Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, at kitchen tables across this country, millions of Americans--seniors, working parents, and farmers--are wondering how they are going to pay the bills or not lose money this planting season.
From tariffs that have cost our farmers' markets to a war that has increased the cost of fertilizer and diesel, farmers are struggling to hold on to that third-or fourth-generation farm.
This so-called skinny farm bill in front of us today does nothing to stop these losses or to help offset the $54 billion in losses farmers have had to absorb. Worse yet, it doesn't fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place.
It turns a blind eye to the farmers calling for emergency economic assistance so they can afford to keep planting. It locks in the $187 billion cut to food assistance that Republicans made in the big, ugly bill--putting more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.
That is what the farm bill doesn't do. It doesn't lower costs. It doesn't help save one family farm from bankruptcy, which is up nearly 50 percent since this administration took office.
So what does this so-called bill attempt to do? It protects the world's largest pesticide companies from lawsuits, cuts farm conservation programs by $1 billion, and overturns the will of voters in States nationwide that set specific animal welfare and food standards for themselves.
Putting the harmful policies aside, the political calculus on this should be easy.
Do we want to lower costs for farmers and working people, or do we want to protect pesticide companies and lock in cuts to food assistance at a time when grocery prices are spiking?
Do we want to pass a farm bill that delivers for farmers on the verge of bankruptcy and families going hungry, or do we want to sit on our hands and make excuses?
I urge my colleagues to reject this version of the farm bill and force Republicans back to the table to negotiate a true bipartisan bill that prioritizes the cost of living crisis in this country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), my distinguished colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I remind my Republican colleagues that we didn't do a farm bill 1.0. What we did was a very partisan budget reconciliation process. Farm bills are intended to be 12-title, 5-year bills. Reconciliation does not qualify as that.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. McClain Delaney).
Mrs. McCLAIN DELANEY. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding. As the only Marylander on the House Ag Committee, I rise to speak about what is at stake in this farm bill for our farmers and also for rural America.
The ag sector is personal to me, as I grew up in a farming family in Idaho, a potato farmer's daughter, and right now farms are being squeezed in every direction: higher costs due to tariffs, immigration- related labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions. There is a 46 percent increase in farm bankruptcies this year over last. It is a crisis.
USDA is also moving forward with a major reorganization without clear congressional approval. I strongly believe this reorganization will cost more in the long run than it saves and will undercut vital services farmers need. A real concern is the loss of decades of institutional knowledge and agency expertise, as USDA civil servants are not uprooting their lives to relocate across the country, which then translates into less technical assistance and ongoing support for our farmers.
Equally important, and the reason why I have waited for 6 hours to speak, is pivotal national research is being undermined. Maryland is home to Beltsville's Agricultural Research Center, BARC. BARC is one of the crown jewels of American ag science, and for nearly a century--yes, for nearly 100 years--it has helped farmers fight pests and disease, improve nutrition, housed our Nation's bee lab, and protected natural resources. Our Maryland dairy farmers applaud BARC for its work on the screw worm, a horrible parasite devouring livestock across our country.
If the administration decommissions places like BARC, we lose decades of expertise that simply cannot be quickly replaced and transferred. It is a travesty.
At this moment, our farmers need more certainty, more science, and more support. We must meet the moment. Sadly, for me, this farm bill does not. It does cut USDA services. It cuts real funding by 20 percent compared to 2018, and it does rescind over $1 billion from conservation programs, which provide less support for soil health and water quality.
Perhaps most heart-wrenching of all these points is this bill fails to restore SNAP, the bipartisan cornerstone of many years of farm bills. USDA revealed that 3 million Americans have already lost benefits since the passage of H.R. 1.
In my district, one in nine families rely on SNAP, half of them children. Many of these recipients do work. They just can't make ends meet on their current take-home wages. To me, this is a moral failure that none of us wants, and these cost allocations for the great State of Maryland are truly unsustainable.
While many of us wanted nothing more than to work toward a bipartisan farm bill, given the above reasons, I urge a ``no'' on this legislation. It is my deep hope that there will be future bipartisan work on increasing food assistance for those who need it, for helping USDA, and ensuring vital ag research, particularly that BARC is preserved.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I don't really know what I just listened to. There are 700 organizations that are opposing this farm bill. Maybe Texas, maybe lots of States around this country, have a lot of money just to spend. My Republican colleagues talk about unfunded mandates all the time. Shifting costs to the States for SNAP was an unfunded mandate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues here tonight want you to think that this is a farm bill, but it is a collection of Republican excuses.
