Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Chair, earlier today, we sat in the Armed Services Committee and heard a $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That is not including the $1 billion a day going to the Iran war. Just imagine what even a fraction of that could do if we invested it in our farmers and in feeding American families.

Right now, every part of American agriculture is under strain, and too many families are going hungry.

This is not a moment for a skinny farm bill. It is a moment for a serious, bipartisan one. Yet, once again, specialty crop farm producers, the backbone of agriculture in States like Hawaii, are being shortchanged. They got 7 percent of the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance funding, even though we have specialty crop growers in every single State, every territory, and 95 percent of all counties with farms.

Democrats fought to fix that. We pushed for an additional $10 billion in support so these farmers could survive and compete. We were blocked.

At the same time, this administration ripped away $660 million that helped get fresh, local food into our schools--literally, taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids and income out of the hands of farmers who grew it. We fought to cancel those cuts, but we were blocked.

Let's be clear about the broader context. Tariffs, taxes on our own farmers, have cost them billions and made food more expensive for everyone. That is not support. That is harm.

Yes, this bill does harm for what it does and what it does not do.

It opens the door to privatizing SNAP administration, making it harder for families to access basic nutrition.

Conservation programs are lifelines when farmers are facing more severe natural disasters. This bill strips over a billion dollars from conservation programs and guts in-kind assistance for RCPP partnerships, the very projects that help farmers invest in their land and build long-term resilience.

It shields the most powerful corporations while leaving everyday Americans with fewer protections. It is an outright poison pill that denies Americans their day in court.

That is not a compromise. That is a step backward. A farm bill that ignores these realities doesn't just fall short. It deepens the crisis. It tells farmers we are not listening. It tells families they are on their own. We can and must do better.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Come back to the table. Come back at a decent hour, not in the dark of night where we are trying to push through this bill and this amendment. Do the hard, bipartisan work to deliver a farm bill that actually meets this moment. Vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chairman, though I understand wholeheartedly my colleague's position on this topic, I must oppose this amendment. The United States benefits from broad animal disease monitoring networks that extend worldwide.

Through these scientific connections, our scientists here at home can prepare for and mitigate new and emerging pathogens that would affect livestock here in America.

Global health and safety also depend on shared data, and just because we remove ourselves from collaborative efforts doesn't mean the research stops. We simply remove ourselves from receiving any of the benefits that shared research could yield.

This amendment would also prohibit education activities on animal research in those countries, and I would ask my colleagues: Do we really want to limit education that could prevent the next outbreak of a zoonotic disease, even if the education is in a country of concern? I, for one, am not eager to see another pandemic threaten the United States and understand the devastating risks if we are isolated and alone against these threats.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to urge all Members to oppose this amendment. Again, while I understand the perspectives and the points of view of the majority, again, eliminating ourselves from the opportunity to engage in shared research to the benefit of the health and wellness and the lives of all American people, we cannot support this amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Chair, I support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles for all Americans, but I have serious concerns with any policy that would make life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet. For many, like my constituents, who live in food deserts, we shouldn't make a program that is supposed to provide relief too confusing and too frustrating for anyone to want to participate in or be able to participate in.

It is not that SNAP recipients buy different foods than other Americans. USDA research has shown that SNAP participants purchase foods at rates similar to nonparticipants. Despite this, USDA has now approved 22 different State waivers, each of which have different restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP through restriction pilot programs.

One restricts soda and candy. One restricts soda and energy drinks. One restricts soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts. Another one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mints, fruit leathers, sweetened baking chocolate, fruit or nuts with any sugar or honey added, granola bars--unless they include flour--and some types of popcorn if it has sugar in it like kettle corn, are excluded.

That is just way too confusing for too many people. Better ways to address diet-related chronic disease include investing in fruit and vegetable incentives like GusNIP and nutrition education programs.

Unfortunately, as we know, funding for SNAP-Ed, which benefited many States, including mine, provides grants to State and local organizations in all States and territories to teach people how to stretch their SNAP dollars, cook healthy meals, and lead active lifestyles, was eliminated in the big, ugly bill.

The cherry on top is that these restriction pilots depend on the now- nonexistent SNAP-Ed program to evaluate their effectiveness. The study proposed in this amendment can provide valuable data about the lack of effectiveness of the waivers, though it is certainly not going to be making up for the loss of SNAP-Ed. I cannot emphasize enough that we must seek to restore the funding to this essential program.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise to oppose this amendment which would extend automatic grazing renewals to the national grasslands, eliminating environmental review, public participation, and Tribal consultation in the management of our public lands.

Our national grasslands are extraordinarily precious ecosystems. Sixty-two percent of similar landscapes have already been lost globally.

As stewards of these public lands, we, therefore, must ensure that they undergo fulsome analysis to prioritize their restoration and long- term conservation.

This amendment would allow grazing permits to be renewed indefinitely when agencies fail to complete the NEPA on time. In a time when the Forest Service has lost more than 15 percent of its staff due to forced retirements and DOGE-ing, this is the wrong approach.

Though I support responsible grazing of our public lands, this amendment would incentivize the Trump administration to keep cutting staff and degrade these landscapes, which are our national heritage. I must oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would send us backwards when it comes to animal disease tracing and herd management.

Electronic ear tags for cattle and bison reduce human error and empower veterinarians and animal health experts from APHIS to traffic potential outbreaks.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has prioritized the implementation of unique identification of animals and premises, which is essential for tracing origin and destination of all livestock, and in particular, food-producing animals in order to protect the Nation's livestock industry and public health.

That is why the electronic ear tag proposal was supported by the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association.

The USDA has provided free tags to producers to combat any economic burden while enabling the fastest possible response to animal disease.

At a time when highly pathogenic avian influenza has been proven to affect additional species and the New World screwworm is again threatening American cattle herds, we should not take tools out of the USDA's toolbox to prevent the spread of disease.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source