amendment previously.
▶ 7:04:13Um and thank you to all of my Republican colleagues who have shown their support and interest for this opportunity to support local farming to get that um uh to get that food in our food pantries.
▶ 7:04:27And while I know the chair brought up some jurisdictional issues about uh the school lunch program and how these things get funded, which is way more complicated than it should be, um as the chair mentioned, this was originally funded via the CCC, which is one of the reasons why we don't have the funding back there again. So, it is actually under our jurisdiction that the funding came through us and uh it's appropriate for us to talk about.
▶ 7:04:51So, I'm thrilled to hear colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that they believe in the idea of buying more food locally, getting it into our food banks, that this is a good way to get fresh, healthy food um grown by our local farmers um into our local communities.
▶ 7:05:08But I just want to make a point and um plea with the chair that if there is this level of support and this amendment is going to be withdrawn and we're all going to try to find ways to work together cooperatively and and um co-sponsor bills like this um this is our vehicle. Uh we are very likely uh inserting sections of the farm bill into this particular reconciliation bill. We are doing major overhauls and changes to the SNAP benefit program.
▶ 7:05:37And I'm not fully confident that we'll have another funding or form bill uh right around the corner to work on these issues. So I would just want to plead with the chair uh that this should be given some very serious consideration and that it's not okay for all of us to sit in a hearing like this and just say yeah this is a good idea and this is important to my local farmers or colleagues who have said yeah people have been in my office talking to me about this.
▶ 7:06:03Um, I'll just uh mention that when I was home in April, uh, I had the opportunity to participate in a farmer's rally in Augusta, Maine. Uh, the farmers, uh, for the first time ever took their tractors and drove to Augusta, Maine, because they were so angry at the cuts that had made been made to the conservation programs, to their reap or equip benefits that they had been promised. Many cases, they had spent the money. Um, and then the reimbursement wasn't there.
▶ 7:06:32or they were told the funding wouldn't be there. And along with that frustration were the farmers who showed up because they said, "I was committed to this program. I grew carrots or apples or other things for this program and I have lost that contract. It's gone and I'm not getting it back." And as I said earlier, these are relationships that took a long time to work out, whether it was with our school lunch programs or our food banks.
▶ 7:06:55um finding the farmers, the farmers making the arrangements in some cases, uh planting more, uh setting aside more, um hiring staff, these are all things that have been dramatically changed and we have cases of this happening in states all over the country in all of our districts. So given the fact that this is a program that many of us supported, but this was a program when it was cut, it made the farmers angry enough that they drove their uh tractors to our state capital to say to anyone who would listen.
▶ 7:07:25And luckily I happened to be there that day. Um and they said, you know, take this back to Washington. let them know that we are really frustrated that this has broken a level of trust that we had between the USDA uh and uh this has also seriously undermined the profitability of our farms. We all know our farmers are struggling these days. It's hard to make ends meet inputs cost more than ever.
▶ 7:07:51Um and with the level of unpredictability, whether it's because of the tariffs or because of lack of USDA funding, uh they are in hard shape. So, uh, while I am thrilled to hear the number of people who have said this is a program they support, I know you have all heard from farmers the exact same things that we're hearing in our districts. I just want to plea with the chair that this is our opportunity.
▶ 7:08:15And if this can't be an amendment in this particular piece of legislation, then when will we have this opportunity again? And if we are um undermining the very farm bill process by doing what is going on in this committee hearing today, uh when will we have that opportunity to do it again? So u Mr. Chair, I don't know if you uh want my last 30 seconds to give us a really wonderful answer and a pep talk about how we're going to do this, but I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to you.
▶ 7:08:41uh the creation of this new program because it is not a program that's ever been authorized by Congress uh would put us in in peril of uh quite frankly uh u putting us below our reconciliation instructions that are required as part of budget reconciliation. Uh we many not everybody but many of us have been through budget reconciliation in the past.
▶ 7:09:03I have suffered through it when the when the my friends on the Democratic side were in front of everything and and obviously the Republicans are in that situation now. Um but I assure you I have interest in working on that program. Um I um had conversations with former Secretary Vilsac that the way to do programs is to do it in regular order and he chose not to do that. He went rogue with these great ideas but they weren't authorized.
▶ 7:09:33And so I I do as I mentioned on your amendment, I look forward to working with you and happy that we have so many other willing partners to be able to see what we can do going forward. Um I think what u this uh what remains of the farm bill to accomplish uh needs to be done in a timely manner. So I'm looking forward to uh um getting this reconciliation bill across the finish line.
▶ 7:09:59I know maybe you're not, but once that's done, it allows allows a great pivot uh to looking at what remains. And there important programs that remain that um were not included in uh um in budget reconciliation. So um uh Mr. Figers, you I mean you spoke on borrow time, but I want to see you had asked for five minutes on this. So are you good? Okay. Y back.
▶ 7:10:29All right, Miss Hayes. Thank you. Thank you. In March of 2025, the USDA announced the cancellation of the Patrick Lelay food to school grant program for fiscal year 2025, which would have provided $10 million to help schools and early and early care and education centers incorporate local food, nutrition education, and garden activities into their
▶ 7:11:00meal programs. This program is designed to increase the ava a availability of local foods in schools and help connect students to the sources of their food through education, taste tests, school gardens, uh field trips, and local food sourcing for school meals. I actually ran a program like that uh an afterchool program. It's called Brass City Harvest where we introduce kids to vegetables and growing.
▶ 7:11:25And one thing I remember very clearly is doing a whole lesson on starf fruit which many of my kids at this program had never seen. And I was amazed when I went to the local shop about a week later. The head of the produce, we just were talking and he says I asked if they had starf fruit there and he says why is everyone asking for starf fruit?
▶ 7:11:47And I just thought it was funny that these kids then went home, talked to their parents about the things that we were doing in this afterchool program and their parents were now requesting fruit at the grocery store. And I think that's what these programs do. This this is a common sense and effective program connecting students to healthier foods and education to learn where food comes from.
▶ 7:12:11In my district, New Britain Roots is an organization that promotes gardening, urban agriculture, food access, and education. And they will no longer be able to pay for grants for their Connecticut Farm-m students in the type of hands-on educational experiences that I just described. Our committee always talks about expanding the farming profession yet simultaneously cutting these types of programs that encourage farm teaching.
▶ 7:12:39This was on the heels of the USDA's cancellation of 660 million from the local food for schools program which is used to purchase local produce for school breakfast and lunch programs and about 420 million for the local food purchase assistance cooperative agreement which also helps food banks provide meals in communities.
▶ 7:12:59On March 7th, the Connecticut Department of Agriculture learned of $3.7 million in canceled awards through the local food purchase assistance program. Connecticut Food Share, the food bank that distributes healthy food through this network of more than 650 food pantries, community kitchens, and mobile distribution sites, was one of the largest participants in LFPA, and they have received about three million over the past few years.
▶ 7:13:27Connecticut Food Feud Share was set to receive another 1 million before the initiative was terminated. The cancellation of these programs will have deep implications for farmers and the producers in my state as well as increasing food insecurity. If we really care about farming and and promoting the profession and introducing young people as early as we can to the benefits of farming, we would be expanding these programs like not cutting them.
▶ 7:13:56For all those reasons, I urge that um we support this amendment and I yield back. Thank you. Okay. I remind mind the general lady that the food program is not in our the school program is not in our jurisdiction. the local purchasing for food banks and pantries, which is actually what Mr. Riley's um amendment is about. Um any other members seek to speak on um Mr.
▶ 7:14:25Riley's amendment number two? If not, Mr. Riley, I'll yield to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the uh that we have so much bipartisan support on the record for this and um I'll withdraw the amendment in the spirit of working with our friends across uh the aisle to to get this done. Gentlemen, appreciate that and gentlemen u withdraws his amendment.
▶ 7:14:47Uh uh Miss uh McDonald Rivet has a u amendment at the desk number amendment number 17. Uh the clerk will report the uh title of the amendment. Amendment number 17 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet of Michigan. Uh without objection, um the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the the gentle lady, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment.
▶ 7:15:17Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and ranking member. Uh my amendment actually reinstates the funding for the local food program for schools. Very much like the conversation we just had about lo our local food banks. This is a program that brings our in Michigan our local cherries, our apples, our uh beans, our pickles, our potatoes into our schools.
▶ 7:15:41That is are not only into our school breakfast and lunches, but after school snacks, into our summer programs as well as into our child care facilities. And we talk a lot about the importance of preserving farming for families. I'm from a farming community. I represent a number of farming communities. The pride that kids feel when they know what's on the plate at lunchtime came from their family farm is an amazing thing to see.
▶ 7:16:12Uh and and incredibly good for our communities. This is allows for fruit, vegetables, and dry bean purchases for this program are used as a part of our match requirements for the 10 cents a meal for Michigan kids and farms program. On top of that, with our kids, as my kids were growing up, I always said to them, you know, when you're thinking about what you want to eat, always choose kitchen food versus factory food, right? I wanted my kids to understand to eat something that they could see came from the ground.
▶ 7:16:43This is what is important when we think about the health of our kids, the health of our communities, the health of our farmers. Really important that we are um are using local produce. So, it establishes and strengthens partnerships between farmers, producers, and schools to give access to fresh and nutritious foods. It's a good thing, and it's something that should not have been cut. Based on what I hear in this committee, has a lot of bipartisan support for it.
▶ 7:17:10It this program not only funds our school meals, it helps increase the growth of our domestic farm production, strengthening our farm economy. It's common sense and it's why I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. I do believe it's within the jurisdiction of this committee because of the way that it was uh because of the way that it was funding and is something that should absolutely um be reinstated. And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 7:17:34Gentle lady yields back as other other members seeking recognition to speak on the gentle lady's amendment. Uh the ranking member is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I just wanted to speak in support for Miss McDonald uh Rivet's uh amendment here.
▶ 7:17:59um it's a common sense program that would have allowed school district to purchase over 600 million of local school foods nationwide and include them in school cho lunches this year. So instead of gutting SNAP, our should our committee should be here doing a real farm bill um where we could be talking about reinstating uh LFS, which is why I support this amendment.
▶ 7:18:22And with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the Any other members seeking recognition to speak on amendment number 15? Gentle lady from Ohio. U thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:18:39chairman and I um I want to thank uh Representative McDonald Rivet for introducing this legit this uh amendment because um when the Trump administration canceled the funding for the local food school pro program in March, it hurt the bottom line of small farmers and it took food away from school children across America.
▶ 7:18:59And this is a really a common sense program that would allow school districts to purchase over $600 million of local food nationwide and include them um include them in their school lunches. So, not only does this help the farmers, it helps promote healthy choices for our students. And for the sake of the children, I will be voting to reinstate the local food for schools program.
▶ 7:19:28and I encourage my colleagues to please do the same. And with that, I yield back for the General lady yields back. Uh other members seeking recognition to speak on behalf of the amendment. Dr. Adams. Yeah, I'd like to speak uh briefly. Listen, all that we've talked about uh in terms of making sure that not only families are fed, but that we not overlook the children because children live in poverty because their their parents do.
▶ 7:19:59And so having food in school, uh being able to uh provide that nutrition sometimes that's the only meal these kids get. And so um it's a it's a a good amendment. I appreciate the um uh the gentle lady for introducing it. uh because we cannot we should not uh leave our children out.
▶ 7:20:24Uh it is so important that like like like it's already been said, they they can't be healthy if they're hungry. They're not going to learn if they're hungry. Um we we we used to um we had a governor in North Carolina who was known as the uh the education governor, Governor Hunt. I had the privilege of serving with him when I served in the North Carolina House.
▶ 7:20:45and he would always say children have to go to school ready to learn but wherever they are trying to learn uh we need to make sure that their bellies are not growling and of course if we if we haven't had that pain in our stomachs because uh we haven't uh been fed maybe we don't understand uh but take it from me uh children need to be able to have not only uh food to eat but good quality food and it's so important that we think about that um as
▶ 7:21:16we think about all of the cutting and the things that appear to be uh happening in this reconciliation. But listen, again, I'm all about the children, too. Uh and let's make sure that we provide for them. Thank you. I yield back. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just uh like uh Rep. Riley's uh bill that we said was plain common sense and he withdrew his amendment.
▶ 7:21:45I think this falls into the same both the f the LFPA but also this local food program is what I really believe is a winwin program. And I think that we don't want to have a lose lose situation. I think that what is really incredible about this is we want our kids to be healthy. want we keep talking about the issues of obesity when we were talking about nutrition uh programming earlier today but this is a triple bottom line.
▶ 7:22:14It really helps support our farmers build supply, you know, supply chains, but it feeds hungry kids through our schools. And to me, it just seems nonsensical for us to eliminate it when we can make it. And it lifts up the best that a productive government can do in terms of working with our farmers and with industry. Um, just a quick one in Maryland.
▶ 7:22:36Um, uh, in Maryland, ending this program would really withhold millions from, uh, some of our our Maryland schools and food banks and impact the quality, um, of the food that is provided ultimately, um, to all of those who might benefit. Um, in a recent Maryland Matters article, actually, one of our farmers at Albbright Farms said that ending this program would be a great blow to farmers, to kids, and to the communities.
▶ 7:23:03And this um impacts 44 local Maryland farms and four million is um generated every 18 months. So I just um lift up again and I um support my colleagues in that um hopefully we can find a way to look at these programs as a triple bottom line that makes a lot of common sense. I yield back. Gentle yields back.
▶ 7:23:25Any other members seek recognition to speak on the McDonald rivet amendment number 15? All right, seeing none, um uh the money's Well, let me back up.
▶ 7:23:44Uh four years ago, the Biden uh uh created programs using the additional influx of CCC funding appropriated March of 2021 from the American Rescue Plan. Um both for the two programs for emergency food And uh these programs were were although the funding came out of authorized sources, the programs themselves were never authorized by Congress.
▶ 7:24:14They were COVID era programs. They were uh never meant to be permanent with what we what the Biden administration did. Uh and so they created a program that really was on sustainable given uh the CCC and the important functions that it plays uh for the agriculture the agriculture industry um for our farmers and ranchers and um the expectations of using the commodity credit corporation.
▶ 7:24:42So, USDA does continue to purchase food uh for the the emergency food assistance program, which is the authorized emergency food assistance program and for distribution and child nutrition programs. Uh this amendment uh as a part of this package, we also put the committee below its reconciliation instruction risking a tax hike on all Americans uh next year.
▶ 7:25:08And of course, there is uh given the fact that child nutrition although it's administered by USDA and they dipped into our CCC fund unilaterally did that in 2001. Um the fact is child nutrition is uh in the jurisdiction of the u education and workforce committee. Um a uh uh a worthy program if it had done correctly and could potentially I think be done correctly in the future.
▶ 7:25:37I think it's a great way as Mrs. Haze had related of of especially with our kids how have connecting them with where the food comes from. There are so many so many benefits to that. U but at this point uh as a part of this package I urge I have to urge a no vote on the amendment. So the uh the question is on the amendment uh number 15 uh offered uh by representative McDonald Rivet from Michigan. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I.
▶ 7:26:08Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion, the chair, the naysay have it. The amendment, Mr. Chair, request a voice, please. A recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested. Pursuant to committee rule 3 I2 further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. U working with the ranking member, the queue will share what uh the queue that we have um going forward at this point. Well, actually uh um let me do this.
▶ 7:26:37Um well, next we'll be hearing from V Mr. Vinman, uh amendment number 14, followed by Mr. Carbajal number 19. Um they just Oh, and they just called votes. Perfect timing. Okay. Um so, uh um this vote series has been called. The committee shall stand in recess until the vote series is complete.
▶ 7:27:03And I just ask everybody as promptly as possible uh come back after votes so we can pick this up and we'll be starting with Mr. Vinman's amendment number 14.
▶ 7:32:57Test. Test. What's that? Test.
▶ 8:27:32Committee shall come to order. I note there is a quorum present. Uh before recessing the committee had postponed further consideration of amendments offered. Consideration of those amendments is now before the committee. I'm pleased to recognize uh Mr. Vinman for has a an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 14.
▶ 8:27:56Uh they will uh we'll ask the uh the clerk to report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 14 offered by Mr. Vinman of Virginia. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:28:22I'm heartened to hear that there was a bipartisan agreement on the importance of LFPA when discussing Mr. Riley's amendment, and I'd love to keep that spirit up. Beyond restoring LFPA, my amendment also fully funds another critical program for hardworking families, TFAP. TFAP supports families with emergency needs on a short-term basis. These aren't fraudsters. They aren't lazy. They're families with hungry kids going to emergency food pantry.
▶ 8:28:49I visited some of these pantries in my district, and that support is critical. There are veterans at our neighborhood church hoping to get a hot meal. LFPA and TFAP are critical to both working families and small farms across the Commonwealth of Virginia. Last month, I visited Eugene Triplet, a farmer in my district. I spoke about Eugene a little bit last night during my statement. Eugene uh who works his family farm is now in the sixth generation.
▶ 8:29:19He supplies produce to our local food banks and public schools in Col Pepper. He was only able to do this um purchases through the LFPA program. Now he volunteers his time to support the food bank and has shared with me how drastic the negative changes have been that food bank feeds families on both SNAP and feedback and and TFAP.
▶ 8:29:45This time just two months ago the food bank warehouse was full and over 10 full-time staffers were working there. Now it's desolate and only one employee remains. Now public schools and churches supplied from the food bank don't have local produce produce and Mr. Chiplet doesn't have any buyers and that's on top of the current stress of tariffs, the high cost of living and the economic crisis heading to farm country.