In reconciliation, they cut $187 billion from title IV of the farm bill. That isn't a bipartisan process.
President Trump said he would lower costs on day one. Republicans would have us believe that their top priority here tonight is supporting family farmers.
What about the tariffs? What about China taking all of its business to Brazil and Argentina? Where are my colleagues in actually standing up for family farmers?
My challenge to my Republican colleagues is to prove it because this farm bill does nothing to lower fertilizer costs or diesel costs for farmers or restore food assistance for millions of Americans, children or seniors.
Mr. Chair, I have created a vision of Lucy with the football so many times on this topic of E15 that I don't even know how to describe it anymore. The fact that, tonight, my friends on the other side of the aisle somehow negotiated to have E15 taken off the table to me is just unbelievable.
You destroy all the export markets in our country, and now you refuse to move forward in pushing for those new domestic markets. I know there is probably some deal cut on the side or a gentleman's agreement or whatever, but we are going to be back here in 2 weeks. There is going to be a lot of procedural movement on this thing, and I am telling you, tonight, I do not believe that we will see a vote on E15 come to this House floor, that standing down on E15 was walking away from our family farmers.
We will never stand down from looking for these export markets across the world or expanding domestic markets in our country.
We offered an amendment that would add another $17 billion in assistance to family farmers, as well as make sure that working families across our country are taken care of by delaying this unfunded mandate to the States.
For the life of me, to come here tonight, whatever time it is--if it is still today; maybe it is tomorrow--and declare that this is a bipartisan product, our colleagues took about 10 percent of what we offered. Then, they came back and tried to pick off one of us at a time with some little sweetener.
Republicans can't even figure it out among themselves on the other side of the aisle. Democrats stand ready to support a truly bipartisan farm bill. My hope is that throughout this process, just like in 2014 and just like in 2018, we can come to a bipartisan farm bill, ensuring that the Senate is part of this process.
Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. I would have offered the motion with an amendment to the bill.
I include in the Record the text of my amendment.
Ms. Craig moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7567 to the Committee on Agriculture with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
Add at the end of title XII the following: SEC. 124__. FARM AND FAMILY RELIEF.
(a) Economic Assistance for Families.--
(1) Benefit cost-shift delay.--Section 4(a)(2)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i) by striking ``2028'' and inserting ``2032''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) in subclause (I) --
(I) by striking ``2028'' each place it appears and inserting ``2032''; and
(II) by striking ``2025 or 2026'' and inserting ``2029 or 2030''; and
(ii) in subclause (II) by striking ``2029'' each place it appears and inserting ``2033''; and
(C) by striking clause (iii).
(2) Administrative cost-shift delay.--Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended by striking ``through fiscal year 2026, 50 percent, and for fiscal year 2027'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2028, 50 percent, and for fiscal year 2029''.
(b) Economic Assistance for Producers of Eligible Commodities.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Economic assistance payments.--With respect to the 2025 crop year, if the Secretary determines that the expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity determined under subparagraph (B) is less than the expected cost of production per acre for that eligible commodity determined under subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, make a 1- time economic assistance payment to each producer of that eligible commodity during that crop year.
(B) Expected gross return per acre.--The expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
(i) in the case of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, the product obtained by multiplying--
(I) the projected average farm price for the applicable eligible commodity for the 2025-2026 marketing year contained in the December 2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates published by the World Agricultural Outlook Board on December 9, 2025; and
(II) the national average harvested yield per acre for the applicable eligible commodity for the most recent 10 crop years, as determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) in the case of each eligible commodity not specified in clause (i), a comparable estimate of gross returns, as determined by the Secretary.
(C) Expected cost of production.--The expected cost of production per acre for an eligible commodity referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
(i) in the case of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, the total costs listed for the 2025 crop year with respect to the applicable eligible commodity contained in the data product relating to such commodity and crop year entitled ``U.S. Commodity Costs and Returns by Region and by Commodity'' published by the Economic Research Service; and
(ii) in the case of each eligible commodity not specified in clause (i), a comparable total estimated cost-of- production, as determined by the Secretary.
(D) Payment amounts.--
(i) In general.--The amount of an economic assistance payment to a producer for an eligible commodity under subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the difference between--
(I) the amount equal to 65 percent of the product obtained by multiplying--
(aa) the economic loss for that eligible commodity determined under clause (ii); and
(bb) the eligible acres of that eligible commodity on the farm determined under clause (iii); and
(II) the amount of any payment issued by the Secretary to such producer with respect to crop year 2025 for such eligible commodity or such eligible acres on the farm under the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program of the Department of Agriculture as described in the press release of the Department of Agriculture on December 8, 2025 (Release No. 0239.25).