▶ 8:30:13We've already spoken about the high input costs and all of these additional stresses are are heaped onto farm country and Mr. Triplet's farm TFAP and LFPA. All these programs are connected and part of the same food ecosystem.
▶ 8:30:29In the spirit of uh continuing our our bipartisan role here, um I'm introducing this amendment and I'll I'll I'll talk about it, but I'm also going to withdraw it and I sincerely hope this committee is serious about restoring the program. I'm excited to work on a bipartisan basis to get it done. It's our job to make sure that Americans in desperate situations don't go hungry. Let's do our job, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I withdraw my amendment. Gentlemen withdraws the amendment. Um know Mr.
▶ 8:31:00Carbajal has an amendment number 19. The clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 19 offered by Mr. Carbajal of C California. That objection amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize distinguished gentleman from California, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:31:22My amendment today would remove the harmful SNAP section of this bill that would hurt thousands of families and instead would double the mandatory spending for the emergency emergency food assistance program. This would give food banks an emergency feeding organizations the resources they need to assist the most vulnerable in this country.
▶ 8:31:44The Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TFAP, has successfully provided millions of low-income Americans with hunger relief through their local food banks, soup kitchens, and other emergency feeding organizations. Like many nutrition programs in this committee, TFAP remains one of the most sought-after programs by food advocates and farmers.
▶ 8:32:08I have visited food banks in my district and know the real life impact this program provides to those struggling with putting food on the table. Since my Republican colleagues are so fixated on cutting staff for people, local food banks and other food organizations will be forced to take on the additional demand and feed those who need it the most.
▶ 8:32:30With the increase in the cost of living and high grocery prices, food banks across the country are already seeing an increase in people showing up at their local food banks. This includes parents with two household incomes. It is unacceptable that in today's day and age, we are still debating on who in this country gets to eat. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Did any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment?
▶ 8:33:00Miss Selenus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I introduced similar legislation to Mr. Carbajal's amendment in the 118th Congress, the Farmers Feeding America Act, which I will soon be reintroducing in the 119th. In 2024, the Oregon Food Bank reported more than two and a half million visits to food assistance sites across its network, a staggering 31% increase from the year before and the highest number of visits on record. That's right.
▶ 8:33:26More people are turning to food banks now than at the height of the CO 19 pandemic. Yet, despite overwhelming need, the Trump administration has chosen to slash TFAP funding by 50% for the rest of the year and completely eliminate the local food purchasing agreement program. These cuts are already hitting home. In Oregon alone, they forced the cancellation of 30 full truckloads of food meant for communities in need in my district and will lead to millions of dollars in lost food purchases.
▶ 8:33:57Purchases that not only feed families, but support our local food economy. But we're here, while the Trump administration guts food assistance, we're here marking up a bill that will push even more Americans to rely on food banks. Apparently, it wasn't enough for my colleagues across the aisle that the Trump administration is ignoring the will of Congress and making unilateral funding decisions aimed at keeping people hungry. Now, they want to double down on that harm by slashing SNAP, our nation's most effective anti-hunger program.
▶ 8:34:28Let's call a spade a spade. This is a coordinated partisan attack on Americans in need. Further, given the Trump administration's erratic economic policies which are raising prices and it is well doumented inability to manage national crises like COVID, we should fully expect the demand on food banks to grow in the years ahead. That's why I strongly support Mr. Carveral's amendment. It meets the urgent need to combat food insecurity now and in the future. And I urge an I vote. I yield back. Gentle yields back.
▶ 8:34:57Any other members seek recognition to speak on uh Mr. Carver Hall's amendment 19? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cost is recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I rise to uh speak on behalf in support of u my colleague and friend uh Congressman Carbajal's amendment on the U emergency food assistance program.
▶ 8:35:19I think probably all of us uh have had some experience with working with our local food banks and they increasingly provide a critical role uh to supplement uh people who are food insecure in California. Uh nearly 5 million Californians um that are on SNAP also work in conjunction with our food banks. Uh in the Fresno area they work with five counties.
▶ 8:35:46uh this program has provided communities and our farm workers who helped put that food on America's dinner table nearly 3 million in California. So I think that uh with the potential additional cuts um and with potential supply chain issues, who knows what may occur with this issue with uh our neighbors to the north and to the south on this tariff uh war. Um food banks become more essential.
▶ 8:36:16uh and provide a critical role. So I support this measure for all the right reasons and uh would urge my colleagues to do so as well. Very good. Any uh any members seek additional members seek recognition to speak on Mr. Carveral's amendment number 19.
▶ 8:36:39Seeing none, um the reforms in the base text of the committee print ensure that SNAP works the way Congress intended it to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach. Uh this will preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability of program uh moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us.
▶ 8:37:05Additionally, while USDA continues to purchase food for TFAP, the authorized emergency food assistance program, this amendment would cause the committee to fail to meet its reconciliation instructions, risking a tax hike for all Americans next year. I urge a no vote on the amendment. And with that, uh the u uh the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Carverhal from California, amendment number 19.
▶ 8:37:33All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I opposed by saying nay. The opinion of the chair. The naysay have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I request a roll call vote. Amendment. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 312. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And now uh it appears that uh Mr.
▶ 8:38:03Costa has amendment at the desk. Amendment number 10 uh which the uh we'll ask the uh clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 10 offered by Mr. Costa of California. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. With the gentleman suspend just briefly without objection amendment will be considered as read and I now recognize distinguished gentleman from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:38:31Um, let me give a little background, although I believe most of you are familiar with this uh program. Um, all households uh receiving $20 a month benefits automatically receive a standard utility allowance and that reduces the house net income thereby increasing the food benefit. Before the 2014 farm bill, 2014 farm bill that I was a part of, there was no minimum lie heap contribution requirement.
▶ 8:38:59Uh the $20 amount was a compromise against those who sought to eliminate what we call heat and eat. Uh it's I think very important that in the winter months, our Americans who are food insecure also have a a warm home. Um that provided the linkage. Currently, all households qualify. this section in the bill would change it uh only to qualify for elderly and disabled members.
▶ 8:39:27Um I think this amendment uh that I am offering is critical uh federal federally funded programs that provides financial assistance to families for um uh affordable uh um to to provide heat that decouples it from SNAP and limits the program and which I think then if it allowed to be implemented would create another barrier for hardworking Americans to provide for their families. I think this is another attempt to block the clock.
▶ 8:39:56uh black turn the clock backwards, excuse me, uh to 2014 to undue the compromise that was made at that time that I was a part of uh for the heat and eat program linkage uh in rural California and throughout our nation. Uh this is a lifeline for families to be able to afford groceries and still pay their utility bills. So um you know, Mr.
▶ 8:40:18Chairman, members of the committee, I think most of you know that my congressional district and Congressman Valadales has the two highest SNAP recipients in the entire state of California and among the top 10 in in the nation. So, for all the right reasons, uh I think that this is a good amendment and would urge support of my colleagues back. Yes, I yield back the yields back.
▶ 8:40:46Uh other members seeking to to speak on amendment number 10 by offered by Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, you're recognized, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I um know a little bit about this program, but I also know that um uh we should be doing what we can to make sure that uh people have heat. Uh people die when they don't have uh heated homes.
▶ 8:41:14uh children who may be in those homes also suffer and die. Um I it it seems like a very reasonable act for us to take and yes I was here for that farm bill. Um I think it's um uh it was a a great decision that we made then and I think it's needed now needed now more than ever when you think about the way the temperatures are changing and so forth. Uh it's important. We listen it sounds like we don't want to feed people.
▶ 8:41:41We don't want want to keep warm either, but I I certainly would encourage my uh the members to support this. I think it's very much needed. Uh you don't the people in those households uh need to have heat. The other thing is, as I said before, we're talking about children being there as well. Uh that's going to, you know, if you don't have heat, you get sick. All kinds of things happen in unheated um homes and apartments and facilities.
▶ 8:42:11So, I I certainly support this amendment and thank you for offering it and um I would encourage my colleagues to to vote for it. Well, I thank my colleague and u Congressman Gray and I have a similar situation and the cost of utilities continue to rise. I think it's a good Very good. Dr. Adams, you yield back. Yes, I I members seek uh to speak on amendment.
▶ 8:42:39Ranking member Yeah, I'd just like to add my support to this amendment, which of course would strike this harm harmful provision. Um, the cost of basic needs like food, housing, and utilities are obviously incredibly front of mind for American families feeling the squeeze of the uncertainty. So, um, Mr. Costa, thank you so much for offering this amendment. I'd like to lend my support. I yield Yields back.
▶ 8:43:08Any other members seek to speak on this amendment? If not, let me weigh in on this. You know, under current law, 11 states provide a nominal lie heap, which is energy assistance benefit of $201 to households to directly increase their SNAP benefits and the calculation of their excess shelter deduction.
▶ 8:43:30these cases, states are not checking whether or not the households actually has heating or cooling expenses that that would result in a full deduction. Um the um uh the committee's text would change the laws so that SNAP households without elderly or disabled persons, a lie payment would no longer suffice for states to provide the full excess shelter deduction participants.
▶ 8:43:55So, this amendment would maintain a loophole in the law that would allow some states to artificially increase SNAP benefits by providing households uh based on need or not an emergency assistance benefit of $201.
▶ 8:44:10Our text ensures all non-disabled and non-elderly SNAP households actually approve heating and cooling expenses to the state to receive the excess shelter deduction as the law requires returning integrity to the program. Um, this amendment would also result in the committee failing to meet its reconciliation instruction, risking a tax hike on all Americans next year. I urge a no vote on the amendment.
▶ 8:44:38The uh uh the question then is on amendment number 10 offered by Mr. Costa of California. Uh all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I those opposed by saying nay. Nay. Any opinion of the chair the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 8:45:07Um, I have u I believe Miss Davids has a uh amendment number 32 at the desk and uh the clerk will uh ask the clerk to to go ahead and and u um amendment number 32 offered by Miss Davids of Kansas. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.
▶ 8:45:32I now recognize a distinguished gentle lady from Kansas, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you, chairman. I'm offering this amendment which would prohibit the United States Department of Agriculture from firing more workers at the National Bio and Aggro Defense Facility or ENBAF in my home state of Kansas. ENBBAF is a scientific research facility aimed at protecting American agriculture producers and people from serious animal disease.
▶ 8:45:59Earlier this year, it was reported that 28 MBAF workers were fired as part of the Trump administration's cuts to the federal workforce. While some of these nonsensical firings were reversed and workers were rehired, this is extremely detrimental to a critical facility that is still in the process of getting up and running. New and emerging animal diseases have the potential to infect humans, threaten our food supply, and ultimately endanger our national security.
▶ 8:46:25ENVBAF is the first biosafety level four facility for livestock in the United States, meaning the most dangerous animal diseases can be studied there. As it's been said many times in this committee, food security is national security, and many of the diseases that will be studied at INBAF have serious consequences if they spread to humans.
▶ 8:46:45Just this past Sunday, the USDA had to close the US Mexico border to imports of live cattle, horses, and bison due to the continued spread of the new world screworm. Animal disease poses a serious threat to both canons's agricultural economy and grocery prices. Without federal workers at Enbaff, our ranchers face greater risk and canons could experience higher costs at the store like we're seeing with eggs because of the ongoing aven flu outbreak.
▶ 8:47:14President Trump's firing of federal workers is directly endangering our national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment to protect our food supply and human health. Uh thank you chairman and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Um any members wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment? If not, go ahead ranking member. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:47:44Um, thank you so much. Uh, I just wanted to offer my support for the Congresswoman's amendment here this evening. Um, you know, the administration has callously cut at least 28 positions at NBF. NBF is a critical research facility that is just getting up and running and conducts unparalleled research on animal disease.
▶ 8:48:12It was reported that Elon Musk and his assistant even fired the director of safety, health, and environmental management. I just want to say that uh I hope that this is not an indication of how the administration will handle um very serious spread of animal disease in our country. We're facing a series of threats to the livestock industry.
▶ 8:48:41As we all know, African swine fever, New World screworm, HPAI, FMD, and others. Having a state-of-the-art research facility that can work on these issues means nothing if we don't have scientists and support staff to conduct and use that research. We need to protect the staff at this facility and through that protect our food supply chain. So, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
▶ 8:49:06Any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? If not, um, well, President Trump was given a mandate by the American taxpayers to eliminate waste, bloat, and inefficiencies in the federal workforce.
▶ 8:49:28And throughout this process, USDA has protected critical function areas and listened to members of this committee to ensure the critical needs of rural America aren't neglected. And this this amendment is redundant to USDA's ongoing work to maintain critical functions while line uh stream uh streamlining services. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this this amendment.
▶ 8:49:56And given that uh hearing no further uh uh hearing no further conversation or questions on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Kansas, amendment number 32. All in favor all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 8:50:26Chair, I'd like to request a recorded vote. The uh recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 312. Further proceed proceedings of the amendment shall be postponed. And that was our first amendment. I believe that was in subtitle B. We are now clear of subtitle A and we'll be entertaining subtitle B amendments. Uh and I believe subtitle B uh Mrs.
▶ 8:50:54Selenus u has an amendment at the desk um amendment number 37. That's correct. And so the clerk will report the the title of the amendment. Amendment number 37 offered by Miss Selenus of Oregon. The uh without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.
▶ 8:51:19I now recognize the distinguished gentle lady, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, amendment number 37 is what we'll be considering. Since returning to office, President Trump and his administration have embarked on a campaign of destruction, hollowing out federal agencies through illegal mass terminations and funding recisions. The Forest Service has not been spared from this assault.
▶ 8:51:46The Trump administration has already terminated thousands of Forest Service workers, and while some have been reinstated, many have yet to be rehired or have since chosen to move on from their public service careers. My amendment would require that the remaining terminated Forest Service personnel who are qualified to assist with wildland firefighting operations, federal timber sales, or search and rescue operations are rehired. It also provides the agency with direct hire authority to expedite filling vacancies that are left as a result of the mass firings.
▶ 8:52:17These are the hardworking men and women who manage our forests, assist with wildfire response, support rural economies, and help communities maintain access to federal forest lands. They are civil servants, scientists, and forest management personnel who were fired often with no justification at all and no plan to backfill their positions. Weakening this workforce not only undermines fire preparedness and response, it puts lives at risk.
▶ 8:52:46It threatens rural jobs and it shows contempt for the very people this committee is supposed to serve. Let's not forget our wildfire crisis is only getting worse. Oregon has endured historic wildfires in recent years. In fact, the 2024 fire season saw our state's highest total acreage burned in record history.
▶ 8:53:08Instead of building up our Forest Service workforce to meet the challenge of longer, more dangerous fire seasons, we're confronted with an administration that is doing the exact opposite. firing staff, eliminating critical resources, and further reducing our firefighting capacity. This reconciliation package follows the same backwards playbook.
▶ 8:53:29Rather than investing in agencies that provide critical services across our country upstream, it attacks working families and will leave countless Americans out to dry. This package would slap our nation's most effective anti-hunger program at a time when families are still struggling with sky-high food prices. Elsewhere in other committees, Republicans seek to cut Medicaid, jeopardize health care for millions.
▶ 8:53:53All of this, all of this needless suffering is being inflicted upon the American people simply to give more tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. And I want to be abundantly clear. This reconciliation package is not about fiscal responsibility. It shows priorities, and those priorities are deeply out of step with the needs of Oregonians and everyday Americans.
▶ 8:54:14We should be investing in our communities, not firing public servants, not stripping families of nutrition and healthcare, certainly not handing out more tax giveaways to billionaires, and not putting our forest lands at risk of wildfires. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the broader agenda that pits working families against the wealthy few. And I yield back. Lady yields back. Any other members seek to um speak on this amendment?
▶ 8:54:44Um, I see the There we go. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized. Thank you, chairman. I just want to offer my full support for this amendment. Uh, New Mexico has experienced it two largest wildfires in the last two years, and the costs are astronomical. Uh, they much of the burden for cleanup and for postfire restoration is going to fall on the states.
▶ 8:55:07And so as we talk about the compounding cost of cutting SNAP and cutting Medicaid and pushing costs off to the state, on top of that, we're actually cutting the staff that cuts the trails so that they can set the lines in wilderness areas such as the Hila National Forest.
▶ 8:55:25In fact, seven trail crews uh lost about half of their folks in the Hila National Forest, which is going to render them uh basically unable to set the uh the trails that will allow wildland firefighters uh to save both property and to save lives. And so, as we're talking about passing costs on to the state, what what we're going to deeply regret is firing all of these dedicated Forest Service employees who do this hard work.
▶ 8:55:52and we're going to rely on volunteers and folks that don't know what they're doing when there is another catastrophic fire in my district. And so I fully support uh Miss Selenus's uh amendment and I I invite us all to have a discussion about how wildfire costs are going to impact state budgets in addition to the cuts that we're proposing that are going to be passed off to the states. Thank you and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate gentlemen yielding back.
▶ 8:56:21uh other members who um seek to speak on this amendment. Um seeing none, I'll end here. You know, the camp the president campaigned on the promise to eliminate bureaucratic bloat in federal agencies and he's delivering on that promise. The US Forest Service is committed to protecting the critical function areas of their agency.
▶ 8:56:48They are in active communication with members of this committee to make sure the needs of those in and out in and around our forest lands are met. The decision on how many employees are needed to enact policies which we authorize here in Congress rests with the executive branch with the administration. And for these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues on the committee to do the same.
▶ 8:57:12And given that uh so the question is on the amendment uh offered by Mrs. Selenus from state of Oregon amendment number 37 all in those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I I opposed by saying nay. Nay independ the chair the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to Mr. Mr.