(ii) Economic loss.--For purposes of clause (i)(I), the economic loss for an eligible commodity shall be equal to the difference between--
(I) the expected cost of production per acre for that eligible commodity, as determined under subparagraph (C); and
(II) the expected gross return per acre for that eligible commodity, as determined under subparagraph (B).
(iii) Eligible acres.--For purposes of clause (i)(I)(bb), the eligible acres of an eligible commodity on a farm shall be equal to the sum obtained by adding--
(I) the acreage planted on the farm to that eligible commodity for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes for the 2025 crop year; and
(II) an amount equal to 100 percent of the acreage on the farm that was prevented from being planted during the 2025 crop year to that eligible commodity because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers on the farm, as determined by the Secretary.
(iv) Acreage planted.--For purposes of clause (iii)(I), the Secretary shall consider acreage planted to include any land devoted to planted acres for accepted skip-row planting patterns, as determined by the Secretary.
(v) Data.--If the Secretary determines there is insufficient data to determine the comparable estimate of gross returns with respect to an eligible commodity under subparagraph (B)(ii) or a comparable total estimated cost-of- production with respect to an eligible commodity under subparagraph (C)(ii), the Secretary shall use data related to a similarly situated commodity for purposes of determining the payment amount under this paragraph.
(2) Payment limitations.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), sections 1001, 1001A, 1001B, and 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308, 1308-1, 1308-2, 1308-3) shall apply with respect to assistance provided under this subsection.
(B) Exception.--The total amount of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a joint venture or general partnership) under this subsection may not exceed--
(i) $125,000, if less than 75 percent of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities; and
(ii) $250,000, if not less than 75 percent of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.
(C) Separate limitation.--The payment limitations under this paragraph shall be separate from annual payment limitations under any other program.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Extra-long staple cotton; producer.--The terms ``extra- long staple cotton'' and ``producer'' have the meanings given those terms in section 1111 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9011).
(B) Cotton.--The term ``cotton'' means extra-long staple cotton and upland cotton.
(C) Eligible commodity.--
(i) In general.--The term ``eligible commodity'' means a loan commodity (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9031(a)).
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``eligible commodity'' does not include graded wool, nongraded wool, mohair, or honey.
(D) Legal entity; person.--The terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have the meanings given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
(E) Rice.--The term ``rice'' means long grain rice and medium grain rice.
(c) Economic Assistance for Sugar Beet Producers.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Block grants.--From the amounts appropriated under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall make block grants to sugar beet cooperatives to carry out economic assistance payments in accordance with subparagraph (B).
(B) Use of funds.--A sugar beet cooperative that receives a block grant under subparagraph (A) may only use the grant funds to make payments to members of such cooperative that are sugar beet producers for the economic losses incurred by such producers during the 2025 crop year for sugar beets.
(2) Payments.--In carrying out the block grants under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall--
(A) establish, in consultation with sugar beet cooperatives, a per-acre payment rate for purposes of determining the amount and allocation of such block grants; and
(B) reduce from the amount of a block grant to a sugar beet cooperative, as determined under subparagraph (A), the total amount of assistance each member of such cooperative that is a sugar beet producer received for the 2025 crop year under the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program of the Department of Agriculture as described in the press release of the Department of Agriculture on December 8, 2025 (Release No. 0239.25).
(3) Appropriation.--There is appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $330,000,000.
(d) Economic Assistance for Specialty Crops.--
[For the full text of the Amendment, please see H.R. 7206, the Farm and Family Relief Act.]
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that we were able to work on a bipartisan basis here tonight on these amendments en bloc. It keeps us from having to be here even further into the night. I wish that this process overall was as collaborative on the underlying bill.
For example, we supported the addition of the Fedorchak amendment No. 12. However, this amendment does nothing to address the very real problems that family farmers are facing.
Unfortunately, it is the Trump administration's actions which make this study even necessary and timely. Due to the President's trade war against the world and his actual war against Iran, farmers have experienced skyrocketing fertilizer prices in addition to other input costs.
Had farmers received any warning of these actions, they could have better prepared themselves for the price shocks that they are now feeling. They could have invested in fertilizer storage facilities on their farms so that they would have had someplace to store their prepurchased fertilizer needs ahead of these price spikes.
When the war with Iran started, the Secretary said that 80 percent of farmers had already locked in their fertilizer needs, but we know now that that was radically incorrect. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, only 67 percent of farmers in the Midwest knew that their fertilizer needs had already been covered, and this was the high watermark for the country. In the South, less than 20 percent have their needs already covered.