▶ 8:57:41Chair, I ask for a recorded vote. Okay. Thank you. You just about missed the window. Uh recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role three 3i2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. I believe that uh uh Miss Bazinski has a amendment at the desk. Amendment number 70. The clerk will report the title. Amendment number 70 offered by Miss Bazinski of Illinois.
▶ 8:58:12Thank you, Mr. The amendment will be considered as read. Um, and now I recognize u Miss Benzinski to u address uh describe the explanation for amendment for up to five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am going to offer amendment 70 and my plan is to withdraw it, but I do want to uh speak to the importance of it.
▶ 8:58:38Uh, my amendment would strike the language in this bill for a capp voluntary base acre update and replace it with a mandatory base acre update. Last year during the farm bill markup, my colleague Dusty Johnson brought up this amendment um, up and I was proud to speak in favor of it. Since you've abandoned though the farm bill and regular order, I will highlight this important topic on behalf of the farmers that I hear from in my district.
▶ 8:59:04Not only is a mandatory base acre update a start on the path toward more equitable farm safety net programs, it also brings us back to the heart of these programs, which is to support farmers. In my opinion, funneling money to unplanted acres is not in the best interest of the farmer or the taxpayer. Some of the commodities which already benefit from the most from title one commodity programs are the very same commodities that underplant their base acres.
▶ 8:59:33Regardless of who gets what out of ARC and PLC, I think we can all agree that it makes good fiscal sense to pay for what is planted. We are not going um we are not being good stewards of taxpayer money if we allow it to flow to acres that were established 30 years ago now or either planted with a different crop or no longer planted at all. Additionally, the current system allows for even further misuse of taxpayer dollars.
▶ 9:00:01Under this system, a farm can plant corn on cotton acres or wheat on soybean acres or any combination really and then enroll in crop insurance for their corn. This means that they can get title one payments for cotton which they don't grow in a crop insurance payment for corn. This is not how we should design our safety net for farmers.
▶ 9:00:25I know that a common claim in opposition to this is that farmers may get less title one money and that may be true, but shouldn't we be more concerned with creating a safety net that is responsible use of taxpayer money with creating a safety net that means the needs that meets the needs of farmers rather than forcing them to rely on an outdated system of payments? A mandatory base acre update ensures that farmers are paid for the acres they plant on.
▶ 9:00:54This will save valuable taxpayer money and will allow it to be redirected to where it is most needed. Additionally, this would effectively remove the need for the limit on new allowed base acres and most importantly by ensuring that existing base acres are accurate and we can also open access to title one programs for small, new and beginning farmers. This is so much needed up.
▶ 9:01:20This is so much of a needed update to ensure the future strength of the farm safety net and to improve efficiencies of our government programs. A voluntary baseacre update does not provide any incentive for removal of unplanted acres from the program and thus will increase spending of taxpayer dollars which is why this moment calls for a mandatory update.
▶ 9:01:42If we had not abandoned the farm bill and rural Americans by deciding to include farm bill provisions in this hyperpartisan reconciliation package, I would likely call this amendment for a vote. Uh but since you've robbed me of this opportunity, I will withdraw this amendment and thank you and I yield Gentle lady yields back. Did gentle lady withdraw her amendment? Yes, I'd like to withdraw it. Thank the gentle lady.
▶ 9:02:11Um, I believe Mr. Sorenson has an amendment at the desk number 73. The clerk will report the title of the Amendment number 73 offered by Mr. Sorenson of Illinois. Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Um, I am proud to be a quad citizen.
▶ 9:02:41uh live in the Quad Cities, uh the part of the heartland that straddles the Mississippi River. Um the town that I live in um used to be called Miltown uh before it was renamed Molen uh because John Deere used water power and mills to build the plows in the early 1800s.
▶ 9:02:59His invention, the steel plow, grew into a legacy that is now one of the most recognized American machines in the to have deer in company headquartered in my town of 40,000. It's incredible because everywhere I go around the world, I always see John Deere green. It's also why I'm wearing the 118th pin, the John Deere green pin. It reminds me of home.
▶ 9:03:30But deer, like so many other agricultural companies, is experiencing uncertainty today because of the decisions, the poor decisions of this administration, and our lack of passing a farm bill, and opening up foreign markets. Add on to that stupid tariffs and a trade war, declining crop crop prices, and increasing input costs. They're pushing our family farmers to the brink.
▶ 9:03:58Second and third generation workers at harvester works in East Molen have been let go. Seeding group at Deer has been hit hard in Molen. And I know my colleagues across the Mississippi River, across the aisle in Iowa are feeling the thing. The impacts of these losses have ripple effects not just across agriculture but across our nation. Uh and the new workers that are going out of work, guess what?
▶ 9:04:26It sends more people to programs like SNAP. My amendment directs the secretary to provide support to agriculture manufacturers that are only headquartered in America through the Commodity Credit Corporation. This support would help all sorts of American egg companies endure the uncertainty and it would help us stave off future layoffs.
▶ 9:04:50But instead of that, the GOP's focused on taking food from hungry people, giving the money to billionaires. The GOP is eliminating $30 billion in farm revenue, and they're jeopardizing any passage of a five-year bipartisan farm bill. Mr. Chairman, I can't support this bill. If the majority wanted to work together with us today, I would offer up this vote for an amendment.
▶ 9:05:17So, I'll respectfully withdraw my amendment and urge that we focus on getting a bipartisan five-year farm bill passed as soon as possible. One that will provide certainty for rural families, for farmers, and for our businesses rather than gutting key provisions while we make it harder to feed the most vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, I pull my amendment and I yield back. Thank you for the time. Gentleman withdraws his amendment and he did it without offending red tractors and blue tractors. Well done.
▶ 9:05:47They're good ones, too. They're still mad. Well, but they're still They're still mad. Okay. Oh, and the yellow ones. I'm sorry. Look what I I stepped in it. Uh the uh the amendment has been withdrawn. Number 73. Mr. Sorenson, I understand Mr. uh Mr. Gray uh has an amendment at the desk number 60. Uh the clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 60 offered by Mr. Gray of California.
▶ 9:06:17Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize distinguished gentlemen u and the sponsor of this amendment for up to five minutes for the explanation of their Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member.
▶ 9:06:35In an attempt to continue my quest for bipartisanship, I've introduced this amendment that requires the president to provide Congress and the public with certain information at least 30 days before issuing an executive order related to agriculture, food, and the livelihood of farmers, ranchers, and producers here in the United States.
▶ 9:07:00Before issuing such an order, the president shall provide Congress and the public with one, the executive order text. Two, a list of the federal laws affected. Three, information about how the president is working within the parameters of federal law and the constitution. Four, information about how the executive order will be accomplished. And five, a list of all the individuals and entities that the president engaged with before issuing the order.
▶ 9:07:28Uh this concept members may seem familiar to some of you uh as it was introduced by a Republican colleague on this committee in the 118th Congress. To quote my colleague, governing by executive order is a betrayal of the legislative process that our founding fathers instituted. That's why my first act in the 118th Congress is to reintroduce the man's man acts.
▶ 9:07:54Congress was created to legislate and to prevent the executive branch from abusing its power. I agree with this principle and I think that we can all agree that Congress should exert its authority as a co-equal branch of government regardless of who's in the White House. Governing our nation through executive order can create chaos and instability for the American people, our farmers, and our markets which depend on clear rules of the road to thrive.
▶ 9:08:23This is a golden opportunity, members, to show the American people that we are willing to stand on our principles and work on a bipartisan basis to make our democracy work better. For these reasons, I'm urging support for this amendment today. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there anyone else that chooses to speak on the amendment? Mr. Venman, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:08:53Um, I fully support and endorse my colleagues amendment um because it furthers transparency from this administration. Frankly, I talked about this issue at the outset. It's about the issue of conflicts of interest and corruption and I read from a couple articles and I'm going to return to those articles because this is a critically important topic.
▶ 9:09:21uh on the transparency of this administration, our government, so the American people have confidence that decisions that are being made are for the benefit of the American people and not for a particular interest group or even the president's family.
▶ 9:09:39So reading from the article on the jets from Qatar, I quote, "The second Trump administration is showing striking disdain for one-time norms of propriety and for traditional legal and political guardrails around public service. This comes after the president in April disbanded the Justice Department unit dedicated to investigating cryptocurrency crimes. Earlier, Mr.
▶ 9:10:03Trump, again, these are quotes, also ordered the department to suspend enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it a crime for companies that operate in the United States to bribe foreign officials. That seems odd.
▶ 9:10:18And then in addition, Attorney General Pam Bondi herself, a former highly paid lobbyist for Qatar, narrowed enforcement of the law requiring lobbyists to for foreign governments to register such relationships and disclose what they paid. This is all about the $400 million flying palace that was offered to the president. Wondering why that was offered.
▶ 9:10:46Returning to the article on um the cryptocurrency, the purchase of 300 million dollars uh in support of um Trump coin. The purchase would create, this is again a quote, the purchase would create clear ethical conflicts enriching Mr. Trump's family at the same time that the president tries to reach a deal that would allow Tik Tok to keep operating in the United States rather than face a congressionally approved ban.
▶ 9:11:14This is a ban that Congress passed into law that went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld it. Every member here ought to be in favor of this ban because this is Tik Tok, a company owned by the Chinese or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party is so deeply ingrained in our society.
▶ 9:11:41If we're going to be serious about standing up to China, then maybe we ought to actually follow law. And I mean, there I was not here. I'm a I'm a new member. I'm a freshman, but there are members in this body that are sitting here, I'm sure, that voted in favor of this bill that's being ignored now. And then, um, I'll finish by reading another short excerpt.
▶ 9:12:07Any purchase by GD Culture Group, this is the the company that is investing $300 million in in Trumpcoin, would be the first known example of a China linked firm buying Mr. Trump's memecoin.
▶ 9:12:24In its financial disclosures, the company has noted that its subsidiary, and I'm going to butcher this pronunciation, but Shanghai Shinshu, I hope that's close enough, might be influenced by the demands of the Chinese government, though that's not unusual wording for a Chinese company. And this is again in quotes of from the financial disclosure.
▶ 9:12:46The Chinese government may intervene intervene or influence its operations at any time, the company said in its annual report filed in March. I think that's pretty outrageous. If we're going to be serious about trying to eliminate Chinese influence in our government, in our society, if we're going to be serious about national security, if we're going to be serious transparency and
▶ 9:13:17uh eliminating conflicts of interest, we've got to be serious about these two issues. And for that reason, I strongly endorse and encourage all of my colleagues on this committee to endorse my colleagues amendment for the benefit of the American people. Thank you. I yield back. I'll recognize my myself here.
▶ 9:13:41I'd like to start out by pointing out the irony of my friends trying to tie the hands of the executive uh when President Biden issued 162 executive orders during his four-year tenure. Additionally, this amendment is not appropriate for budget uh as it does not have a budgetary tie and would be removed by the Senate. Uh for that reason, I'm not I will be voting no on this amendment. Urge my colleagues to do the same to see what other members would like to be recognized.
▶ 9:14:10Ranking member, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I actually thought we had a winner here. I mean, I really did. I thought we had one amendment that was going to make it through. As as far as I'm concerned, that's for the Senate to decide what survives the bird bath, right? I mean, there's lots of stuff in this bill that isn't going to survive over in the Senate. I'm just going to say that.
▶ 9:14:32Look, this bill, Representative Mann put forward this bill last Congress, and I think it's incredibly pertinent to what is happening in the economy right now in the agriculture economy. You know, I've I've seen a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle express tepid concern about what is happening in the a economy. Uh more so in private than in public to be honest.
▶ 9:14:58Uh but the administration's brash approach to governing through executive order certainly creates a lot of uncertainty. uh much of which of course involves um items that have already been approved by this legislative branch of government a co-equal I would mind remind everyone branch of government so this bill was referred to the a committee um the last congress so I would simply say it's
▶ 9:15:28firmly within the jurisdiction of the agriculture committee so look we should all support increasing transparency and having a shared interest in making sure that the ad committee has a say and is informed on issues that impact our shareholders. And of course, it's for the Senate to decide whether this is a policy not budget related item.
▶ 9:15:50And personally, I think it's high time that Congress reclaim its power uh regardless of who is in the White House and stop constantly bending to the will especially of this executive. So, uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Any other member seek recognition to speak on this? Mr. Costa. Yes. Uh I uh support the amendment uh by um my colleague and neighbor uh Mr. Gray.
▶ 9:16:20Um and I uh concur with our ranking members comments. This amendment I think in light of everything that we see happening uh is needed. uh whether we're talking about increase in tariffs um and I'm generally opposed to tariffs u I don't think that there I know there are taxs on American people American agriculture and manufacturers and and you can retaliate as we see uh California that we both represent is the largest uh
▶ 9:16:51a state in the nation and 44% of our agriculture is exported uh and last year we had 59.5 billion dollars at the farm gates. So, for all the right reasons, uh this measure is important, I think, and uh it's um I think um important that we don't abdicate or continue to abdicate our role as a co-equal branch of government. Um and I can't speak strongly enough about that.
▶ 9:17:20So, I will um uh um yield back the balance of my time. Yields, Mr. Gray yield to Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray is recognized. I'll yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Gray because he's my neighbor. Thank you uh to my neighbor, Mr. Costa, and thank you to my colleagues for your endorsement of the amen. Just wanted to address uh appreciate the ranking members comments about the jurisdiction issue.
▶ 9:17:48Uh and relative uh to the Senate rules and granted I am the one of the new guys here as we were talking about, Mr. chairman, but based on what I've been reading in the papers, it doesn't seem clear to me that the Senate's always been following the rules uh or that they have an intention to. So, certainly would like to see this amendment be given the opportunity. Uh and I think it uh as I said, introduced by a Republican the last Congress is a a good opportunity for some bipartisanship uh in what's otherwise been somewhat of a partisan uh debate and process here today.
▶ 9:18:18Uh thank you again to my colleagues, urge your support of the amendment, and I yield back my time. Gentlemen, he hold yields back time. Miss Casy yields back time. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Seeing none on the questions, uh, Miss Hayes is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm inclined to support the amendment, but I do have one question. I'll yield my time to Mr. Gray.
▶ 9:18:45Are there any changes to the amendment that you introduced and what was introduced last Congress by um the Republic by the Republican? Mr. Man, I yield my time to Mr. Gray. Thank you. Uh no, there are no changes by from what was introduced last Congress to this uh this amendment us. And I yield back my time to Miss Hayes. Thank you.
▶ 9:19:14So, it's the exact same amendment that was introduced last Congress by our Republican colleagues, which says that we should have full transparency. I just want to make sure because I'm inclined to support it. I yield my time to Mr. Gray. Well, I appreciate that, uh, Miss Hayes, and thank you for the question. You know, I'm a a big baseball fan and, uh, I'm a Giants fan from Northern California, so the other Californians are Dodgers fans. We don't appreciate that as much.
▶ 9:19:42But when I watch baseball with my friend who's a fan, even if his guy's out at first base, and the replay clearly shows it, he just can't seem to acknowledge it. And too often politics feels that way in our current uh state. And that's the idea behind introducing the same exact language is to say what's uh good for the goose, good for the gander. And I appreciate your question.
▶ 9:20:10The gentleman yield back my time to Miss Yield back Miss Hayes time to Miss Thank you, Mr. Gray. Um, I will be supporting this amendment for the exact same reasons that you said. Um, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And since it was a goose amendment in the 2018, I'll be supporting it as a gander amendment in the 2019. With that, I yield back. Jul yields back.
▶ 9:20:40Anyone else seek recognition to speak on gray amendment Um, seeing none, the uh the question then is on the amendment of uh offered by Mr. Gray California, amendment number 60. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay.
▶ 9:21:06In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The uh Mr. Chairman, can I request a recorded vote? The uh recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 3i2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And uh find my list here. There we go. Uh Mr.
▶ 9:21:34Gray has another amendment, amendment number 63. Um, and it should be at the desk. The, uh, clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 63 offered by Mr. Gray of California. Uh, without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize distinguished gentleman uh, the sponsor of amendment for up to five minutes for the explanation of his Thank you uh, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:22:03In my opening statement, members, I talked about the damaging impact uh of the tariffs to my district in California, where agriculture is the number one driver of our economy.
▶ 9:22:18During uh Senate confirmation hearing, uh under secretary of agriculture for trade and foreign agriculture affairs Luke Lindberg pledged to explore new export markets and also hold our existing markets accountable to the deals they made with our family farms. President Trump posted on True Social that Luke will work to make sure American farmers and ranchers get the smart trade deals that they deserve.
▶ 9:22:46I agree with these goals, but I think our farmers deserve much better than this senseless global trade war, which is shutting American producers out of global markets and giving an advantage to our competitors. Our farmers are already feeling this loss and uncertainty in their bottom lines. We need to hold uh this administration accountable for the promises uh that have been made and transparency is the first step in this process.
▶ 9:23:15Uh it's unclear to me uh if we're serious about expanding market access for farmers and this amendment ensures that we'll have the opportunity to keep Congress apprised of the work that is going on. I think we can all agree that market access for our farmers goods is a priority. So let's work together to improve our process and make sure that the goals we set out to achieve in support of the American farms are being met effectively. I would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
▶ 9:23:44And thank you uh Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back with that. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman yields back. Any members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? If not, uh let me address. USDA's Economic Research Service and Foreign Agriculture Service have standing authority to publish reports on trade and market access and they publish them on a regular base.
▶ 9:24:10I'd also like to note Secretary Rand details weekly a list of a actions um taken by the department. In addition to requiring reports for which authority already exists, is my understanding that this amendment would not comply with the bird rule and therefore be stripped out by the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And so the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Gray.
▶ 9:24:40Uh amendment number 63. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ns have it and the amendment is not agreed to at the desk. U Mr. Chairman, could I request a record vote? The uh a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I2.
▶ 9:25:07Further proceedings on the amendment amendment shall be postponed. And that brings us to an amendment offered by Mr. Manion number 56 that is at the desk and the uh the clerk will uh report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 56 offered by Mr. Manion of New York. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.
▶ 9:25:32I now recognize the distinguished gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for explanation of his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh my amendment would invest in our dairy farmers by increasing the daily margin coverage tier one cap from 6 million to 8 million pounds. It's a small straightforward change that would make a big difference for family dairy farms in New York and across the country.
▶ 9:25:57In central New York we've got hundreds of midsize dairies, many producing just over the 6 million pound threshold. We're talking about farms with 100 to 200 cows. As many of my colleagues from dairy producing districts know very well, these operations are essential not only for our rural economies, but for our national milk supply.
▶ 9:26:19Our dairy farmers face a challenging landscape marked by unpredictable milk prices, rising feed costs, and an unprecedented uncertain labor market that has been exacerbated by the immigration policies of the current administration. This amendment would provide these producers with a stronger, more reliable safety net, one that gives them the stability to plan and invest confidently in their futures.
▶ 9:26:45This amendment would also strike the harmful cuts to SNAP proposed by the Republican majority. In New York alone, nearly 3 million eligible residents rely on SNAP to keep food on their tables. Under this bill, billions in costs would shift directly onto New York state taxpayers, potentially up to $1.9 billion annually, forcing the state and counties to either raise taxes or cut services.
▶ 9:27:14This opposition party has become the party of tax increases on working family so they can fund tax breaks for billionaires. Additionally, the proposal to shift 75% of administrative costs onto states would decrease efficiency and saddle New York with an extra $225 million a year.
▶ 9:27:35As has been stated previously in this markup hearing, um we're talking about not just cuts to SNAP in this committee, but cuts to Medicaid, cuts to heating programs, cuts to the federal workforce, which will increase unemployment rates.
▶ 9:27:54So I have great concern about pushing additional burdens onto the states when they are going to be facing decreases in revenue as a result of erratic tariff policies and other actions by this administration that has swed uncertainty and resulted in lost contracts, changes to contracts.
▶ 9:28:24pausing projects, eliminating projects. A thriving economy is now uncertain and we're at risk of recession. At this time, with more people moving on to programs like SNAP, we are going to put additional burdens on states when that revenue stream is less certain than ever.
▶ 9:28:47All told, SNAP cuts in this bill could cost New York State over $2 billion annually, and it's difficult to measure the cost to working families and retirees struggling to put food on the table with fixed incomes. As I emphasized in my opening statement, the farm bill should never pit farmers against families who need nutrition support. SNAP and our farmers share the same goal. They both exist to feed America.
▶ 9:29:14My amendment would have given my colleagues an opportunity to reconsider before voting on legislation that leaves families in their districts poorer and less secure. But I realize that is not where we are here today. So I will withdraw this amendment in the hope that this committee will eventually refocus on delivering bipartisan solutions for our constituents. And until then, I'll be voting no on the underlying bill. Urge my colleagues to do so. Mr.
▶ 9:29:42Chairman, I will withdraw this amendment and yield back to you. Thank you. I thank the gentleman uh and withdraw the bill. Is any member wish to seek recognition to speak on the bill that was withdrawn? I do. Ranking member, go ahead. Uh thank you so much. I just wanted to say to Mr. Manion, I thought your amendment was an excellent amendment. I I I actually thought we had a winner winner here again. I really did.
▶ 9:30:07It's uh you know the choice between investing in our dairy farmers or in billionaires just seemed like a winner, but it just didn't happen. I uh I appreciate Mr. Manion's valiant effort and uh GT I'm pulling for you on on uh whole milk in schools. I I thought maybe if we could get that one into the bill that we might get a winner, too. So, we'll keep trying. We'd have to get a waiver from the from education. I know. I know. I know. We have we don't have that discourse.
▶ 9:30:38Not not yet. We will. We'll get it. I I yield back. J yields back. Miss Brown for five minutes. I too thought this was uh something that we could move forward with in a bipartisan way. I had a chance to meet with some of the dairy folks back in my district and um the average size of the dairy farms in my district has increased since the creation of the dairy margin coverage in the 2018 Farm Bill.
▶ 9:31:03An 8 million pound cap for the tier one premium levels would provide a stronger, more affordable safety net for dairy farmers. Um, and I really wish that we were able to focus on bipartisan priorities in a real five-year farm bill where we could provide a better safety net for farmers and hungry Americans that we could all vote for. So, uh, thank you, Mr. Manion, for this um this amendment. and I'm sorry we you had to withdraw it and that we'll hopefully we'll we'll be able to work on this in the future.
▶ 9:31:33So, thank you. And with that, I yield back. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on this withdrawn amendment? If not, let me uh address that. Miss Manion, thank you for your efforts. Uh believe me, there's no one uh in uh no one's a bigger proponent of their industry than I am. Um and I and I hope you all remember whole milk for healthy kids when it comes to the house floor.
▶ 9:32:01They passed out the education workforce committee already. Now I understand the importance of providing enhanced safety net for our dairy farmers who provide that healthy milk. Um and that is why uh this committee uh through over probably 115 different listening sessions. I think we've done 40 42 states, one territory over the past couple years uh where we're bringing folks to the table working in a truly in a tripartisan way.
▶ 9:32:31Um listening to the industry what the industry needed, not necessarily what they wanted. There's a difference between needs and wants, but we try to focus on what they needed. And that included in in the state of New York, a number of listening sessions, um, three, I think, in the state of New York. You were my neighbors. It was a little easier to get to than some of them.
▶ 9:32:54Um, and that's why we we increased the cap from 5 million to six million pounds because that's exactly what they asked for. Um and and so uh uh but I I I appreciate you uh keeping in mind. I feel very good about what we're what we're looking at with the dairy margin coverage because we did that truly with the dairy farmers at the table and your dairy farmers are the same size of my dairy farmers. You know, it's uh this is one that works for uh for everyone.
▶ 9:33:24So uh with that the uh uh Mr. Manion's amendment number 56 is withdrawn and uh Mr. Venman uh has a an amendment number five uh that is at the desk and I would ask uh that the u no um u so I I would ask the clerk to uh report the title of the amendment.
▶ 9:33:54Amendment number five offered by Mr. Vinman of Virginia. Uh without objection, amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman uh from Virginia, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 9:34:10I return uh to a topic that I have um attempted to address several times over the last uh couple days and one in near and dear to my heart uh as a 25-y year uh veteran of the United States Army and a former u Trump administration first Trump administration white house national security official and it's um uh US national security and so Um, this amendment
▶ 9:34:40would fully fund the agriculture agriculture advanced research and development authority aarta at $150 million a year. As we've said numerous times, food security is national security. A arta was established in the 2018 farm bill to apply the highly successful ARPA model to a research. Yet, it only received a fraction of the funding that was authorized. Congress needs to fight for the US to be a cutting edge to at the cutting edge of research.
▶ 9:35:10This bill is trying to slash funding for a research, take food from hungry kids, kick people SNAP. This is all in the name of funding tax breaks for billionaires. As the only Virginia on this committee, I'm proud to represent the largest industry in the Commonwealth, which is egg. And this industry is booming. I do I intend to do everything I can to keep it that way. My amendment would My amendment would do just that.
▶ 9:35:37This amendment would strengthen agricultural research across our country, which has some of the biggest returns on investment in government funding. Right now, $1 spent by the US government in the A industry yields $20 back to the US economy. We'd be crazy not to make this investment. As a member of the conservation and biotech subcommittee, I will fight for this re research. Our adversaries are investing in cutting tech cutting edge tech research.
▶ 9:36:03Congress needs to fight for the US to be at cut at the cutting edge of research. It's no secret that China is currently the world's largest funer of agricultural research and development with 10 billion in annual spending. We're playing catch-up, but that doesn't mean we can't win the race. And yet, this administration seems not to want to even try.
▶ 9:36:26uh this administration and unfortunately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are busy cutting research grants and waging war on the working people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. I say again, American food security is national security. We need to defend our crops from the threats of tomorrow and invest in our farmers for their needs today. We also need a healthy and productive workforce with access to nut nutritious food.
▶ 9:36:54That is why my amendment removes SNAP cuts from the bill, makes AGRa a permanent program rather than a pilot, and requires USDA to hire qualified staff for AGART, and also requires USDA to fund Agarta at 150 million through 2030. That's um a a fraction of what the Chinese Communist Party is investing, but at least it's a start.
▶ 9:37:19If we're going to compete with our near peers in China, we have to make at least a small investment. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will drive American research to benefit farmers, ranchers, and consumers while protecting America America's children and families from these dangerous snap cuts. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 9:37:44Any other what what members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? Seeing none. Well, I will weigh in here. Um, just a little background information. This amendment really is near identical to the ACE Agriculture Act introduced by Representative Fenstra and Representative Petta uh in 118th Congress, but calls for mandatory funding instead of an increase in authorization.
▶ 9:38:11We're generally certainly I'm generally supportive of Agarda's mission and and included provision and we did include provisions to improve its functionality in the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2024. Uh but uh do not intend to provide the program with additional funding as it yet uh is it yet to it is has yet to reach its full authorized amount through the appropriations process.
▶ 9:38:38It's an appropriations um battle uh not an authorization battle. Um Agardo was created in the 2018 Farm Bill as a pilot to develop technologies, research tools and products through advanced research on long-term and high-risisk challenges in food and egg that the industry is unlikely to invest in because of technological or financial uncertainty. Certainly encourage all members of both sides of the aisle to weigh in on appropriations process.
▶ 9:39:04this would be a uh be worthy of uh increased uh appropriations. They certainly we have authorized it at a higher number. Uh this reconciliation package really is focused though on making targeted investments to meet acute needs for a research that deliver for the American farmers and ranchers.
▶ 9:39:24Investing in additional programs outside of this target approach would result in unnecessary cost to Congress and would counteract the committee's ability to meet its reconciliation instruction, jeopardizing this entire exercise. For this reason, I'll be voting no on this amendment, encourage my uh my colleagues to do the Um given that uh the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Benman of Virginia is amendment five.
▶ 9:39:54All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment uh shall be postponed. Uh we um according to my list, we have uh uh Mr.
▶ 9:40:22uh Vascar from New Mexico has amendment number 53 at the uh at the desk. Uh the clerk will report the the title of the amendment. Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is Vosquez. Vasquez. Yes. Thank you, sir. Um well, hold on a second. Uh the the court uh the clerk um has to report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 53 offered by Mr. Vasquez of New Mexico.
▶ 9:40:50Without objection, amendment will be considered as read. And I recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh my amendment is simple and it's actually to correct some wrongs that this administration and the USDA has already done. It's breaking its promises to America's farmers. Over the past 5 months, we've seen farmers across the country, including in my own district, left behind. Let's call it what it is.
▶ 9:41:17The USDA signed contracts, told farmers that money was coming, and then without warning, just stopped sending money. Stop sending payments. No notice, no explanation, no accountability. Just a senseless executive order that froze popular programs in all of our states, CSP, REAp, EQUIP, RCP, and AC. Now, those farmers are out tens of thousands of dollars.
▶ 9:41:42Money that they were counting on to pay their workers, cover their costs, and keep food on the table for their families. Folks, this is absolutely insane. In New Mexico, the Frontier Food Hub in Silver City was in year two of number four for their community food project grant. They're the only food pantry for hundreds of miles, and they're the only food purchaser that supports rural producers. They spent that money in good faith and USDA froze their grant with no explanation and no chance to fix it.
▶ 9:42:11That's the same with the Queida Coalition which was awarded a contract through the partnership for climate smart commodities program. These folks are national leaders in helping small farmers adapt to drought and climate change. They made smart investments because the government promised to honor their contract and now they may be left to pay the price. And let me be clear, these are already lawful undersigned contracts. So why do this?
▶ 9:42:36Because this administration wanted to review every single contract for any possible mention of DEI or any mentions of climate. Give me a break. And the cancellation of the local food purchase assistance program has been a gut punch to New Mexico's food banks and the local growers who are supplying them. That's food we needed on shelves and paychecks that farmers were depending on.
▶ 9:42:58Now, this is all happening while farmers are already hanging by a thread, facing whiplash from tariffs, stuck waiting for a real farm bill, and watching input costs go through the roof. How much more are we going to ask our farmers to carry? Now, these are family farms that are just one bad month away from losing the land they worked for generations. And if you look at the statistics and look at the data, we are losing family farms at an exponential rate. This is not the time to stop payments that this government said that they were going to honor.
▶ 9:43:28This amendment is straightforward. It tells the USDA, "Honor the contracts, pay what you owe, and stop cancelling deals under unless there's a legitimate reason." Farmers keep their word, it's time for the federal government to do the same. Without intervention from Congress, by the way, that's us. It's us right here. Our food system is going to continue to suffer. I urge you to vote for this amendment. Let's get our farmers the relief that they were promised.
▶ 9:43:56Let's honor these contracts that are already under signed and let's send a message to our constituents in rural America that we're not going to leave them behind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yel back. I thank Mr. Vazquez for uh uh yielding back and for amendment. and uh um um Miss Bazinski U is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
▶ 9:44:24Um in my district, one of the first things I did when I got to Congress and was honored to join this committee was to start an agricultural advisory council to hear from my local farmers on what was going on. And I would tell you um one of the things that I just recently met with them again is the level of I would summarize it in one word, the uncertainty that our farmers are facing. And they're facing that in a number of different directions.
▶ 9:44:50I would say one is the tariffs and the trade war that the Trump administration is continuing to pursue. And I quite frankly think that we're only beginning to see um the impact of that in agriculture and with our farmers. And that's going to be continuing to reverberate across our agricultural economy. That's creating a lot of uncertainty.
▶ 9:45:10The fact that we in Congress have not been able to since I got here in 2022 actually complete a bipartisan farm bill also adds another level of uncertainty for our farmers. I would highlight as well the cuts that this administration has done to the USDA, to the employees at the USDA that make it impossible um to move program.
▶ 9:45:32And then I rise today really in strong oppos opposition, not opposition, in support in support of my colleague uh Congressman Vasquez's um amendment because I think it also speaks to another level of uncertainty that this administration is creating when the USDA has canled contracts and frozen up to 15 programs that we know for a fact have benefited and are going to benefit the farmers in our districts.
▶ 9:46:01Uh many of these programs have been already obligated funding to our farmers and agricultural workers and to universities um in my district. Uh from the freeze of IRA dollars for climate smart agriculture to sweeping cancellations of the partnerships for climate smart commodities projects. I would just tell you today that Illinois is taking a really big hit.
▶ 9:46:25um these indiscriminate cancellations are going to seow truly a distrust that I think is going to be hard to repair with our agricultural economy. Um that is really going to be a net negative I think for all of us for the foreseeable future. One of these programs that I want to highlight that stands out to me in addition to what Congressman Vasquez talked about is the local food purchasing agreement program, the LFPA.
▶ 9:46:51The LFPA is a program that provides funds directly for underserved communities to access local healthy food for from farmers. I'd also like to say in Illinois, the Illinois Eids program is responsible for administrating this federal program. These funds have been completely cancelled, leaving our farmers, our schools, and our food banks in a real difficult situation.
▶ 9:47:16I'd like to tell the story of Solatia Farm which is it um in Urbana Champagne. I met with them in March. Um they produce and provide um help to folks that really are the most in need in our communities giving them access to healthy food options. Um I want to highlight one thing that they they pointed out to me at the end of 2024.
▶ 9:47:38They signed a contract because of a commitment that they were given by the federal government to install a solar array project on their farm to make them energy efficient. Um, they've been designated as a critical service provider by the state of Illinois and through the Illinois Solar for All program have an opportunity for 90 92% of the project's cost to be covered by tax rebates and credits.
▶ 9:48:03If the inflation reduction act remains frozen or canceled, they have told me they will lose approximately $114,000. And this is a nonprofit that is doing really um just phenomenal work with little resources. And they were given a commitment by the federal government to live up to that obligation. They signed a contract and now this really small nonprofit that's doing amazing work in the district is going to be hung out to dry. And I just don't think that's right.
▶ 9:48:32I don't think that's right when I'm at home and I keep hearing about all these different levels of uncertainty within our agricultural economy that is hurting our farmers, uh, hurting our families, hurting our communities. And so I am just really proud to stand in support of Congressman Vasquez's amendment today, um, and hope that we can live up to our obligations that we've committed to these to these farmers and to our communities. So, thank you and I yield back. Gentle yields back.
▶ 9:49:01now recognizes a gentleman from gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman. I stand in support of Congressman Vasquez. This uh whole idea of DEI being weaponized even if the president has it and he has it wrong. Diversity uh out of many we are one e pluribus unum that's a cultural value.
▶ 9:49:23equity, the 14th amendment, um enshrining equality, inclusiveness, persons that may need handicap ramps and accessibility. The president is wrong. We need to stand up as a co-equal branch of government and tell him what he is doing is against our values. Uh these are values that many countries around the world that Mr. Trump has tried to ram down the throat in France and Sweden, other countries are standing up because they cherish these as values and I think we should do the same.
▶ 9:49:52I know many farmers in my district and across the country that have had their contracts that were signed by the administrators at the USDA because they had to put in DEI and inclusive accessibility language last year. That administrator is still in place and is now cancing the contracts of the people that he signed. So, the administrator should be fired and the people should have their contract restored. This has gone on way too far.