This study is not going to solve the problems that farmers are facing now with these costs, but it could lay the groundwork to help farmers prepare for the next thing that perhaps this administration does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, better late than never bipartisanship. We are happy to agree to these amendments en bloc, and I would be proud to support it.
I just want to say that some of the rhetoric though coming out and the lack of fact-based--it is not that Republicans cut the dollar amount of SNAP per day for eligible individuals, they have just cut people from the program entirely. Republicans have shoved costs on to several States across this country that are just not going to be able to absorb those costs, and we know and CBO expects, that those States are going to have to kick people off the program.
We worked together to make this a little more efficient. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to produce a report on ways to help Arizona, one of seven States in the Colorado River basin, due to a lack of water.
This amendment also seems to imply that because Texas did not receive its water allotment through the 1944 Water Treaty, it is Arizona producers who should receive extra financial assistance.
I have supported many amendments from my Texas colleagues, who have rightly complained that Mexico has not met its obligations under that treaty, but it is Texas producers who suffered as a result. If the gentleman believes that the Colorado River Basin States also experienced some loss, why restrict his amendment only to Arizona?
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, this amendment forces USDA to revise the existing APHIS Evidence Standards for livestock depredations by Mexican wolves.
It unwisely directs APHIS to update its standards to ignore traumatic bruising, which is, of course, clear physical evidence that the animal was attacked while alive rather than simply picked at by scavengers after it died for unrelated reasons.
The current standards already have provisions in place for making determinations in instances where there may be little to no evidence of subcutaneous hemorrhaging.
USDA reimburses producers for 100 percent of the value of animals killed by Mexican gray wolves, but there are just a handful of those wolves left who still call the United States home.
This proposal would open the door for USDA to cover the cost of many more livestock per year than those few wolves could possibly kill.
Virtually any livestock death could be attributed to Mexican wolves because you wouldn't need to observe the primary indicator of a live attack.
I support the assistance we provide to producers who experience losses to wolves, but unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Houlahan, I have an amendment at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, rise in support of this amendment. The Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Assistance Program is a popular and successful program at USDA to support new and emerging technologies for biobased products. This means innovation here at home, and it means opening up new markets to our farmers.
I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward to provide higher loan guarantees for this program to support a wider variety of projects.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, USDA loan programs have helped thousands of farmers and ranchers access the capital they need to feed people throughout the Nation and beyond.
Opening up these critical loan programs to the vague and broadly defined ``fish processing businesses'' in this amendment could lead to unintended consequences.
By their definition, a food manufacturer that processes fish, fish sticks, and 100 other nonseafood products would qualify for a USDA direct Farm Operating Loan, even if they are thousands of miles from the nearest seafood source.
I encourage the sponsors of this amendment to seek technical assistance to close these giant loopholes, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment itself.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add Violet's Law to the farm bill.
The amendment would allow for the adoption or placement in another home for animals once they are no longer needed for research in Federal labs.
Several other Federal Government departments, including NIH, DOD, and the FDA, allow for the retirement of lab animals, but the USDA has been slow to follow.
This amendment would make sure that these animals who have contributed so much of their lives to advancing the cause of science would be able to live out the rest of their lives in a loving home or sanctuary.
I thank Ms. Mace for her amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, ditto, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment, and of course, all of us here support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles for all Americans, but I have serious concerns with any policy that would make life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Across the country right now, chaotic waivers restricting different kinds of foods and drinks from being purchased with SNAP are already creating massive confusion for participants and for retailers.
We don't know the result of the effectiveness of these waivers at this point, although things aren't looking good. We certainly shouldn't be codifying any type of restrictions and picking winners and losers among foods without getting those results first.
If the intention is to address diet-related chronic disease, we would be better off investing in fruit and vegetable incentives, like GusNIP, and revive SNAP-Ed, a nutrition education program that was eliminated in H.R. 1.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, I will just end with this. I want you to imagine a single mom who is on the SNAP program--remember, this is $6.20 a day--who wants to put a four-pack--remember, no one can afford six-packs anymore because everything is too expensive--wants to purchase a four-pack of soda as a treat once a week for her children. The idea that we are going to force that family, that single mom, to say, no, I can't choose to do that--we are going to take that choice away from them.
Mr. Chair, there are lots of people who live in families that need just a little bit of help right now, and it is getting worse under this administration. You cannot deny it. At the end of the day, this is one more way that we are attacking poor people in our country.
Mr. Chair, we are all for healthy, but let's not be mean at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source