▶ 9:50:20And then when we see what's happening at the Department of Defense, one microcosm has also happened here where Mr. Pete Heg Seth for example says that u you can't have DEI and what's the first thing he does? He eliminates Jackie Jack Jackie Robinson. Then that's racializing it. Why? Because Jackie Robinson was African-American. Then he says you can't have DEI and he won't teach the people in the militarymies about Harriet Tubman. Then he says it's DEI and he takes down the website with Coen Powell.
▶ 9:50:49Let's call it for what it is. He's racialized it and it's wrong. And whatever AI software generated program that they're using that's going in there and sumearily eliminating people from these contracts and I would say many of these contracts have had to deal with people of color. And I can give you receipts and names of people. I think you don't want me to call out the names at this time, but it is wrong and he has been very disruptive to businesses and I would like to have a private meeting with you about that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I support this amendment.
▶ 9:51:19Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. I yield my time to the distinguished uh to Mrs. Craig. Ranking members recognized. Thank you so much. Um I I just wanted to weigh in with my support for this amendment and I appreciate uh the congressman introducing it.
▶ 9:51:39uh you know the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government and sometimes I think we've forgotten that here uh in this town if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic administration were cancelling farmer contracts you'd be raising all kinds of hell and every single one of you know it so I really wish this amendment wasn't necessary I sincerely do you know I've already called on USDA to avoid avoid reckless
▶ 9:52:09funding freezes and work with Congress to implement federal programs in accordance with the law. We we've seen um the USDA uh you know accidentally fire the wrong people. I don't know if it's recklessness or incompetence. I can't decide most days. I think it's both. Um, but nevertheless, the department continues to illegally withhold congressionally appropriated dollars.
▶ 9:52:37And it honestly ought to make every single one of my Republican colleagues just as angry as it does that we passed these laws. You may not have liked them. I can promise you there are lots of laws that'll get signed into law this session of Congress that we won't like. But we will respect the law and we will continue to live up to our responsibility as a co-equal branch of government.
▶ 9:53:08And you know, as I talk to my family farmers, I thank the gentleman for introducing this amendment because these funding freezes have real consequences for farmers throughout our country. Farmers have invested time and money into these projects to improve their operations and they're counting on the federal government to uphold its commitment for a contract that the federal government signed.
▶ 9:53:32So at a time when we all know I hear all of us know that the cost of operations, input costs are high and farmers access to markets uncertain. Supporting American farmers is absolutely critical. So, I want to say a special thank you to Mr. Vasquez for his leadership here and encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. And I yield back to Mr. Mr. Jackson is recognized. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Jackson yields back. Any other members seek recognition?
▶ 9:54:02Mr. Riley is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Bosquez, for introducing this amendment. The fact that we even have to be debating this amendment is everything that is wrong with this this place. This is this is not complicated, folks. This is just the the basic fundamental difference between right and wrong.
▶ 9:54:29Upstate New York, where I'm from, the way it works is you give your word to somebody, you keep your word. Not hard. And we got farmers across upstate New York. I've been here for for a minute and I'm learning it the hard way. This place doesn't have those upstate New York values. This is so simple, guys. This is what happened.
▶ 9:54:53The government entered contracts, legally binding promises with The farmers did what the farmers do and they held up their end of the deal and then the government just walked away. Just stiffed them. Maybe that's what this president does with folks. It's not the way we treat people in upstate New York.
▶ 9:55:22This is real people who signed a contract, had a promise given to them, and had the government walk away. It's real people. I've got a constituent in Lyall, which is in northern Broom County, and his name is Scott Gleason, and I hope he's watching today. And y'all don't know Scott, but I guarantee you, you know somebody who's just like him. He's a sixth generation dairy farmer. He's the guy in town. Everybody knows Scott. He knows everybody.
▶ 9:55:51And the thing about Scott is he's always going to step up and help out his neighbors. And he doesn't give a he doesn't care what their political party is. He's going to step up and and help out. So, the federal government comes to Scott, comes to a bunch of farmers across the country and says, ' Man, we got to we really got to start uh protecting the soil better. We got to start taking all these steps and improving the farms. And we we'll cut a deal with you, Scott. Here's what we'll do. If you grow cover crops, I know it's expensive. I know you're barely hanging on by a thread, but here's the deal. Simple thing. We're going to come to you.
▶ 9:56:21Hey, here's the deal, Scott. You grow cover crops and we'll share the cost with you. You come in on it, we'll come in on it. We'll share the cost with you. And you know what Scott did? It's because upstate New York, your word is your word. It's how we operate in upstate New York. I know that's not how this place is, but back home, your word's your word. Scott said, "Yeah, I'll take that deal." And he went into his life savings.
▶ 9:56:50He's a sixth generation dairy farmer hanging on by a thread. And based on the word that this place gave him, he went into his life savings and did what they asked him to do. And all he's for, all he's asking for is to do what you said you were going to do. Why is that so hard? The government came in and said, "Hey, Scott, sorry. You went into your life savings. You put your family out.
▶ 9:57:20You did everything you were supposed to do, but never mind. The deal's off." Why? Why are we leaving Scott Gleasons of the world out to dry? to give tax cuts to Wall Street so that a bunch of folks who are pushing paper around Wall Street and exploiting tax loopholes can get more money while Scott Gleason, who's got dirt under his nails and blisters on his hands, gets hung out to dry.
▶ 9:57:49He is not asking for much. You made a promise to the guy. You looked him in the eye. You made a promise. He did what you asked him to do. He went into his life savings. Just I'm begging you guys, just keep your word. Keep your word, man. Scott doesn't have a super PAC. He doesn't have a bunch of lobbyists. I know this whole damn place is rigged against him. I don't even think he voted for me. I I think he voted for the president three times.
▶ 9:58:19I think he probably voted against me twice. But I'm here to fight like hell for him. I'm just begging you guys, if we're going to do one thing today, if you're going to take one amendment please, please, guys, take this amendment, get it done. Scott's counting on us to hold up our end of the bargain, and it's the least this place can do. Please, please, guys, support this amendment. Please, I'm begging you to yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 9:58:47Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, President Trump was given a mandate by the American taxpayers to eliminate hang in there. We're just about done. We We don't We don't need acting up at this point. Please.
▶ 9:59:12President Trump was given a mandate by the American taxpayers to eliminate waste, bloat, and inefficiencies in the federal workforce. Throughout this process, USDA has protected critical function areas and listened to members of this committee to protect the needs of rural America. Policy writers like those in this amendment are not relevant in to budget reconciliation. Rural America is a priority for me and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Mexico on his rural development farm bill priorities.
▶ 9:59:42Today, however, I will be voting no on this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. So the on the question is on the amendment uh amendment number 53 by Mr. Vasquez from from New Mexico. Uh all those in favor of this amendment uh signify by saying I. Yes. Those opposed by saying nay. No. In the opinion of the chair the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman ask for a recorded vote.
▶ 10:00:12Recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule three I two. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And next in the queue we have uh uh Representative McDonald Rivet has a uh amendment at the desk.
▶ 10:00:31The uh amendment 35 and the clerk will report the uh amendment number 35 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet of Michigan. Very good. The uh without objection, amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the general lady uh the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ranking member Craig.
▶ 10:01:00I feel like I have a winner. I do. I feel like I have a I I'm offering this amendment that supports research that helps every sector of the egg community. Yeah. The current version of the text cuts maintenance and repairs for agricultural research facilities.
▶ 10:01:23These are generally done at universities like my alma moater Michigan State Go Green through their Sageno Sagenov Valley research facility that's located in my district. It is groundbreaking for commodities like sugar beets, potatoes, dry beans, soybeans, corn, and more. Funding for this research solidifies the United States domestic growing and food security. It allows our nation to be a leader in cutting edge and innovative research.
▶ 10:01:54This provides stability for our agricultural industry and innovation as we compete with competitors like China, Mexico, and Brazil, particularly in light of our current context. Uh, I urge you to support this amendment. It's critically important, not just right now, but for the future of the agricultural community. I yield Thank the gentle lady. other members seeking recognition to speak on this amendment.
▶ 10:02:24This is Dr. Adams, you're Wow. Thank I want to thank the lady for the amendment and I do want to support it. Gives me also an opportunity to uh stress to my colleagues how important uh research is.
▶ 10:02:42You know, knowledge is power and that's really what research uh federal investment in research uh strengthens our national security and competitiveness. It improves resilience and productivity. It enhances food and nutrition security and it stimulates economic growth.
▶ 10:03:04Uh the amendment that my colleague offered uh would provide 11.5 billion for research facilities. Uh I want to just speak a moment uh about land grant institutions. Uh there are 112 of them across the country. 57 of those are are 1862 uh 1862 land grants.
▶ 10:03:2919 of those are are 1890s and they're 35 tribal colleges making up a total of 112 land grants. And so um the agriculture research performed by uh the state um experiment stations and research labs uh at our land grant universities is really the science that feeds the world. Uh I am um a proud graduate of actually two land grants.
▶ 10:03:58uh in my undergraduate work in 1890 at North Carolina ent State University in Greensboro. Uh the in 1862 the Ohio State University where I did my PhD. Uh so land grants are in my system. uh specifically on the 1890s. We have over 135 years that these schools have provided essential research and education and public outreach and economic development opportunities across our country.
▶ 10:04:29According to USDA, I think we've heard it from Venman. Every $1 invested in public agriculture uh research generates an average of $20 in benefits to thei to the US economy. Um, I am a a proud graduate, as I mentioned, of an 1890 historically black college and university.
▶ 10:04:50Uh, and these H.B.CU, n the 19 of them contribute more than 7 billion dollars to their local economies and and they provide pathways of opportunities for thousands of Americans. Research and extensions at 1890 institutions and others uh address a variety of local and regional and national and glo global problems.
▶ 10:05:12Um, and so we really should be thinking very seriously about this because these issues impact all communities, even uh low-income and underserved communities. Uh, the same communities that will benefit uh affected uh uh by this um terrible bill. But but but these include programs in in SNAP. And I think we we talked about that much earlier.
▶ 10:05:40Uh because these research institutions provide SNAP education and again knowledge is power. Uh and so I I I certainly hope that we would um support this this uh this amendment. Uh it is a good one.
▶ 10:05:56Uh I think that we would be negligent and I would certainly be if I didn't emphasize the importance of these higher education institutions uh because our research has allowed for all land grants 1862s 1890s uh to continue and expand on their groundbreaking research that spurs economic development in communities across this nation. And really that's what we need to be talking about.
▶ 10:06:23Uh so it's imperative that the funding uh in research uh especially the research that these schools will be doing uh uh are increased and because they're going to allow uh these universities to continue having a fighting chance and I I certainly appreciate uh my colleague for bringing this amendment uh forward. And I'm going to yield uh the rest of my time to uh to Miss Hayes. No, Miss Brown. Oh, I'm sorry to Miss Brown. Thank you.
▶ 10:06:53Um, I just want to point out that I too appreciate this as a um Ohioan and the the fact of the matter is um it kind of ties back to the previous amendment. Um, Ohio State received no notification around the uh research funding that they tried to draw down from. This administration is just doing things without notification, recklessly stopping research.
▶ 10:07:18So, I thought you had a winner, but then when you said research, I was like, "Oh, I don't I don't know how this is going to fly over with the other side of the aisle." But I do appreciate the effort because it it is what we need um to move forward. So, thank you for the introduction of this amendment and I do hope that we can get some support from the other side of the aisle. And well, thank you again. Let me say please support this amendment.
▶ 10:07:42and it's going to help every campus uh and it's going to help uh all the red and the blue districts. It's a red, white, blue issue. It's a national issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I y gentle lady's time is expired. Um recognize the gentleman from Alabama for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the state of Alabama has three land grant institutions. Uh Alabama&M University, kind of going from north to south there.
▶ 10:08:06Alabama&M University, uh, Tuskegee University, and then there's this other school over in East Alabama, um, that us Alabama grads don't don't really say the name, but it's Auburn University.
▶ 10:08:21Um the realities of it is that look our land grant institutions the land grant universities they make valuable contributions have uh historically uh across uh this country certainly across the state of Alabama providing opportunity providing resources for our farming for our agricultural industry. Um but it's critical that we are there to support them.
▶ 10:08:43um you know our 1890 land grant institutions I just gave a uh commencement address at at at Tuskegee this week and it was underscored there the type of research uh that they're doing the type of history uh that they make there beyond the Tuskegee airman I mean they produce some of the best and brightest scientists uh in this country Lonnie Johnson name that many may not recognize as a uh astro aerospace engineer nuclear engineer uh if you have children or if you when you were a child you you held a super
▶ 10:09:13soaker water gun. That was Lonnie Johnson's invention. Uh he's a product of Tuskegee University. He is currently uh still in the game and and undertaking research and development now on some battery technology that has the potential to make uh planes hybrid. Uh and so you know these institutions and these people that these institutions produce, they are vital to protect. We have to protect them. Uh the 1890s, I mean these are the H.B.CU, the historical H.B.CU. they present.
▶ 10:09:41We we talk about pulling people out of poverty, something that everybody on this uh dis is supportive of. Well, you can't do that uh without supporting H.B.CU. 20% of black graduates uh 20% of people who have college degrees who are African-American in this country have them from H.B.CU. Hell, 40 40 if not higher, 40% maybe even 50% of the CBC uh are graduates of H.B.CU.
▶ 10:10:05So these are institutions that are producing some of the best and brightest um people in this country and so we have an obligation to support them. We need to be supporting them and I urge everyone uh to support this amendment. Thank you. And I yield I yield to the great Dr. Adams recogniz Thank you. Thank you my brother. I appreciate that.
▶ 10:10:30that uh I was at your school at Tuskegee on last year and and did an address for them. These are fine institutions and you're absolutely correct. Uh they do produce we do produce the best and the brightest. And I've got to tell you uh going to um an undergraduate 1890 uh this poor black girl who walked those ghetto streets of Newark, New Jersey.
▶ 10:10:53I was able to uh leave North Carolina ENT and go to the Ohio State University, but only because of an H.B.CU uh in 1890. So, uh I would hope that you would support this amendment. Not only uh do if you're not a graduate, you've got plenty of folks in your districts probably that even work for you uh who who were educated at these schools. And so, uh, look, let's give them a chance, uh, to continue to survive and and and and to thrive.
▶ 10:11:23That's really what's important. Thank you. I'm going to yield back to my brother. Gentle yields back. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Uh, just an added note to that, I also support it. Thank you for your outstanding work. Uh, the honorable Dr. Alma Adams. And just as a point of reference, Abraham Lincoln created the Department of Agriculture and there was a moral act of the 1860s. Yes, it's a fact. And the uh of the 1860s and that created the land grant colleges.
▶ 10:11:53So you do not have to have elite universities all on the east coast and made sure that the agricultural and technical and the agricultural and mechanical universities could be spread across the universities. And after Congressman Moral that went on to become a senator looked up because of the history of racial discrimination in the United States of America, African-Americans were not allowed to go to those original moral act agricultural and technical agricultural mechanical schools.
▶ 10:12:21They had to come back with the moral act part two which created the 1890 land grant universities for African-Americans. I just wanted to let that be a part of the record. So there are things that we have to do to continue to move forward uh so that we can make this a better, brighter nation and live up to our ideals. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 10:12:48Um other members that seek recognition to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, let me weigh in here. uh the reforms in our legislation on part A of this of this uh subtitle A amendment um and subtitle B. So there's a foot in each one.
▶ 10:13:07Uh the reforms in our legislation ensure SNAP works the way Congress intended it to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach to preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the program moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us. striking subtitle A would negate all of the work that has gone into crafting thoughtful policy to improve SNAP.
▶ 10:13:36This reconciliation package includes historic investment in the research facilities act. I appreciate the interest in that. Um RFA has never uh to date has never received more than $2 million through the annual appropriations process. Uh, our reconciliation package includes a transformative investment in this program of $125 million per year in mandatory funding.
▶ 10:14:06uh the uh allowing the US public universities of agriculture to maintain American competitiveness and innovation to be able to prepare the best and the brightest for America's number one industry of agriculture. Investing additional funding outside of existing this the existing approach would counteract the committee's ability to meet its reconciliation instruction jeopardizing this entire exercise.
▶ 10:14:35is for this reason I'll be voting no on this amendment. Encourage my colleagues to do the same. So the question is on the amendment offered um by uh Representative McDonald Rivet on on uh amendment 35. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. All those opposed by saying nay. Nay.
▶ 10:15:02In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I request a a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 312. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Um in the queue we have uh um Mr. Riley from New York has an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 24. The clerk will report the title.
▶ 10:15:33Amendment number 24 offered by Mr. Riley of New York. Without objection, the amendment will be considered considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from New York, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for the explanation of his amendment. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. This one's the winner, guys. We We found the winner. We're actually This is it. This is it. It's the moment we've all been wait. In fact, this is what we're going to do. We're going to call this the America First Amendment for good measure.
▶ 10:16:03Uh because and this is what it's about. All right. You guys agree with what I'm going to say. American farmland should be for American farmers, right? Uh what we're seeing, this is a winner. I told you guys this is the this is the winner one. Uh but what we're seeing right now, we've got all this uh foreignowned corporations. A lot of times they're tied to communist China or other uh hostile regimes. And what they they're doing is they're swooping in and they're buying up American farmland.
▶ 10:16:32And it's really unfair because we've got these small family farms all over the place. We've heard it all day on both sides hanging on by a thread. You got these high uh input costs for our family farms, labor shortages, you got unchecked corporate consolidation. And so the foreign adversaries, China and others, they come in and they know they can kick our farmers while they're down and out bid them with cash offers.
▶ 10:16:59And the problem is that the US government isn't doing enough to stop it. I mean, we don't even know the full extent of this problem. Our best guess is that foreign investors own about 40 million acres of American farmland. But we're really in the dark on this because the reporting is so antiquated to track foreign ownership right now. The way it's working over at USDA is that they're still using paper forms.
▶ 10:17:28Uh those get collected at local offices and then they're manually typed into a system with no consist uh uh consistent quality checks and then you only update the data like once per year. So it's got a ton of errors. We've been talking a lot about error rates today. This thing has a ton of errors and the national security agencies have told us in no uncertain terms that none of this is sufficient to keep us safe.
▶ 10:17:54So we're we're we're operating in the dark on a really important national security threat and foreign acquisition of American farmland. It's not just a national security issue. It's an economic issue in our rural communities which are hollowed out when these corporate landlords move in. You got families paying more at the grocery store. The next generation of farmers can't afford to get a start because they can't afford to compete with China. So my amendment, we're going to call it the America First Amendment.
▶ 10:18:23Uh it's uh it's going to have USDA uh build a real time accurate database to stop foreign land grabs from causing any more damage because what this is really about it's about who controls our food supply, who benefits from our land. And I think that should be America and not China. So I'd urge support for this amendment. Thank you. Uh I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Um recognize Mr.
▶ 10:18:53Renman for five minutes. Speak on the amendment. Mr. Riley, um I think you've got me sold. If I may ask a few questions on this one because as a again a 25-y year army veteran, I've been stationed at many installations around the country and they're in rural parts of the country. And so, um, do you know are are, um, is there a lot of, uh, rural land around military installations?
▶ 10:19:22Are you familiar with that at all? So, has did you have to like Can you just ask me a question? I can I'll yield to you. We sit right next to each other, man. You could have told me you were going to start asking me questions before you did it and give me a heads up. Yeah, there's a ton of s like, dude, we've been sitting next to each other for 10 hours. Josh, I'm going to ask you some questions here. Yeah, there's Fort Drum. Yeah, there's a ton. There's a there's there's a ton. And this is part of the problem.
▶ 10:19:48I mean, we've seen in uh I think Missouri, if my recollection is right, if you had given me a heads up, I would have looked it up in North Dakota, some other places, you have uh rural communities with military installations. And we know in some of those cases, we've seen foreign adversaries like China come in and gobble up that farmland around it. And the problem is we should have we should be able to know with absolute specificity and accuracy the answer to that question. But this is what I'm getting at that the systems are so antiquated. We don't really know the full extent of the threat.
▶ 10:20:17For all we know, China and and Chinese shell companies are holding on to a whole bunch of American farmland in really critical parts of this country and we just we're we're just flying blind. So my amendment would allow us to to know uh the answer with with a higher degree of certainty. Well, I I think I yield to you now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I yield back to you. Yeah. Understood it. So, um you know, I've um I've got three military installations in my district.
▶ 10:20:46Um and um I've got Quanico. I've got uh a a naval R&D facility um located in farm country. Um and then there's a small army training base. But I've also been stationed at uh places like Fort Bragg, Fort Hood that have a ton of farm or you know uh grazing and uh I'm aware of many others and this is actually a legitimate problem.
▶ 10:21:16All kidding aside, um this is a legitimate problem. Um it seems like $35 million is a really a drop in the bucket to address a potential major national security issue with um our competitors buying land adjacent immediately adjacent to uh sensitive military installations where they can send up drones or listen.
▶ 10:21:43Um, and um, it's a vulnerability and um, it seems like a a a uh, a no-brainer to me. I wish I was the one introducing this one because it's it's a good one. Um, I think you really do have a winner. Um, the only folks that benefit um, are adversaries uh, with this type of of security gap. And so I will support it and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
▶ 10:22:14Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who else uh seeks recognition? Uh Representative McDonald Rivet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I uh want to express my strong support for this amendment. In fact, I have introduced legislation to limit the amount of um foreignowned farmland for this exact concern.
▶ 10:22:40We are seeing uh other countries strategically going in and buying farmland around our mil military installations. China is um a a very large concern. I think part the the concept that we would ask the department to be able to identify where that is so that we're not flying uh blind is a very good one and important for national security. Fully support. Thank you.
▶ 10:23:09Gentle lady yields back. Now please do recognize gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Figures for five minutes. Josh or Congressman Riley, this is this is one of those issues where I would think that we can come to agreement because coming from Alabama, believe it or not, this is actually a a a pretty decentsized issue that we have to deal with. In fact, Senator Tommy Tubberville is actually leading in this space in the state of Alabama. Why? Why Alabama?
▶ 10:23:35Because in the state of Alabama, we actually have the fourth most foreignowned land in the United States of America. The fourth most fourthmost. And so it's a it's an issue in Alabama because like we are a pretty we're a rural state. We're a pretty rural state. We're pretty rural state. And so it it it creates an economic issue uh because that is land that could be being used by farmers to farm.
▶ 10:24:05And if that rate continues to increase, if that land continues to essentially be taken out of uh taken out of the market um to be able to be used to further our agricultural industry, it puts us at an economic disadvantage. So, Congressman Riley, I am with you on this one and I would hope that this is something um that uh my Republican colleagues can join. If you don't want to join uh Congressman Riley here, join Tommy Tuberville, join the coach and u let's get this one let's make this one an actual winner. I yield back.
▶ 10:24:35Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, um I thank the gentleman for his amendment and certainly agree that the agricultural foreign investment disclosure act that became law in late uh 1978 uh those reporting system needs to be modernized.
▶ 10:24:59This is why the Farm Food and National Security Act uh had extensive provisions streamlining uh um Aphida reporting so that we know who owns American farmland. Also, this debate actually predates uh certainly all of us by a couple decades in a previous country, not China, was buying up farmland um be for production purposes to be able to feed their nation.
▶ 10:25:28And at that time several decades ago, there were provisions to many states but limitations in place on in those states. Uh this year the committee will be doing oversight of USDA modernization efforts and we'll be assessing the needs of the FPAC business center and the U Aida process. Um I will say just throwing money at the IT budget won't cut it.
▶ 10:25:54We need reforms which aren't eligible for this process that we're in today. Um, and further appropriating money out of the Treasury is not in our jurisdiction and since appropriations committee did not receive reconciliation instructions, the amendment is technically not in order. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue. It's incredibly important uh moving forward, but today I have to urge a no vote on the amendment.
▶ 10:26:22And given that um the question is on the amendment offered by uh Mr. Riley of New York, amendment number 24. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by s saying nay. And you pen the chair. The naysay have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Okay. Oh yeah.
▶ 10:26:49I'm supposed to uh can I get a Can we do a vote on this one? A recorded vote on this. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. A recorded vote has been requested. Uh pursuant to the committee rule 3 I2, further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Um with that, I believe Mr. Manion has amendment number 55 at the desk and the clerk will report the title. Amendment number 55 offered by Mr. Manion of New York.
▶ 10:27:19Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the gentleman from New York. Uh, Mr. Manion, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for explanation of his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment increases mandatory funding for the specialty crop research initiative or SCRI to $300 million per year starting in fiscal year 2026. It's a needed investment in the crops that power New York's a economy.
▶ 10:27:48Apples, grapes, berries, vegetables, and support thousands of jobs across the state. Apple orchards in my district, wineries across the Fingerlakes, all of these local specialty crop producers rely on the research that comes out of SRI to stay competitive and sustain their local businesses.
▶ 10:28:08Regardless of the crop, growers across central New York and the Mohawk Valley are facing increased frost risk, pest threats, disease, and labor shortages, and they need cuttingedge research to assist them in navigating through this. We've seen SCRI make a difference, funding the development of cold hearty grape varieties, integrated pest management for tree fruit, and better disease forecasting tools.
▶ 10:28:38But demand for SRI funding far outpaces availability, and the current cap isn't cutting it. This amendment doesn't create a new program. It simply strengthens one of the few federal tools that specialty crop growers actually rely on. These producers are just as vital to the food system as any commodity grower. Let's give them the support that they deserve. I urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 10:29:24Gentlemen, time's expired. I apologize. Let me get No, I need it. Very good. Um, any other members uh seek recognition to speak on Mr. Manion's amendment number 55? Any other members seek recognition?
▶ 10:29:46Seeing none, um the reforms in our legislation ensure SNAP works the way Congress intended to by reinforcing work and instituting long overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end the executive and the state overreach to preserve the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the program moving forward so it can continue to serve the most vulnerable among us.
▶ 10:30:10The uh striking subtitle A would negate all of that work that has gone into crafting this thoughtful policy to improve SNAP. The existing reconciliation package includes transformative investments to the specialy crop research initiative to support the critical needs of the specialy crop industry. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on ways to continue to support the specialy crop industry moving forward.
▶ 10:30:35However, investing additional funding outside of the existing approach would counteract the committee's ability to meet its reconciliation instruction. It's for this reason, I'll be voting no in this amendment, encourage my colleagues to do the same. So, on the question of on the question of the amendment offered by Mr. Manion, um on his amendment number 52, uh I'm sorry, 55. Thank you.
▶ 10:31:04Uh question is on the amendment number 55. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I oppose uh by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. I have to say it's not as robust on either side is what it was at 10:00 this morning either. Uh but you're we're getting it done. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote, please.
▶ 10:31:31A record a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to the committee role 3II2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. And so at this point, uh, Mr. Selenus has an amendment to desk number 36. Uh, the clerk will report the title. Amendment number 36 offered by Miss Selenus of Oregon. Without objection, amendment shall be considered as read.
▶ 10:31:58I now recognize the distinguished gentle lady, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In Oregon and across the West, we're very familiar with the growing strain on our nation's wildfire response system. Communities across my state have lived through catastrophic wildfire seasons. Entire towns destroyed, tens of thousands of acres scorched, smoking, smoke choking the air for weeks on end, tainting wine grapes, and leaving families without homes.
▶ 10:32:27Throughout these crises, our brave firefighting workforce continues to step up and protect us despite being thoroughly understaffed and overworked. As of May 3rd, the US Forest Service reports employing just over 9,000 wildland firefighters, which is roughly about 2,000 short of its own stated target of 11,300. But let's be clear, 11,300 is not the number of firefighters we need to meet the scale of today's wildfire threat.
▶ 10:32:55It's simply the maximum number that the agency believes it can afford to support under current funding constraints. And that is a real problem because across Oregon, we are already living with the real world consequences of underinvestment in wildfire preparedness and forest management. In 2020, the Labor Day fires burned over 1.2 million acres in Oregon, destroying more than 4,000 homes and structures and tragically taking lives.
▶ 10:33:21In 21 and 22, Oregon again saw hundreds of thousands of acres burn with suppression costs alone reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars. And it is only getting worse. As I mentioned previously in my remarks, 2024 was another record-breaking year in terms of acreage burnt across my state.
▶ 10:33:40Rather than rising to meet this moment with the urgency it demands, this underlying reconciliation bill offers no serious strategy for building out our wildfire workforce or dealing with staffing shortages at countless other agencies. Instead, my Republican colleagues have chosen to focus their energy on punishing Americans who are struggling to feed their families and afford healthcare, slashing programs like SNAP and Medicaid, all to help finance tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.
▶ 10:34:08And yes, the American people did vote for President Trump, but they also voted for all of us in this room, a co-equal branch of government. And we can exert our will and influence to help the people of our districts. I will be honest. If this reconciliation bill proposed billions of dollars in SNAP cuts in order to fund wildfire prevention, hire thousands more personnel, and tackle other truly pressing issues, I'd still argue we need to find a better way to pay for it.
▶ 10:34:38But at least that would be a debate grounded in shared goals and public need. This bill doesn't even pretend to strike that balance. It's the furthest thing from pragmatism. It's ideological. It's cruel. And it's completely the opposite of what our constituents sent us all here to do. That's why I'm offering this amendment to remind the majority on this committee that common sense solutions do still exist and are worth pursuing.
▶ 10:35:04This amendment would require that all revenue generated from federal timber sales be directed toward hiring and paying wildland firefighters and forest management staff. These revenues are already being collected from our public lands. So, let's ensure they're reinvested in those same lands and in the dedicated public servants who are there to protect them.
▶ 10:35:26It's a straightforward fix that simply ensures that when we extract value from our forests, that value is returned to support the safety and stewardship of those forests and the communities that depend on them. In a moment when much of this reconciliation bill moves us backward, I hope this amendment serves as a reminder that we are here to look forward and seek out bipartisan common sense solutions. I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back.
▶ 10:35:51The uh gentle lady yields back and now uh Representative Mlan Delaney to speak on the on the amendment. So uh thank you Mr. Chair. Uh so I commend my uh colleague from Oregon because this is a common sense common ground again type of amendment that we can all look at.
▶ 10:36:16Um, as we've seen over the last few months, this administration has taken an axe to the US Forest Service and the departure of over 10% of the AY's workforce, including thousands of public servants who are qualified to fight fire. It's created confusion and stress around protecting vulnerable communities from the threat of fire.
▶ 10:36:34And I know a little bit about this because although I represent the sixth district of Maryland, I'm a farmer's daughter from Idaho and I know what wildfires do and how and I've seen them burn almost a half a mile from my own home. And this is all at a time when climate is getting hotter and drier and we need a lot of resources.
▶ 10:36:55This amendment requires the Forest Service to prioritize addressing the wildfire crisis by dedicating funding towards hiring additional wildfire firefighters and hazardous fuels reduction personnel. I also have to note that um within my district I have five national uh parks including the CNO canal which gets as many visitors as Yellowstone, almost four million. and that our National Fire Academy in Emittsburg, Maryland, has had all of its firefighting classes canled.
▶ 10:37:25Um, in some we need to dedicate resources for firefighters for their training and I urge that all of my colleagues support this amendment and uh to vote yes. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Other members wish to be recognized. Miss McGovern. Yeah, thank you Mr. chairman and um I certainly support the Selenus amendment. Um but I I I just want to take a moment to say that I'm a little bit curious uh here.
▶ 10:37:55Uh I mean does every Republican on this committee believe that this reconciliation bill is somehow perfect? Um apparently you do. Not a single amendment offered to make any changes. Not even an amendment to move a comma. I mean nothing. and um and almost not a word uttered by any Republican member uh on this committee. I mean, you all must think that this bill is somehow flawless.
▶ 10:38:21Um a bill that uh that takes food away from struggling families, a bill that I mean, literally screws regular people. And um and no one on the Republican side has expressed any concern about any of that. uh and they've expressed no concern over the fact that some of the most substantial and controversial aspects of this bill have had no hearings. I mean, we haven't we haven't there's no due diligence here.
▶ 10:38:50We we've not done our homework on some of this stuff and they could have significant consequences, adverse consequences that could hurt a lot of our a lot of my constituents, a lot of your constituents. Um and again, major changes, no hearings. This bill represents the biggest cut to SNAP in the history of the program. All again to to to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
▶ 10:39:19Um and a lot of good amendments were offered by Democrats. This is a good amendment. Uh there should be some bipartisan support for these things. Nothing. Nothing. Um and I just point this out because process matters. Um, and this process is lousy. And with that, I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on Mr.
▶ 10:39:44Selenus amendment number 36? If not, I'll take the privilege of doing that. I thank the gentle lady for offering the amendment. Uh quite frankly, as someone who was a state certified firefighter, ensuring the hiring and adequate pay for our firefighters is extremely important and I support the efforts to ensure that they're being fairly compensated.
▶ 10:40:09The way that the amendment is is structured though, um it would be uh uh the this amendment would require all revenue generated by timber sales to be utilized for hiring and paying the wildland firefighters and forest management personnel.
▶ 10:40:25thereby um excluding the fact that revenue generated through timber sales is is also critically important particularly for supporting rural counties and funding rural school districts that are located in in those national forests. Um however, it's not clear how this amendment would affect the uh current distribution of timber seats if it became law. And timber receipts are already divided into specific accounts for individual purposes.
▶ 10:40:54And so, um, I mean, I here's my pledge. I look forward to working with the general lady on ways that we can better support our wildland firefighters, provide certainty for what they need. Um, and um, but within reconciliation and given the unknown impacts, I have to oppose this amendment. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your um, continued work. Yeah.
▶ 10:41:17Um given that um uh the question is on the amendment uh offered by Mrs. Selenus of Oregon, amendment number 36. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. Those opposed by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it in the amendment. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
▶ 10:41:44A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee role 312. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Um now in the queue um I have uh Mrs. Bazinski um who is a an amendment at the desk amendment number 45. The clerk will report the title of the amendment. Amendment number 45 offered by Miss Bazinski of Illinois.
▶ 10:42:13Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Uh I now recognize the distinguished general lady from Illinois, the sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um my amendment would move to strike the incredibly worrisome SNAP cuts as well as reinvest into American agriculture. For too long, we have been falling behind in publicly funded agricultural research.
▶ 10:42:40When you adjust for today's dollars, research spending in the United States has actually gone down, not up, since the start of the 21st century. In that same period, China has quintupled its spending in public agricultural research. And since 2015, it has more than doubled the United States spending. The European Union has been spending more on a research than the United States for over this entire century.
▶ 10:43:10and their expenditures are growing. India and Brazil have also grown and they are each getting closer to our spending. Federally funded agricultural research in the United States has led to life-changing scientific breakthroughs. The USDA ARS lab in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois, which my colleague, Congressman Sorenson now represents, is the site of where penicellin was first mass-roduced.
▶ 10:43:38At the same time, it was for soldiers in World War II. Now, NIH reports that most people in the United States take penicellin at one point in their lives. And that is only possible because of federal funding. ARS researchers developed Roma tomatoes. They developed a vaccine for African swine fever.
▶ 10:44:01Their research led to the discovery of nitrogen fixation for legumes, reducing synthetic fertilizer fertilizer inputs and allowing farmers more flexibility. I would just also like to add that I'm proud to represent the University of Illinois and Urbana Champagne where I've been able to firsthand visit some of these investments in agricultural research whether it's at soyface or at the energy farms at the University of Illinois where we're learning to grow
▶ 10:44:31through investments in agricultural research more resilient crops for the climate that is coming to us in the very near future. I also want to say the University of Illinois is the second oldest has the second oldest experimental plot in the western hemisphere known as the mororrow plots. So we're very big believers in investment in the importance of agricultural research.
▶ 10:44:55But this is just also a point that I want to make that I believe these investments are a matter of national security. It is bad for the United States if other nations are outplaying us in a research. Our food system is what keeps us safe, sovereign, and strong as a nation. We cannot lose that edge over our allies and adversaries alike. That's why I'm introducing this amendment.
▶ 10:45:21It would require a 5% year-over-year increase plus inflation in an investment in the Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service, National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. These programs power our economy, our farms, and our land grant colleges and universities.
▶ 10:45:44They have made critical discoveries many of which are through basic exploratory research that have been built and that have built our way of life. On that note, we know that federal research funding draws private investment as well. And I truly believe that public and private research have complimentary roles. But ultimately private research is driven by private returns to the researcher and they don't capture they don't fully capture the benefits to our society.
▶ 10:46:14Public research and the basic explor exploratory research it supports is driven by social returns to the citizens who fund it. Earlier I gave the example of penicellin. USDA didn't know if their work to mass-roduce penicellin would work. And if it did, it would it would not generate a profit for them, but they were able to do that research anyway. And that is the power of public funding.
▶ 10:46:41I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I hope that it is clear that this is a necessary investment for our national security. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentle lady and she yells back. Other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment. Mr. McGover, I certainly support the Zinski amendment. Uh but Mr. Chairman, it's like a miracle just happened. Um Republicans all appeared and I'm just curious. Uh does that mean you're about to shut us down?
▶ 10:47:14Your comments are gerine to Mrs. Bazinski. Well, I know I'm I'm just, you know, I'm again I mean Mrs. Bazinski. I would not want to do that. Well, I mean, I we we've had no hearings on these major changes that are in this bill. None. That are going to adversely impact people, millions of people in this country. Um, and you know, I mean, we've we we're trying to offer amendments. This is the only way we can be heard about some of our concerns. And we have many many more amendments that would like to offer.
▶ 10:47:43Uh, Miss Bazinski's amendment is an excellent amendment. It should be supported. Uh but I mean I I find this particularly outrageous that um that you may just shut us all down um when there are a lot more amendments that need to be offered. I don't know whether any of my colleagues, you know, want to comment as well, but I find I find this I find this really disturbing. This is not the way this the House of Representatives is supposed to operate. This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate. Um you know, we're supposed to have debate.
▶ 10:48:13You don't have to agree with us on everything. Um, but in some of the other committees, uh, they went all night. Um, so I mean, we shouldn't be afraid of debate and amendments and ideas. You don't like them, you could vote them down. But again, when you have no hearings on some of the major parts of this bill, no hearings at all. And we just get this bill 24 hours ago and you know, and and and that's it. You know, I I find that uh outrageous.
▶ 10:48:41I'll yield my remaining time to Miss Bazinski if she wants to add anything else. Miss Bazinski is recognized. Thank you. No, I mean I think that I share your concerns, Mr. McGovern. I mean, I think that all of these amendments, a lot of them, and we've highlighted some of them were actually introduced originally last year in a farm bill process, but none of this has been in regular order as it relates to any of the components of the farm bill.
▶ 10:49:09Um, it's just I I share your frustration. I wish we'd have more hearings on this. I know there's bipartisan support in this amendment in particular on agricultural research, which is something that should be in a farm bill, but I have to discuss it today because it was a part of this reconciliation process. This is the only way for me to voice my concern that I have in my district. Um because I'm I'm very doubtful that we're actually really going to get to completing a farm bill because of the obscurity of this reconciliation process and where we are tonight.
▶ 10:49:39So, um I I share your frustration. I do. And and I'll um yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Any other members seek to speak on Mr. Costa Rice for five minutes? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I am frustrated I think like many of our colleagues are about the lack of uh the um uh due diligence that I think we should be given.
▶ 10:50:06Uh we are not only a year and a half past time on the reauthorization of this farm bill, but we now find ourselves in a situation we are subject ourselves to uh decisions that been made from high above somewhere. I guess I'm not sure where that's at. But with regards to uh uh a bill that uh you know has been dictated from a reconciliation process that we are not participating in, sadly uh we are on the sidelines.
▶ 10:50:35Uh this is again another example of abdicating I think the legisl uh the legislative process as co-equal branches of government. But sadly there are numerous other examples that we can cite. Uh this amendment uh let me speak to is a I think a good amendment.
▶ 10:50:53Um I I suspect that many of you while privately might acknowledge to me the amount of cuts that have taken place in USDA's budget FDA the registering of programs that have been in the years of work with our colleges and universities our land grant universities that have provided vital research that really has made American agriculture uh at the cutting edge uh in research in terms of crop science science in terms
▶ 10:51:23of reduction of pesticides, in terms of more drought tolerant plants. I mean the list goes on and on and on in terms of this public private partnership that has existed and we see um uh from Musk and his troop uh cuts that in which people have been working for for years uh scientists, people with their uh their doctorate um and so many areas that improve the quality of food and nutrition
▶ 10:51:54and our ability to compete not only to put the safest and and the most bountiful amount of good food on America's dinner table, but uh leading the world. And so uh I think that our inability to to focus I have some amendments I know as other colleagues do that would focus on APHUS on the cuts that are being made there on areas of uh funds for plant protection and advanced science.
▶ 10:52:22But all that goes by the wayside in this elusive attempt to determine uh how the USDA's budget and how efforts for people in need food who people who are food insecure are going to be impacted as a result of this reconciliation process if it's successful. And I hope it's not for the reasons that we've stated here today.
▶ 10:52:48and maybe we maybe hope springs eternal we can actually sit down and work on a bipartisan um reauthorization of the farm bill. That's my prayer. I want to thank all of you for your efforts. I want to thank the chairman. I know he's tried uh but it has not worked out and for that I am disappointed I think along with many of my colleagues. So uh this is the final swan song. Let it be and uh let's vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 10:53:19The national ranking member is Well, Mr. Chairman, we we filed uh 43 additional amendments that my colleagues would like to be heard tonight. And I welcome my colleagues from across the aisle to our markup. For those of you who I haven't actually seen in the last 20 plus hours, it's it's good to see you. It's good to have you here. Miss Bazinski, thank you so much for filing this amendment.
▶ 10:53:47Every single one of my colleagues have um worked tirelessly to and put lipstick on this pig before we get a final vote. But unfortunately, here we are where we started with $313 billion dollar in cuts to a title of the farm bill.
▶ 10:54:16All of you in this room, I many of you know that we have been ready to sit down and work on a bipartisan farm bill. We stand ready. But what you've chosen to do is a path that is going to create winners and losers in the titles of the bill.
▶ 10:54:36And what you've chosen to do breaks my heart when you think about a absolute minimum of three million Americans losing access to the most successful anti-hunger program that this country has ever run.
▶ 10:54:55And you know, it's just shocking with 43 amendments left with my colleagues who've been here the whole markup steadfastly debating and discussing and talking and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you, but you've done the heavy lifting because your members understand that this is a bill with 330 billion dollars in cuts that they actually don't want to be on the record talking about.
▶ 10:55:24I have never seen such a silent group of colleagues in my entire life. And so as we get to the end, apparently with 43 Democratic amendments awaiting to be introduced and discussed and debated, uh I am incredibly disappointed. I'm sorry, it was 44 44 that we filed. I'm incredibly disappointed that this is where we are.
▶ 10:55:54No farm bill negotiation, no ability to impact, not a single one of these amendments that have been offered have been accepted by the majority. This is a partisan process that frankly is a huge challenge to the farm bill coalition that has always allowed us to get a 5-year 12title farm bill across the finish line.
▶ 10:56:21And I know many of you on the other side of the aisle do not want this either. I know that because you've told me that. You've told me that. And the powers that be, the powers on high, whether it's the speaker, whether it's the administration have said this is what you have to do and you got to deliver 230. So if you want to support family farmers, you got to deliver more than that in SNAP savings. Why? Why? Why?
▶ 10:56:50Why are we doing this? We're doing this to give a tax break to already wealthy people. And we've heard, you know, a number of times today about the bill, but the bottom middle class in our country literally gets hundreds while the top 5% gets hundreds of thousands. It's crazy.
▶ 10:57:18Don't even get me started on the large corporations and the millions that they get out of this. Look, if you wanted to support family farmers, you wouldn't be handing out and spending money and creating more debt and deficits in our country in order to make sure that the top 5% in this country is taken care of. These are the wrong values, the wrong priorities.
▶ 10:57:45I'm sick and tired of hearing about how much some folks care about family farmers and then you put forward a bill and ignore the need for a farm bill in our country. So, I'm just going to say we got 44 amendments left. We are ready to stay here all night. We are ready to stay here tomorrow. Y'all canled work on Friday.
▶ 10:58:15Yeah, cancel votes on Friday. And at the end of the day, we stand ready to get a farm bill done in this Congress. With that, I yield back. Gentlemen, does anyone else seek recognition to speak on Mrs. Bazinski's amendment? Mr. Sorenson's recognized. Five minutes.
▶ 10:58:39I thank the gentleoman in my neighboring district uh Miss Bedzinski um uh for bringing up this amendment. Um the also speaking on behalf of the Peoria AL lab um which we're fighting to save. Um I'd actually like to to call out and thank one of my colleagues not on this committee but um Congressman Darren Le Hood uh willing to work across the aisle. In fact um we're working together to try to save that.
▶ 10:59:07Um, it's the birthplace of penicellin, how important it is. Um, we need more of that bipartisanship. It's the honor of a lifetime to serve my home district in Congress. Um, it's also the honor to serve on the House Agriculture Committee. Um, for the Republicans that just came back, welcome. Um, if you may have missed it, but I'm so proud to live in the hometown of John Deere. Um, but farmers are hurting today.
▶ 10:59:34They tell me every time I'm home, they want a five-year bipartisan farm bill. So, I ask folks in this committee, where is it? You know, I was one of only two Democrats on the last committee um to to say to Republicans, let's work together. Um and I and I got your word that we could work together. Let's sit at the table. Um you know, Mr. Chairman, I I really appreciate you and I appreciate your leadership.
▶ 11:00:03Um, and I remember at the last at the end of the last Congress, uh, you told me that, um, because of my vote, you were going to work with me to get a farm bill passed. But here we are. Um, today late at night, not late enough. We got more work to do. Um, we're not doing the work of the people today. Um, we're taking food away from hungry people. My state can't afford it. Yours can't either. And honestly, it's sad.
▶ 11:00:32I thought we were all better than this. Um, and so I guess I'll just end with this. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Miss Bazinski for her amendment, and I yield back. Yields back. Anyone else seeks to speak on the amendment? Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Congresswoman, thanks for introducing this amendment.
▶ 11:01:00I think this is yet another example of a worthwhile uh investment for the American taxpayer. Uh this is something that we receive dividends on, something that we receive benefits from in the state of Alabama. I mean, we are in the process of doing a lot of a lot of cutting and a lot of uh cost sharing. And um I know Mr. Scott uh has mentioned a couple times that a lot of you know, we we do have states that have budget surpluses and I agree with them. We do.
▶ 11:01:25My home state has a budget surplus, but it's not so much a question of whether or not they have the money. It's whether or not they are going to do that with the money. I'm in the state of Alabama. I mean, we literally, I just said 50% of our rural hospitals are on pace to close. And our state legislature didn't do anything with that budget surplus to save those rural hospitals. Uh we still haven't expanded Medicaid. Just one of a few states u one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid.
▶ 11:01:51And so if we're not willing to invest in Medicaid, if we're not willing to invest in rural hospitals, I can't say with confidence that they're going to, you know, take that surplus and and use it. Um even though they have it, they they definitely have it. Um and so that's what this fight is about. It's about making sure that that we're taking care of those programs like that we're trying to fund uh in this amendment to do it. And look, as a freshman, this is my first time sitting in a markup of this nature. And I will say I'm I'm disappointed in the experience.
▶ 11:02:20I come here probably like every jaded freshman thinking that we'll be able to work together to do something. But I just legitimate look, we've we've introduced the gamut of amendments. We've introduced amendments that Republican members on this committee have introduced in the past. We had a whole love fest around uh Josh's amendment. Um you know, we've introduced amendments um on subject matter that Senator Tubberville is supporting and driving over in the Senate.
▶ 11:02:45And my takeaway from this is that we could literally introduce an amendment tonight that said that the Holy Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And we get in response, no. And and and everything we do, everything we do is a no. It's a no. It's a no. It's a no. It's a no. And we are not that different as people. We're not that different as Americans. We're not in a position where we literally can nothing. Nothing. Not one.
▶ 11:03:15Not a single thing, not nothing that we can agree on as Democrats and Republicans. Well, the hell with that as Americans, as people who are on the A committee, as people who are entrusted with trying to do what's best for a farmer? I've seen that gentleman in the back with that farmer shirt on since day one. Like, that's what we are here to support. We got to do that.
▶ 11:03:36And you mean to tell me that you hadn't heard a single thing, not one, that we can just say, you know what, I can agree to that. That's pitiful. That's a shame on us collectively as a committee that we are failing to demonstrate the type of leadership that everybody in their district hears that people want to see. They want to see us working together. They want to see us acknowledging and living up to the principle that we are more alike than we are different.
▶ 11:04:06And so I am I'm thoroughly disappointed in this process. Again, I told look, I I'm a straight shooter. I call it like I see it. I'm not scared to vote the way I feel. I voted um opposite, you know, my party on several instances already since I've been here because I'm a principal person. I vote on what I feel, what I believe. I don't vote on what somebody tells me to do. And at the end of the day, we all have that we all need to have that level of courage, right?
▶ 11:04:34Like we we shouldn't just be sitting here doing what one person tells us we have to do because you guys were sent here to represent your districts. You guys were sent here to represent your districts. You weren't sent here to represent the White House. And I can guarantee you none of our districts are in perfect alignment with the White House. And so I encourage everybody to vote your conscience.
▶ 11:04:55you know, vote your courage, vote your beliefs, vote your district, but at the end of the day, we can do much better than we have done in this committee room over the past two days. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time back to the ranking You want yielded time to you? Sorry. Thank you so much. Um, I appreciate that.
▶ 11:05:21I'll just say that uh we're we're here We'd like to continue to discuss and debate. Miss Bzinski, your amendment is terrific. I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes on your amendment and every other amendment that was offered here this evening. Even the amendment that was an exact replica of Mr. Man's bill, the very same bill.
▶ 11:05:52Uh thank you, Mr. Riley, for offering that. So uh with that I want to say thank you uh to my colleagues and I will yield back to you. I recognize the gentle lady Hawai Represent Takuda. Okay that's fine either way. Representative Brown is recognized. Okay. Did you need all the time because I can yield to you. All right. I just wanted to um thank you Nikki.
▶ 11:06:15Thank you uh Representative Bazinski for um introducing this amendment which strikes all cuts to SNAP and instead invests additional dollars in important USDA research areas. research supported by the USDA, economic research, um, has found spending on public agriculture research and development has generated on average $20 in benefits to the US economy for every dollar for every dollar of spending.
▶ 11:06:41$20 in benefits for every dollar of spending. In a year where the president's budgets has slashed uh NIFA by a third and also attempts to downsize ARS ERS and NA NASS is Congress's job to create a framework of funding that will support research long term. And I too urge my colleagues support.
▶ 11:07:06But I would be remiss if I did not point out something I found in a book called The Mandate for Leadership, also known as Project 2025. It reads, "Separate," and this is on page 331 for those who are interested. separate the agriculture provision of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions.
▶ 11:07:31To have genuine reform and proper consideration of the issues, agriculture programs should be considered in separate legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition part of the farm bill and reauthorization of such programs should be fixed on different timelines to ensure this separation.
▶ 11:07:52Now, people told us that project 2025, they didn't know anything about it, that we were being hyperbolic, that we were lying, that this was not going to happen. And here we are doing exactly what it says on page 331. But we're the liars. We're the ones being dishonest.
▶ 11:08:24I cannot understand how we are being manipulated, lied to, deceived out in the open. It's right in front of our faces, y'all. They're doing they've got the plan laid out line by line, page by page, verbatim.
▶ 11:08:49But they sit across the aisle silently and their silence is complicit. Their silence is complicit. And with that, I'm happy to yield my time to the judal woman from North Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to also thank uh gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you very much.
▶ 11:09:15I I do want to also support the amendment and say uh you know research is something that as an educator um for a long time uh I know how important it is and I appreciate you bringing bringing this forward and and let me say to Miss Brown for your incredible research and for pointing that out uh on on on page 300 and what was it 31 331 I would certainly encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at it again. And I'm sure you've seen it before because that's why we're here doing this.
▶ 11:09:45Uh and so just I'm I'm trying to recall who said it, you know, that uh that that people may not remember uh they may not remember the the the words of their enemies, but we'll certainly remember uh the the silence of our friends. And I I've heard the chairman say, you know, we use the word friend, friend, friend. Uh but that's what friends will do. Uh what they're not supposed to do.
▶ 11:10:11And it's really it's unfortunate uh that and I have to go back to what Mr. Figures talked about voting your conscience and uh having some sensitivity for people uh that you represent. And I got to tell you the poor people all over this this nation in the red states and the blue states. And I just wonder what your constituents really think about you. Uh that some of them are starving and we don't want to give them heat. We don't want to give them food.
▶ 11:10:41Uh, and you just want to do what uh uh what the man in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue told you to do. But you know, laws are not made through executive orders. Laws are not made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I tell my constituents that all the time because they're so concerned about all of these executive orders. But you're right. 2025 tells it like it is. Shame on you. I yield I'll yield my time back to you, M. Brown. With that, I yield back.
▶ 11:11:12Julie yields back. Mrs. Takuda from Hawaii is recognized for five minutes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I rise in strong support of Representative Bazinsk's amendment. We need more research. We need more statistics.
▶ 11:11:26And while I have plenty more to say and at least two amendments still left in the queue, I do want to end my time the way I began with a story, with a face, a statistic to some, a real person who lives in my district who wants and needs to be heard. Stephanie from Kia, a military spouse, wrote, "I had to get food stamps for the first time as an adult when my husband was active duty Army E3.
▶ 11:11:55We had been in the army for almost two years and didn't make enough to pay housing, car, and two toddlers. So, I got food stamps for two years. It is terrible to pay our active duty families so little that they qualify for government assistance. I spent some of my childhood with a young single mother getting food stamps and Medicaid. I had free school lunches. I would have gone hungry at times. We need these programs for people. We're about to take a series of votes.
▶ 11:12:26Colleagues, I ask that when you take these votes, you remember Stephanie, an Army wife, a hardworking American on SNAP. A statistic, yes. One of among millions who would be hurt by this bill, but a real person nonetheless. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Gentle yields back. We recognize uh Miss Mlan Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 11:12:54I was not going to speak up, but I feel in some way this is almost a closing punctuation on the last uh day and a half. Um, first of all, I have to say that I am in deep support of this amendment and Miss uh, Represki's um, real uh, lifting up of research because I am such a firm believer in a research and all of the amendments we are supporting and I might even say of much of the research that is within my
▶ 11:13:24own district in uh, NIST and NIH and National Institute of Cancer because research underpins uh, innovation. It underpins business, but it also furthers our ability um for farmers to to uh to lead a better livelihood and it underpins our national security. Um I started this with uh my comments yesterday that I came to Congress with a common sense, common ground attitude.
▶ 11:13:54But I've realized in the last uh 90 days that shared truths really you have to start at the same place with shared data um the shared basic thoughts of where you start from and then shared value outputs and what it means at the end. Um looking at this research is really important but as you've looked at the last couple of uh uh if we looked over the amendments it's been SNAP it's been our feeding hungry children. It's been conservation.
▶ 11:14:23It's been about our national defense. It's been about impact on rural America and communities and veterans benefits. And as I look at all of these different value outputs, I know there is so much bipartisanship that we can work together. But when I came to go to Georgetown Law from Idaho, it was a different place in Washington. But my whole life I've been able to drive results by looking at someone in the eye and figuring out how you can work together.
▶ 11:14:53I know that we can still do that. And I really really um ask my colleagues across the aisle to look at how this holistically is a tsunami for rural America. not only cuts to SNAP and research, but how all these together are going to hit America in ways in which they won't be able to handle.
▶ 11:15:19And our governors are also asking you to look at those um unbelievable impacts. Um to me, it's really about trust in our US government and in each other and it's about courage. Uh again, thank you for um making this about research because to me research is really pivotal in terms of um how we underpin our US economy and our national security but also um for our farmers.
▶ 11:15:45So uh with that I yield Yields back now recognize Mrs. Pengri from Maine for five minutes. Uh thank you very much Mr. chair and uh I too want to thank my colleague from Illinois for her amendment on research and uh reminding us all of the importance of that and how if we had had the opportunity to actually work on a farm bill we would be spending a considerable amount of time talking about the importance of the ARS and NIFA
▶ 11:16:15NAS ERS uh these vital entities and the work that they do. Uh I know certainly in my state for the specialty crop research and organic farmers the work that they have been doing has been invaluable over the years.
▶ 11:16:30Um, my state too has benefited most recently from some of the work that they've done on PAS, the forever chemical um that is coming to your state soon if you haven't already had to be uh dealing with the challenges of this particularly since most of us have had the unfortunate experience of spreading sewage sludge back in the 70s and 80s and in some places continuing to this day and uh leaving behind PAS and other chemicals that are forever chemicals often doing considerable damage to the farm.
▶ 11:17:00arms um the farmer's health and to the salailability of crops. Um I I'm I'm reminded as we're discussing this that uh we only recently were able to get the uh to pull the list of 100 banned words. If any of you missed the opportunity to hear about that, there were 100 words that couldn't be used in research projects and all of the ARS 600 projects had to be scanned for those words.
▶ 11:17:26And if you haven't seen the list of words, which I hope they are not using, it's amazing that we even had to hear that they were using them. It had such things in it as PAS and POS, but also things like bofuels and tile drains. Uh I don't know when those got too woke for our research, but uh there were multiple words in there like that. Uh so I would say um part of what we're here to talk about supporting today is research, but research without interference.
▶ 11:17:52research that really allows our university to do the kind of work that we need in our home states. And um since we are coming to the end of our ability to submit amendments and as the ranking member said, we had many more. We were we are all happy to stay as late as we need to to go through these amendments to have the opportunity to really do the work that we would have been doing if we weren't slipping the farm bill into a reconciliation bill.
▶ 11:18:20I just want to bring up that one of my amendments would to talk about the staffing levels in our state offices and how important that is. You know, I've spent many years on this committee listening to my colleagues talk about the importance of having boots on the ground, having locally staffed offices, to having technical assistance for our farmers to assist them in the work that they're doing.
▶ 11:18:42But I found in my state that because of the Doge and other cuts and proposed cuts coming in the future, um we've lost up to 50% of the people at our rural development staff, uh we've lost 20% of the people in our NRCS staff. Maybe it's 30% of the people, including five engineers. Five engineers who lost their jobs because they were probationary employees. Some of them got other jobs and didn't come back.
▶ 11:19:07um and also others who took the buyout because they were fearful that if they didn't take the buyout uh they would be rifted in a f future bill. So we have lost a huge amount of capacity and that is people who are there to answer the phones who are there to be there when our farmers come in and ask about support and assistance. Uh and they're not there now. Um and uh while I've been told, oh, you know, uh we'll be fine or some of them we'll put back.
▶ 11:19:37Many of them left to do other jobs, they're not available. And for many of these offices, we were underst staffed for a very long time. So to lose those positions because a first they lost the jobs because they're probationary or because we offered them buyouts even though they were essential employees um is a huge loss.
▶ 11:19:57So, I just want to end by uh use the last of my five minutes uh by saying uh once again we're talking about cutting food to hungry people to our veterans to our children to children in our state to our senior citizens. And we're going to put this burden on the back of our states. And while my colleagues have said, "Oh, your state probably has a surplus.
▶ 11:20:20They'll be just fine." I can tell you right now that my state is in the middle of difficult budget negotiations that we could have to pay up to one quarter of the cost of our SNAP benefits, 75% of the administrative costs. So, we'll have even less people to administer and make sure that we keep down the error rate. Uh, and this will inevitably result in cuts in my state, in your state. uh and coupled with the other cuts we'll be making to Medicaid and so many other things that are being cut in our budget process.
▶ 11:20:49Uh all of our states will be struggling going into the future and they will wonder what we were doing on this night when we should have been acting responsibly yet here we were cutting food. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Other members that wish to be recognized to speak on the amendment. I can't see. Mr. Carl is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 11:21:18Uh I too am supportive of uh Representative Bazinsk's um amendment today. Uh since it seems that we're going towards not being able to really consider future uh amendments as many of us would have liked to have had considered, I wish today we would consider prohibiting the Secretary of Agriculture from further closing remaining offices, field offices throughout the country.
▶ 11:21:45Since this administration took office, we have seen disastrous impacts it has had on the American people. from the dismantling of federal agencies, hiring firing thousands of federal workers and cancelling leases for federal offices throughout the country. States like California have had at least nine USDA lease terminations, including an office in Oxnard that serves my district.
▶ 11:22:12This has contributed to further backlogs and less assistance to growers and producers. I've heard directly from my constituents who have been left stranded and locked out of their workstations. These dedicated public servants are researchers who would work on conservation issues to better our agriculture sector. And the impacts of these closures will directly impact our agriculture industry.
▶ 11:22:37I wish tonight we could consider working together to prevent the USDA from using federal funds to close remaining USDA field offices throughout the country. There's a lot I wish we could continue to debate and consider and it's very tragic that we are it looks like we are terminating our continued debate and consideration of amendments today. I yield back.
▶ 11:23:08Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the Seeing none, I look forward to working with the gentle lady from Illinois. I regrettably need to um for a host of reason within reconciliation need to recommend a no vote, urgent no vote on that on this amendment.
▶ 11:23:32Um the question is on the amendment uh offered number 45 from Miss Pazinski of Illinois. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. Those opposed by saying nay. No. Any opinion the chair the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a recorded vote? Yes, ma'am.
▶ 11:23:58A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Instead of recognizing a member for an amendment, I'd like to make a few observations. My colleagues from across the aisle filed 78 amendments for this markup. 78 of those amendments were filed over two hours after the committee's filing deadline. More than half of them were not filed until today.
▶ 11:24:24This occurred despite the fact that the vast majority of amendments filed have been prepared well before the filing deadline. About a dozen of the amendments were nearly identical. I would also note that the committee posted the committee print before before the 24-hour posting deadline. A deadline that you will recall you all agreed to in the adoption of the committee roles and a deadline that you operated under while you were in the majority.
▶ 11:24:54I would think that if my colleagues genuinely wanted a vigorous debate, they would have filed their amendments by the deadline instead of flooding the zone in the middle of the markup in which we are supposed to be debating these issues. With that, the committee had postponed further consideration of amendments offered. The consideration of those amendments is now before the committee. We'll now pause a minute to set up the electronic voting system parliamentary inquiry. Mr. chairman.
▶ 11:25:21Uh the ranking member will state her parliamentary inquiry. Sure. Uh if the previous question is approved, these policies that you just posted about 48 hours ago that will result in millions of children and seniors having their food taken away won't be voted on. Correct. So we won't debate on the 44 remaining amendments. Gentle lady's parliamentary inquiry is is out of order. Making assumption is about to be about process. And Mr.
▶ 11:25:50Chairman, your deadline for amendments was less than 24 hours after your bill dropped, just so you know. And we have no rule for that deadline. That is something your team made up. So, less than 24 hours after they dropped this bill, they said we needed to have our amendments in by 3:30 when they dropped the bill just before 7:30 p.m. the night before.
▶ 11:26:14So my parliamentary inquiry is if we approve this parliamentary inquiry, is it correct that you will shut down debate in this committee? None of our amendments will be heard. 44 amendments remaining. You're going to shut this down. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Uh the rest of the amendments will not be debated.
▶ 11:26:37So the we uh we now instruct the staff that's very clear moving ahead with uh um setting up our electronic Oh, we did. Uh with that the uh committee postponed further consideration of amendments offered. The consideration of those amendments is now before the committee.
▶ 11:27:14I love you, but I don't like you. If you wait one minute, I'm going to bring you a list of your I know be lost without it. sure what's your other committee's experience with this but normally at the beginning I've actually they never did this in natural
▶ 11:29:06so at your seat. Hopefully everybody has found their little clicker. Um, are we prepared? Okay. the uh the system is up and going. The first vote will be on u amendment amendment number 13 offered by Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut. The uh a recorded vote was requested.
▶ 11:29:34Members record their votes using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. And I now recognize the ranking member. The ranking member intends to vote I. Can't even see where I'm at. Off the top. Okay.
▶ 11:30:02You can't even see your name. You got it. You got it. You're You're second under me right there. So, there you go. All right. Would you like We'll just Just right in the middle. Yes. Have all Yep. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their Hearing none.
▶ 11:30:29Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The uh make sure I get my language right.
▶ 11:31:04I go second the fir the next vote will be the next vote will be amendment number 13 offered by 18 18 18 I'm sorry amendment number 18 offered by Mr. David Scott of A recorded vote was requested. Members record their vote using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I.
▶ 11:31:34The clerk will open to vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change your vote? Hearing none, the clerk, please close the vote and announce the tally.
▶ 11:32:04Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. Our next vote, our next vote will be on a recorded vote was requested on amendment number 18. I just did that. The the member was defeated. The member failed. Thank you for the help.
▶ 11:32:33The next uh the next amendment is amendment number 11 offered by Miss Brown of Ohio. The uh recorded vote has been requested. Uh the chairman intends to vote no. Sorry. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 11:33:13Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted.
▶ 11:33:39Next amendment is amendment number 16 offered by the gentleman, Mr. Jackson Illinois who rec requested a recorded vote. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. You got it.
▶ 11:34:08Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do me any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the NAS are 29. The amendment is not adopted.
▶ 11:34:33The next vote will be on amendment 12 offered by Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:35:02Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment 21 offered by Mr. Tander of Michigan.
▶ 11:35:31The electronic voting si members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will hearing none. Will the clerk please I'm sorry wrong script. Uh the clerk will open a vote.
▶ 11:36:08Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the NAS are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment nine offered by Ms. Takuda of Hawaii.
▶ 11:36:38All members will record their votes electronically. The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:37:06Do any members wish to change their votes? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 17 offered by Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
▶ 11:37:34Members will cast their votes electronically. The chairman will vote no. Ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 11:38:13Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the Naz are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 22 offered by Mrs. Mlan Delaney of Maryland.
▶ 11:38:42The members will cast their votes by electronic vote. The chairman will be voting no. Ranking member will be voting I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:39:12Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number seven offered by Miss Pengri of Maine. Members will vote electronically and the chairman intends to vote no.
▶ 11:39:41Ranking member intends to vote I. Will the clerk plea the clerk will open the vote? Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:40:12Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next amend next vote will be on amendment number eight offered by Mr. Figures. This will be an electronic vote.
▶ 11:40:40The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. Ranking member intends to vote I the clerk will open the vote. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. There is some there's some confusion. Yeah, it skipped a vote. Thank you.
▶ 11:41:07Bless you. So now we have Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Ping doors closed. This should be Mr. Figures. So we're on Mr. Chairman now. I believe I believe there were two MLAN Delaney. I'm sorry. There was there were two MLAN Delaney.
▶ 11:41:36So we will if the clerk would clear th one and it should be amendment number 23 if you can if everyone will just suspend and the clerk would we'll clear that. So this vote my apologies is on amendment 23 offered by Mrs. Mlan Delaney of Maryland. this electronic vote.
▶ 11:42:05Chairman intends to vote no. Right. member intends to vote. I have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded.
▶ 11:42:35Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted.
▶ 11:42:54So to relieve any confusion, we will once again we will vote on amendment number seven offered by Miss Pengri of Uh this will be an electronic vote and uh the chairman intends to vote no. Ranking member intends to vote I. Uh the clerk will open the elector vote.
▶ 11:43:26Nothing's going on. Yeah. I don't know. There we go. Did you just did you delete me? Have all members voted? Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none. None.
▶ 11:43:54Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the NAS are 29. The amendment is adopted. Next vote will be on amendment 8 offered by Mr. Figures of Alabama. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment.
▶ 11:44:23The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote?
▶ 11:44:50Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the naysay are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be amendment number 15 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet of Michigan. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment.
▶ 11:45:20Ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members Nope. Go ahead. Sorry. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote?
▶ 11:45:51Hearing none. Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 19 offered by Mr. Carbahal of California. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I.
▶ 11:46:21The clerk will open the vote. Have all members Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none.
▶ 11:46:48Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be amendment number 32 offered by Miss Davids of Kansas. This will be electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. The ranking member intends to vote I.
▶ 11:47:12The the clerk will open the Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, would the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yer 25 and the nas are 29.
▶ 11:47:42The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment 37 offered by Miss Selenus of Oregon. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 11:48:15Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the NAS are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be amendment number 60 offered by Mr. Gray of California. This will be an electronic vote.
▶ 11:48:44The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:49:11Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the A's are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 63 offered by Mr. Gray of California. This will be an electronic vote.
▶ 11:49:40The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:50:10Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number five offered by Mr. Venman of Virginia. This will be an electronic vote.
▶ 11:50:39The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. All right. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the Has any member have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:51:07Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is adopted. Next vote will be amendment 53 offered by Mr. Vasquez of New Mexico.
▶ 11:51:36This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no on this amendment. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 11:52:04Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, would the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the yays are 25 and the naysay are 29. The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 35 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet of Michigan. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no.
▶ 11:52:33The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote?
▶ 11:52:58Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the yays are 25 and the nays are 29. The amendment is adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 24 offered by Mr. Riley of New York. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman intends to vote no. The ranking member intends to vote I. The clerk will open the vote. Get in a rhythm now. Yeah.
▶ 11:53:45So close. Have Have all Have all members hang in there. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the Azer 25 and the Nas are 29.
▶ 11:54:13The amendment is not adopted. The next vote will be on amendment number 55 offered by Mr. Manion of New York. This will be an electronic vote. The chairman will be voting no. Ranking member will be voting I. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 11:54:43Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally?